Scott Brison

[The Economy, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the minister defended his decision not to table a budget by saying that he took the advice of a select, elite group of economists that told him not to bother.

Why does the minister respect the views of elite economists and lobbyists more than the views of elected members of parliament?

[The Economy, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Finance Minister's advisers claim he supports parliamentary reform. No aspect of reform is more important than parliament's control over the spending and fiscal policy of the government.

Why did the minister not demonstrate his respect for parliament, his respect for members of the House and for all Canadians by tabling a budget in the House of Commons?

[The Economy, May 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister said yesterday that he may introduce a fall budget if the economy continues to slide.

The minister has finally admitted that the economy is sliding but believes budget planning can proceed at his own whim. How far does the economy have to slide before the finance minister realizes Canada needs a full budget?

[Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He has identified a very important issue. What are we doing about funding, particularly for the RCMP in terms of dealing with organized crime?

Anything we do that creates greater incentives for smuggling and organized crime needs to be done in lockstep with better funding and resources for the RCMP. It is of little use to pass laws we cannot enforce. It is of little use to raise taxes if it results in smuggling which we cannot police effectively. I think the member's point was that we need to be vigilant in ensuring the RCMP has the resources to do what is necessary. It is a very serious issue.

I hope, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance said, that this initiative—

[Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I hope this initiative is more successful because of the two tier nature of it in preventing the cross border activities.

His government has done something else which will help reduce the incidence of Canadians buying cigarettes from the U.S., and that is its very dedicated effort to reduce the value of the Canadian dollar. The government has successfully reduced the Canadian dollar by almost 12 cents during its period in office in the last eight years. That in and of itself makes a difference in convincing Canadians not to buy cigarettes in the U.S. because they cannot afford to pay in U.S. dollars.

Perhaps in some perverse way that is part of the long term strategy of the government to not only lock Canadians in the fiscal prison, that is the low dollar, but also to prevent them from being exposed to nasty substances like American cigarettes, which are pretty bad by the way.

I wish he could comment on that because I was wondering why the government was paying so little attention to the precipitous decline in the dollar. However I realized that the government was actually trying to protect the health of Canadians by reducing the dollar to such a point to reduce in any way, shape or form incentives for Canadians to buy cigarettes in the U.S.

[Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-26. I thank my colleague, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, for his comments and personal reflections on this issue.

It is important to realize that smoking is on the rise in Canada, particularly among young people. That is the most troubling part of this whole trend relative to smoking. In 1990 in the age group between 15 and 19, 21% of that age group was smoking. That rose to 28% by 1999.

Let us look at our strategy to combat smoking. We have seen the banning of sponsorship of auto races and cultural events across the country. It is questionable whether or not that ban has helped reduce smoking. What it has done is reduce funding for cultural events across Canada. I question the government's strategy on whether or not banning sponsorships of cultural activities has made a big difference in reducing smoking. That has been part of the government's strategy.

Another one strategy has been these garish, egregious packages which have pictures of gangrenous feet and cancerous lungs. Now we have teenagers trading them like playing cards, with one teenager saying to another “I'll give you a gangrenous foot for a cancerous lung”. That sort of thing is going on, so I sometimes question whether or not that initiative is achieving its mark.

One jurisdiction that has made a difference in reducing the incidences of smoking with young people is California. We should take a serious look at how their best practices achieved that reduction in smoking. Certainly its advertising and promotion was very sophisticated. There was not a banning of sponsorship of events by the cigarette companies. Those have continued. The warnings on the cigarette packages are discreet but we have seen in recent years a 43% decline in smoking in California. The big difference is the funding of educational programs.

In Canada the government's latest initiative will result in what I think works out to about $2.33 per Canadian per year. In California the amount of funding devoted to smoking cessation or anti-smoking initiatives, from a marketing and educational perspective, is closer to $5 per person.

California focused on community groups, schools, the education system and on trying to avoid the behaviour from being developed in the first place. We really should take a hard look at California and other jurisdictions that have been successful in this light.

The government has the best of intentions with a lot of these initiatives. That is not to be questioned. What is more important than just having the best of intentions is having great results. We should take a serious look at a more significant investment on the education side and working with the provinces to ensure that we are doing everything we can to prevent young people from smoking.

As I said, I personally question the banning of the sponsorship of sports and cultural activities. I do not think that has had an impact. I stand to be corrected. I also question the garish packages with the pictures on them. I think that has perversely in its own way, through some type of reverse psychology, created an attraction to young people who, for some reason that is beyond me, are drawn to these sickening packages.

Whether or not the price will affect people's decisions, I can only speak in an anecdotal way from constituents who have told me that increases in cigarettes prices make a difference. They make a difference in their lives in terms of the affordability. It is intuitive to expect that raising prices will have an impact on reducing the actual incidence of smoking.

I do not smoke any more. When did I never bought them, I used to bum them off my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska, so the price was never a factor for me. However smoking caused a few friendships. It was my efforts that slowly reduced the incidence of smoking in our caucus because none of the other members could afford to smoke and give me free ones. There are reasons why I am finance critic. Parsimony may be one of them.

I am very pleased that I have quit smoking. I feel very good about that. I am looking forward to the day when our caucus is completely smoke free. We are nearing that day very quickly. By that I mean I want the member for Richmond—Arthabaska to quit smoking, not that I want him to leave caucus. I see the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead opposite and I just wanted to make sure that I was being absolutely perfectly clear on this.

In any case, I commend the government's efforts in this regard. It is something of which we have to do more. I question some of the directions and initiatives, but I certainly do not question or dispute the positive intentions of the government. I just hope we are doing everything we can to fight this scourge on the health of Canadian citizens and to foster a healthier Canada, as we have now entered the 21st century. We have to work together to ensure that happens. As policy-makers and as leaders, we have to ensure that we do everything we can to ensure that. With health costs rising, the one way we can make a difference is to reduce the incidence of smoking, particularly with young people.

[The Economy, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the industry and human resources ministers are preparing a white paper that will outline how to correct Canada's lagging productivity growth and may suggest major tax changes in business incentives. This white paper sounds a lot like the budget that the finance minister is unwilling to deliver.

Has the finance minister's budget authority been usurped by the industry minister?

[Human Resources Development, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in a speech delivered today in Halifax the human resources minister said that Canada faces a tremendous challenge in attracting and keeping high skilled workers.

This being the case, why does the minister's department post jobs located in the United States on HRDC's Canadian taxpayer funded website?

[Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-203. I commend the hon. member from the New Democratic Party who presented it today.

Like so many private members' motions and bills, the bill should be votable. We should have an opportunity as private members to raise issues of importance and then to have the level of importance and focus put on them that are deserved as initiatives led by individual members of parliament. Many pieces of thoughtful legislation are not provided with that opportunity because the Liberals are not interested in significant parliamentary reform. Reform could begin by enabling private members to present legislation which is votable.

At first glance, when one looks at amending the Bankruptcy Act to protect employees, it seems very positive to ensure that in cases of bankruptcy employees end up ultimately receiving the pay owed to them. I have some concerns relative to the unintended consequences that may follow.

Banks are not always the only creditors. It is very easy to point to large financial institutions and say that they do not necessarily need the money. If it is a question between the interests of large chartered banks and that of employees, the onus should be on paying employees in such circumstances.

In most bankruptcies the banks are prominent creditors, as are a lot of other businesses. Many are small businesses in an accounts receivable or trade credit situation. I know this as someone who started my first business when I was 19 and continued to participate in small and medium size business during that period until I actually ran for parliament at the age of 29.

During that period I saw many companies with which I was doing business end up in circumstances where they were not able to pay their bills. I saw and experienced firsthand what that did to other companies. It can create a chain reaction which can result in not just one company going bankrupt. It is important to realize that it can potentially lead to threatening the existence of several companies.

There is a different dynamic between larger and smaller corporate entities. I believe the hon. member also recognizes the difference. In many cases, for instance, the owners are people who have not taken pay for extended periods of time. They have made significant sacrifices. In terms of establishing a sense of unity between goals and objectives, there is probably a greater amount of commonality of interest between employer and employees in the small business environment than in most other businesses.

I also have some concerns about how it might impact in a perverse way. I am certain the hon. member would not intend this to be the case, but it could unintentionally result in a reduction in lending money to small businesses. If this were implemented we could expect it not just in terms of banks but also in terms of trade.

If I were a small business person and I had an opportunity to sell products to another small business and part of the consideration in terms of extending credit was associated risks, it would reduce the likelihood of repayment. In a bigger corporate setting that is not as likely the case.

Perversely smaller companies would be judged in some cases more negatively from a credit risk perspective if the legislation were introduced than larger companies for which the wages would not form as large a percentage of their actual accounts payable.

For example, if we look at a restaurant, a store or a small business, the degree to which wages form the lion's share of expenses on a week to week basis is less capital intensive and more labour intensive. It might have a very negative impact on the service industry, small retailers or small restaurants.

Under the provisions of the legislation any business with a higher focus in terms of cost structure on pay or labour costs as opposed to capital expenditures would be disproportionately discriminated against in the eyes of lending institutions or other businesses extending trade credit.

Most of us in the House would agree with what the hon. member is trying to achieve: greater protection for workers in the event of bankruptcy. Clearly people employed with a firm, a store or whatever do not have the upside potential of great profits if the business succeeds and in some cases have a significant loss when a company goes broke. It would be unfair if workers did not receive pay that was owed to them for the labour they provided. It is the contract between an employer and an employee which indicates that an employee is to be paid by the hour or by project.

One model I am sure the hon. member is familiar with is the Australian model whereby various levels of government work together in a sort of employment insurance type guaranteed scheme which costs Australian taxpayers $100 million per year. Given the multibillion dollar size of the government EI surplus, that might be a rational approach to take a look at.

We would be far better off if we achieved what the hon. member is trying to achieve, better protection for employees in the case of bankruptcy. If we can avoid the negatives of potentially increasing the risks associated with lending to small business and business in general, which is certainly not something we want to see, we would be far better off. An appropriate way to proceed is by investigating some of these other alternatives.

I would argue that we are not seeing enough lending to small businesses. We have seen some improvement but not enough. Lending to small businesses is a real challenge in Atlantic Canada. It is much easier to get the money if it is not needed. It is a real catch-22 for small businesses. I would not want to do anything that would further reduce the chances of small businesses getting that money. That being the case, we can achieve the same result through different means which would spread out the risk a little further and provide greater protection for employees.

There is another point to realize. I am sure the hon. member would agree that incidents where employers have tried to create or manipulate circumstances in such a way as not to meet payments to employees are not widespread. However when it does occur it is unacceptable. If employers go out of their way to create circumstances in which employees do not get paid, it is egregious, offensive and immoral to all involved. However I believe it is a fairly rare circumstance when it occurs.

When we are developing public policy that can be very broad and sweeping in its impact we have to consider how pervasive the actual situation is that we are addressing. We have to be very cautious in this regard. I would be interested in further debating the Australian model and other best practices in other countries.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, May 11th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Elk Island keeps us all on our toes periodically, in this place as well as in the finance committee, and I appreciate his question.

ACOA has often played an important role in Atlantic Canada, even into the mid-1990s, by investing where no private sector venture capital players were doing so. Some of the technology companies that have since developed and emerged would not be there today had it not been for government investment.

The environment has since changed. I am aware of four active venture capital firms that are investing directly in Atlantic Canada. Investment banking activity is taking place. Some of Canada's smartest money is finding opportunities in Canada's smartest region and I am pleased to see that development.

Now that private sector money is being invested in Atlantic Canada, ACOA can perhaps act as a partner to such investment without necessarily making the decisions. It could play a transitional role in reducing overall risk without necessarily controlling investment. It could leave some of that control in private sector hands or, as I suggest and with which I believe the member concurred, the ACOA budget or part of it could be used to reduce corporate taxes in Atlantic Canada and thereby create greater economic growth and opportunity.

It is important to recognize that ACOA played an important and positive role for Atlantic Canada before private money began finding its way to these early stage companies. We can now be far more creative and innovative in terms of tax reform and economic development strategies.