Scott Brison

[Banks, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister proposes in his financial services reform bill to grant himself unfettered power to say yes or no to bank mergers. If merger proponents pass all the hurdles of his public impact review process, will he say yes to the mergers?

[Sales Tax And Excise Tax Amendments Act, 1999, June 12th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-24.

As my colleague in the party formerly known as reform said, it was my party that actually brought in the GST. I am proud to say it was my party which had the foresight to replace a counterproductive tax called the manufacturers' sales tax with one called the GST. In fact, it has been recognized as not only one of the fairer taxes, but as one of the least negative in terms of its impact on the economy.

Members of the party formerly known as reform, the party that dare not speaketh its name, and the Liberal Party seem to have embraced that previously opposed tax because it was and is the right policy.

It took a party that was willing to take a significant amount of risk and which had a high level of vision and focus on the future of Canada, not simply a focus on next week's polls but instead on the challenges and opportunities facing Canadians well into the 21st century. That was the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. It is to his credit that that policy has ultimately aged very well.

It is clear that Canada needs a significant level of tax reform. There has not been a significant level of tax reform since the time of the GST going back to I believe 1989 when the tax proposals were first discussed and debated. Ultimately the GST was implemented in the early 1990s. That was a major shift in tax reform in Canada, primarily because it enabled the country to move from a purely income based tax system to a consumption based system. That in itself is recognized by most free market economic theorists around the world as being more sensible in taxing income.

The fact is we have to raise revenue. Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. The question is how we tax people and the amount to which we tax people. Those questions determine largely the degree to which we have a productive and viable economy capable of producing the level of economic wealth and prosperity to sustain the very social programs, benefits, health care and education that we value as Canadians. It is very important to consider the degree to which tax reform can be a great vehicle in creating economic growth.

Other countries have leapt ahead of Canada in this very critical area. Ireland for example has had a 92% growth in its GDP per capita over the last 10 years, largely based on an aggressive and innovative tax reform strategy. Ireland's tax reform was based largely on creating a corporate tax strategy which attracted a significant amount of investment from around the world.

When the finance committee studied the issue of productivity last year, it was clear from a number of economic minds that there was a significant link between investment and productivity in the new economy. Clearly productivity gains are critical and exceptionally important in creating economic wealth and prosperity in the new economy.

The question is: How do we do that? Clearly there is a strong linkage between capital and productivity. The types of productivity enhancements that are necessary to create economic growth today require significant levels of capital and investment. Tax policy that encourages investment, that attracts capital, will ultimately lead to greater levels of productivity. Greater levels of productivity will ultimately lead to greater levels of economic growth and competitiveness for Canada.

Our productivity growth or lack thereof, or the degree to which our productivity growth has lagged behind our trading competitors, particularly the U.S., threatens the standard of living that we value as Canadians.

We have seen during the 1990s a significant decline in our disposable income relative to the U.S. We have had about an 8% decline during the same period that Americans have enjoyed a 10% increase. Our productivity growth has lagged behind the U.S. while other countries—and I cited Ireland a few minutes ago—have had extraordinary growth, 92% growth of GDP per capita. In the last 10 years the U.S. has had around 15% to 20% growth in GDP per capita. Canada has had about a 5% growth in GDP per capita.

As other countries and individuals and businesses in other countries are getting richer, Canadians in a relative sense are getting poorer. That in part is the reason we have seen our dollar lose almost 10 cents under this government since 1993. A dollar that lost only a penny during the nine years of the Mulroney government has lost under this government almost 10 cents.

The Prime Minister's response was that a low dollar is good for tourism as it reduces the cost for Americans to come to Canada. His theory is that Canada can devalue its way to prosperity. The logical corollary of his illogical argument is that ultimately if we continue on this trend we could reduce our dollar to zero and thus would become the greatest trading nation in the world because we could give all our products away and things would be very productive and beneficial from that perspective. Obviously the Prime Minister's theory on monetary or fiscal policy is as sound as his theory on most policy issues.

This is a government that is a government of sound and original ideas. Unfortunately its sound ideas are seldom original and its original ideas are never sound. The degree to which the government has relied on the sound fiscal policies of the previous government and the structural changes made to the Canadian economy by the previous government to fuel its economic growth has been unprecedented. There has never been a government that has fought as vociferously against the very economic policies it ultimately ended up embracing as this government.

As we discussed, those policies included the GST, free trade, deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy. Liberals members opposite fought every one of those structural reforms tooth and nail until they were elected, at which point they embraced the policies because they were the right ones.

In some ways we should commend Liberal members opposite for swallowing themselves whole upon being elected in 1993, sacrificing their principles at the altar of reality, doing what was right for Canada and embracing the sound policies of the previous government. For that I commend them and thank them because they were willing to put aside principle in the interest of doing what is right for Canada, which is adopting the right policies that they vigorously opposed in opposition.

My colleague from the New Democratic Party spoke at length of the soundness from an economic perspective of eliminating the GST or reducing the GST with a goal of eliminating it. There would be nothing worse in terms of our tax policy reform than eliminating or reducing the GST at this point. The GST raises about $22 billion worth of revenue, which is a greater level of revenue than what we draw from corporate taxation in Canada. Raising that revenue actually has a less negative impact on the economy than any other form of taxation. I did not have the opportunity to ask the member for whom I have a significant amount of respect about it. I disagree vehemently with many of the policies of the New Democratic Party, but I do respect its consistency as opposed to the flip-flop party in the government opposite or the party formerly known as Reform. Its members have adopted one policy of the Liberal Party to change its policies at whim to try to appeal to the populist winds that blow not just across the prairies but anywhere in Canada where they feel they may be able to buy the odd vote.

Even though I vehemently oppose the economic naivete that permeates NDP policy, I do respect its principles that remain fairly consistent in opposing things like the GST. The New Democrats to their credit were opposed to the GST and continue to be opposed to the GST. The New Democrats to their credit were opposed to NAFTA and continue to be opposed to trade.

I am supporting their consistency in maintaining what I believe to be bad policies. However I would prefer a party and individuals in a party that for principled reasons maintain policies that I disagree with than parties that simply embrace the latest political whim or populist leaning out there. Government by populism is an abdication of leadership.

Leadership means not just simply doing what is popular but it means doing what is right. Leadership means not just responding to today's polls but in fact looking ahead of where Canadians are today and trying to determine where the country is going relative to other countries. Leadership means looking at global trends and putting in place a policy framework that responds very strongly to the future opportunities and challenges facing Canadians.

With the abdication of leadership to a large extent that has occurred in political service, there seems to be almost a vacuum of vision, foresight and courageous leadership in today's political environment. On the other hand the Progressive Conservative Party continues to bring forth visionary tax reform policies, including the elimination of the personal capital gains tax. Certainly this is not because the elimination of personal capital gains tax is a populist idea that would resonate across the main streets of Canada necessarily but because it is the right policy.

If we want to create the greatest level of economic growth and prosperity for Canadians sometimes we have to say and do what is right. In terms of its impact on the economy there is no tax that has a more deleterious impact on the new economy, on wealth creation and on capital formation for the new economy than the capital gains tax regime.

We have a 13% disadvantage over the U.S. in areas of capital gains taxation, even after the recent budget which was a step in the right direction but a baby step when other countries are taking gigantic leaps. Elimination of the personal capital gains tax would give us a 20% advantage. For the first time in a long time Canada would actually have an advantage in a very important area of taxation. In the most critical and fundamentally important form of taxation in terms of its impact on the new economy Canada would have an advantage over the U.S. We would become a magnate for investment in the new economy as opposed to the repellent we have become under the listless, rudderless leadership of the government.

In another area of tax reform we need a redefining of the middle class in Canada. Clearly our current tax brackets penalize success in a very unfair way. Americans do not hit the top marginal tax rate until $420,000 Canadian. In Canada we currently hit the top marginal tax rate at about $60,000. After full implementation of the recent budget that figure would be $70,000. At $70,000 Canadian, even after the full implementation of that budget, we would still see Canadians hit the top marginal tax rate.

A family today making $70,000 per year is not rich. It is naive to think that someone making $70,000 per year in Canada, and particularly a family with dependants, would be rich. This creates a huge disadvantage when Americans do not hit that top income threshold until $420,000.

This means that a technology worker, a software engineer for instance in Vancouver who is making $72,000 per year, is paying 52% of his income in federal and provincial taxes. The same individual at the same level of income in the same industry an hour and a half away in Seattle would be paying about 26% of his income in taxes. We need to redefine the middle class in Canada. We need to adjust our tax bracket significantly to recognize that there are many people in that very critical area.

I see my colleagues from Quebec here. Quebec's policies on the new economy have been very successful in creating a greater level of economic growth whether it is in biotech, e-commerce or knowledge based industry. Quebec has done a commendable job in terms of growing the economy in these areas, but it has been without the assistance of the federal government and with a lack of leadership in terms of the types of tax policies that would attract knowledge based industry to Canada in general.

I would hope that my colleagues from Quebec would share with us their vision of the new economy. It is extraordinarily important for all regions of Canada to develop policies that attract the innovators, not just keep the innovators in Canada which is probably the wrong headed place to start. Instead of the notion of trying to keep the people here, why do we not develop policies that actually attract the best and the brightest?

Whenever we shoot for a fairly low goal we end up achieving a lot less. We should be developing the types of policies that attract innovators to Canada. Quebec has been quite successful in developing provincial policies that have been helpful in terms of doing so.

The federal government made a recent announcement of another $400 million for ACOA to invest in a technology fund in Atlantic Canada. There is some discussion about that, as nebulous as it might be. Governments and government agencies have been inconsistent and continue to be notoriously bad at picking winners and losers. There is a no more complicated area of the economy in terms of the difficulty in separating winners and losers than the new economy.

As much as I think ACOA has done some very good work at various times, we would be far better served to see a reduction in corporate and capital gains tax in Atlantic Canada by the amount the government is proposing to increase the ACOA allotment for new economy investments. Reducing taxes in Atlantic Canada, particularly those taxes that have the most negative impact on the new economy, would be far more sound than increasing the budget of an agency for direct lending and grants to the new economy. That is my feeling.

In a general sense we need to reduce and ultimately eliminate the personal capital gains tax in Canada if we want to speak to the new economy entrepreneurs and create a greater level of economic growth in the sectors we need to be competitive in. We need to reduce our corporate tax levels to at least OECD levels. While the government has made a pathetic, anemic, little baby step in the right direction, other countries are leaping ahead of us far more quickly.

We need to redefine our middle class by adjusting our tax bracket significantly, but not to the extent that is being suggested by the party formerly known as Reform in its flat tax proposal. Steve Forbes fought two U.S. elections on the flat tax. He was unsuccessful in both cases because the flat tax was too right wing for U.S. Republicans. The flat tax is too right wing for the government of Mike Harris and Ernie Eves. It has been cited by individuals including Mr. Eves, the finance minister in Ontario, as being unfair overall and not being appropriate. I would argue that for very sound reasons it will be less saleable in Canada than it has been in the U.S and, from a principle perspective, it is not an appropriate policy.

We should be building our tax policies around growth and not greed. We should be focusing on reducing the types of taxes that most negatively impact on our ability to compete in the new economy. We have to recognize that lower taxes in some cases do not necessarily result in lower revenue. In fact, reducing capital gains taxes would create such a significant level of unlocking of capital in Canada that we would ultimately raise significant levels of revenue in other areas.

Alan Greenspan, the federal reserve chairman in the U.S., has recommended the elimination of personal capital gains tax from the perspective that it would unlock a significant level of capital and help entrepreneurialism and economic growth in the U.S. That is the very same priority we should have in Canada.

In closing, the legislation is a collection of tiny little baby steps on tax policies by a government that is incapable of the broad sweeping changes and courageous vision that the previous government had. After the next election, I look forward to, being in position as part of a Progressive Conservative government, making the types of changes Canadians need.

[Treaties Act, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-214. I commend the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for his work on this private member's legislation. It is definitely a step in the right direction. We need more openness and transparency in the treaty negotiation and ratification process.

Over the last 12 years or so trade has become an increasingly important political and economic issue in Canada. As our trade and treaty process evolves, it is necessary that our domestic engagement policies with subnational governments involve the provincial and I would assert municipal governments. They need to be consulted and involved in discussing the impact of treaties and in discussions and engagement of members of parliament and senators, all parliamentarians. It is critically important.

With this legislation the hon. member would move Canada to something more similar to the Australian model for treaty negotiation. I had the opportunity to have dinner with Alexander Downer, Australia's foreign affairs minister, about two years ago. I used that opportunity to discuss with him the success of the Australian model for treaty negotiation. That has been by and large a successful experiment. We can move with a significant level of confidence in supporting the direction of this legislation because of the Australian example which has been well received and successful.

We need to consult with the provincial and territorial governments more seriously on these issues. On the MAI there was very little consultation or discussion with subnational governments in Canada. If there were discussions, they were typically between federal and provincial bureaucrats as opposed to being between ministers or members of federal and provincial governments. It is essential that the elected members have a role both provincially and federally in terms of the discussions and the process.

The national interest analysis is essential. We need to ensure the impact of treaties is considered not just nationally but also subnationally on the provincial, territorial and indeed municipal governments. Many of the treaties that are signed have a significant impact on the provincial and municipal governments.

I want to be clear that our support of this legislation is in no way an indication of our fear of trade or our opposition to trade or a change in our policy relative to trade. This type of transparent engagement process actually indicates our degree of support for trade. We recognize the importance of trade in the Canadian economy and the increasing level of importance that trade will play in the coming decades.

As such, it is important that our domestic policies evolve appropriately in terms of the democratic process of engagement which needs to grow commensurate with the increased level of sophistication of our treaty negotiation process externally. It is essential that this happen. It is important that this occur partly because of some of the misinformation and mistruths about trade agreements that are utilized by anti-trade individuals and organizations, for example with the MAI or previous to that the free trade agreement and NAFTA.

Solid information and a solid process of engagement and discussion will help to eliminate a lot of the incorrect and sensationalist arguments against these treaties. It is critical that we make policies and processes transparent such that those often incorrect analyses and arguments are exposed for the frauds that they are in a lot of cases. I see this very positively.

I commend the hon. member for his work in this area. Our party will be supporting this legislation. It is a step in the right direction and may be an important step forward for Canada. I would hope that we would have the same success here as the Australian model has had in that country.

[The Economy, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, not only did the McGill study credit the former Mulroney government for its success in free trade and the GST and the success of those policies in turning the country around, but the Economist magazine, the world's foremost news magazine, has said that the only reason the current government was able to reduce and eliminate the deficit was the structural changes made to the Canadian economy by the previous government, that is, free trade and the GST.

How can the government take credit for the successes of free trade and GST when it was the Liberal Party and the current Prime Minister who actually campaigned against those policies?

[The Economy, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, a McGill University study ranked the Liberal government dead last and the Conservative government under the leadership of Brian Mulroney as number one because of policies like free trade and the GST which the McGill study credited as being responsible for the elimination of the deficit.

Why does the government not stop distorting the record of Brian Mulroney and start trying to improve its own economic record?

[The Economy, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, a recent McGill University study ranked Canadian prime ministers since World War II in terms of their economic performance. That study found that Brian Mulroney was the best prime minister in terms of economic performance since World War II. It ranked this government and the Prime Minister dead—

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the minister referred to what he called my courage in raising this matter. I expect that he should also thank the previous government for having the courage to implement policies that were controversial, politically risky, but in fact enabled the government to reduce and eliminate the deficit.

Those are not simply my opinions. The Economist magazine said that the credit for deficit reduction in Canada belonged to the previous government's structural reforms, including fee trade, the GST, and deregulation of financial services, transportation and energy.

I am glad the hon. minister cited that he had been a member of the House since 1984 because he and his merry band of opposition members at that time were actively fighting and trying to thwart the attempts of the Conservative government to bring some level of economic vision into the Government of Canada. He was fighting the GST. He was fighting free trade. He was fighting the policies the Liberal government has embraced and utilized to eliminate the deficit.

Last week the report of several McGill University professors and economists ranked the Liberal government as being dead last in economic performance since World War II and ranked the Mulroney government as being number one. It cited several issues. It cited the courageous government of Brian Mulroney that had the vision and energy to implement the policies Canada needed, even though there was significant political risk. It also cited the blatant failure of the current Liberal government in losing nine cents of value in the Canadian dollar over the last seven years, nine cents in the share value of Canada. Under the tenure of the Liberal government nine cents in the Canadian dollar have been lost. This is disgraceful.

It also cited lagging productivity under this government. Woody Allen once said that 80% of life is just showing up. For this government and for the Prime Minister it is about 95%. Canadians are tired of a government that is merely interested in just showing up. They are tired of a caretaker government, a cruise control government, at a time of unprecedented global change in a hypercompetitive global environment.

It is time for the government to get off its collective duff and to do something to try to build a better Canada as we enter the 21st century, not just simply sit back and take credit for the policy successes of the previous government while it hypocritically attacks that government.

This government, this minister and this Prime Minister opposite should be thanking Brian Mulroney and his government for the types of policies that enabled them to do nothing for seven years and look fairly good on paper despite that fact. The Canadian economy is actually doing fairly well despite their best efforts to have it do otherwise.

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my hon. colleague from West Nova for his extremely timely and effective remarks about this very important issue.

The motion today, which identifies the problems with the Canada Information Office, particularly in terms of evidence suggesting that the government is using the Canada Information Office as a means to direct lucrative contracts to appropriately placed Liberal Party supporters, either financial supporters or supporters in kind, is very disturbing given the degree to which the information being assembled and utilized by the Canada Information Office carries with it some very significant ramifications in terms of national unity. Clearly, the Canada Information Office cannot be used as a Liberal trough from which supporters can drink and feed themselves.

Government is not a make work program. The Liberals are prone to utilizing these agencies as make work programs for supporters, whether it is HRDC, CIDA or, in this case, the Canada Information Office. The government is clearly out of control.

In lieu of some general policy direction, a coherent and cohesive set of policies and the vision to lead Canada in the 21st century, the government has focused and continues to focus, on an increasing level, on simply funnelling as much largesse to its supporters as possible. It is displaying the classic signs of a government ready to be defeated. At the time of the next federal election I think there will be a very sound message from across Canada.

In the last election there was a very sound message from Atlantic Canada. We all know that in Canada some of the greatest shifts and some of the greatest revolutions begin in Atlantic Canada, and the last federal election was an indication of that. We believe that in the next election Canadians all across Canada will follow the leadership demonstrated by Atlantic Canadians in the last election when they said that they were tired of a tired government and that they were ready for a new vision and a more ethical and visionary leadership at a very critical time in our history.

The government's manipulation of information and manipulation of the media is not confined simply to the Canada Information Office. The fact is that every government department has become pervasively focused on spin doctoring and media manipulation. There has never been a government as visionless and as focused on next week's polls as this government.

The government is so focused on next week's polls that it does not even try to provide policies and directions for the next century. Unfortunately Canadians are going to pay a significant price for that in the next 20 or 30 years as they realize, and as the report last week from McGill University professors indicated, that the government ranks dead last of all the governments since the second world war in terms of economic performance and vision.

The McGill study also identified the government that ranked first. The number one government in terms of economic performance and vision on economic issues since World War II was none other than that of the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. It must be terribly embarrassing to members opposite, in particular to the Prime Minister with his very thin skin and his inability and distrust of anyone who is even vaguely critical of him, to have to read in the newspapers and in the reports from erudite academics and economists that his government has been dead last.

Instead of trying to manipulate information and manipulate the media, maybe his government should actually try to do something about that abysmal record and actually start trying to develop some of the same vision and long term focus that the previous government had.

I referred to other departments and agencies within government that are also manipulating information and manipulating the media as much as possible and, most offensively, using taxpayers' money to do that.

In February, at the time of the budget, the finance minister's speech, the speech that ultimately was provided and ended up as part of the budget document, the budget speech 2000, was different in several areas from the actual speech provided. I have the Hansard here in front of me.

We have reason to believe and sources to suggest that the reason the finance minister deviated significantly from his text and added several paragraphs that seemed almost incongruent with the rest of the text, was because of information coming from the media in terms of how the policies or the budget was being spun, what the focus was for the media, what policies the media was actually taking hold of and demonstrating a greater level of interest in and, alternatively, what policies the media was less interested in.

According to our sources, the finance minister actually changed his speech for the House to try to focus more on what would get the greatest level of media hits that night. He changed a document prepared by the finance department people for him to provide the budget speech. He changed it directly to try to further manipulate the media.

This is a government of spin doctors. This is what we call focus group economics and poll driven policies. The nation is suffering from a lack of vision and poll driven incrementalism. Canadians need bold, visionary, courageous leadership similar to the leadership of the previous government under the Progressive Conservatives and the leadership of Brian Mulroney.

This is a government by polls, certainly not guided by principle. I would suggest that the media plays an extremely important role in the democratic process in terms of showing that information is disseminated to the public in as clear and unbiased way as possible. For the government to intentionally manipulate the media, either through the Canada Information Office or through other Byzantine and circuitous means as those that allegedly occurred with the finance minister, and probably every ministry opposite, really compromises our democratic framework within which the media plays such a very important role.

I also believe that if the media realized the degree to which this government was playing the media collectively like a Stradivarius to try to spin its messages out and also minimize any negative political fallout, the media would be increasingly offended. The journalistic integrity of the media is being challenged by a government that is certainly not interested in promoting the types of ethics that should be an integral part of any government.

It is very important that we are addressing the issue of the manipulation of information and the use of the Canada Information Office as a Liberal Party trough in the House. It is also very important for us to recognize the degree to which spin doctoring and media manipulation has become routine for the government in every department and every ministry.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I hope all members, including backbenchers opposite in the Liberal government, would agree that this type of obvious manipulation needs to end and that the government needs to significantly improve its ethics in this regard.

[Gasoline Prices, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the member on that side of the House continues to give Canadians gaseous emissions over a very important issue.

As Canadians are looking forward to their summer vacations, the government is giving them a pending airline strike and potentially dollar per litre gas prices.

Will the government continue to sit on its hands and tell Canadians to sit at home this summer?

[Gasoline Prices, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday across Canada we saw record highs in gas prices. Prices surged by up to nine cents per litre in some areas of the country.

The petroleum industry tells Canadian motorists to expect more this summer. Just in time for summer vacation, we could be seeing gas prices of a dollar per litre in Canada.

What is the government doing to protect the Canadian motorist against rising gas prices in Canada?