Scott Brison

[Division No. 1280, May 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-11. The issue of Devco and that of the whole coal mining industry in Cape Breton is one that has been grappled with by successive governments, particularly over the last 30 years when government involvement in Cape Breton coal mining reached a greater level in the late 1960s and Devco was formed as a crown corporation.

It has been a very difficult period in recent years with the decline in the coal industry and the resulting impact on Cape Bretoners, particularly in industrial Cape Breton.

We all recognize that we are in the midst of a transitional economy, from a resource based traditional industrial economy into, and we are well into it, a knowledge based economy where most of the opportunities in the 21st century will come not from bricks but more likely from clicks.

If we really look at some of what is happening in the global environment, we have to ensure that while we are preparing new generations to participate in the global knowledge based economy, we are not denying them the ability to take care of themselves and their families during a very difficult time.

There are several concerns about Bill C-11. We in the Progressive Conservative Party are supportive of the direction that the government is taking in a general sense in addressing the issue of the Devco situation. There are some significant problems with the compensation packages and some real fairness issues that have not been addressed in this legislation. If we compare the treatment of one coal miner to another depending on the length of time the miner has worked and the age of the miner, the formula seems to be in need of a significant amount of work. The fairness issue within the network of people who will be receiving benefits is clearly inadequate and wrong headed.

I have also heard some other members speak today of the comparative disadvantages of the pay out packages compared to similar situations with other precedents that have been set by government or crown agencies in the past. Again, as a member of parliament, I would hope, expect and demand that Cape Breton coal miners be dealt with fairly at this very difficult time.

I would also urge the government to do more work with the knowledge based economic players, whether it is the incubators like the University College of Cape Breton and Dr. Jacquelyn Thayer-Scott who is working with the University College of Cape Breton to create a greater level of economic opportunity in the new economy there. I would hope that the government recognizes the value of that very important incubation infrastructure for the new economy and continues to increase levels of support for it.

I would also hope that the government would look at ways to obtain a more competitive or advantageous tax structure. Tax advantage zones can be created within Canada in places like Cape Breton. Many people compare Canada with Ireland and the tremendous growth that has been seen there in recent years. Ireland has had a 92% growth in GDP per capita over a 10 year period. This is not really a very good comparison.

If we compare Ireland to pockets in Atlantic Canada, particularly Cape Breton, and consider Ireland's relationship with the EU in the context of Cape Breton's relationship with other parts of Canada through the equalization system, I think we can quite quickly see a parallel of opportunities. If the government were to develop some type of tax advantage for companies to locate in places like Cape Breton, a similarly advantageous tax structure to what has been accomplished with Ireland's economy using some of the funding from the EU could be created. These are the types of things we should be looking at. The Atlantic Provinces Economic Council and the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies have done some very credible work on some of these areas and alternatives in the new economy.

There are some significant flaws in the fairness issue related to Bill C-11.

I urge all members of the House to be vigilant in not putting on any logical blinders when dealing with these kinds of issues. It is a difficult time for the coal miners of Cape Breton who are losing their jobs. We must ensure that they are dealt with as fairly as those in previous situations in other precedents in Canada with crown agencies.

I further urge that we continue working toward creating an economic environment for Cape Breton and all Canada where people can find greater levels of economic opportunities and prosperity within some of the new emerging industries as we begin the 21st Century.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-22 at third reading to address some of the very important issues about the legislation which would create the new money laundering oversight agency that would be positioned to help protect Canadians from organized crime and be part of a global effort to combat the insidious and pervasive nature of organized crime.

Like most business activities, organized crime has become very much a global enterprise. As such, Canada's procrastination and tardiness in not addressing this issue earlier is unconscionable. It is unfortunate that the government had not seen the need to address this issue earlier.

As hon. members have noted, we are lagging behind other members of the G-8 and the OECD in terms of pursuing this very important initiative of establishing within our country a sound oversight agency to reduce the incidence of money laundering.

It is a huge issue. The estimates of money laundering are even difficult to get a handle on. Some estimates in Canada are as low as $5 billion or $8 billion and some are as high as $20 billion. There is a huge variance and disparity on this one issue. That indicates the degree to which we are really only beginning to understand it.

One concern I have about this legislation is that it addresses in many ways yesterday's issue, that is, the very conventional means of money laundering. Nowhere in the legislation or in the new agency do I see some sort of commitment that the agency will have the type of resources and technological strength to address some of the current and emerging issues of technologically oriented money laundering.

With the sophistication of financial instruments and the inability of sovereign governments to track either cross-border financial transactions or intra-state transactions, whether they be derivatives, which are not considered to be a particularly sophisticated financial instrument in the current context, the fact is that increasingly we are dealing with these sophisticated financial instruments and the ability of any agency to track transactions, large or small, intra-state or cross-border, is a real challenge. I would hope that this agency will have not only the resources to pursue technologically driven approaches to the very serious issue of money laundering, but beyond that would work with the private sector and many of the companies involved on the Internet security side to develop private sector solutions.

The technology being developed by both American and Canadian companies in these areas is very advanced. I would hope that the government would do a better job at seeking input from the private sector in developing more sophisticated approaches to this problem than it has in other areas.

The accountability of this new agency has been of significant concern and remains a significant concern. Amendments have helped and have been constructive in assisting to ensure that there will be some level of accountability for this agency and some level of rigorous reporting that has the capacity to provide some checks and balances. That is all well and good, but we have to be vigilant as parliamentarians to ensure that we provide mechanisms to protect Canadians against these all powerful new agencies.

I do not think that any law-abiding Canadian would have any difficulty with getting tough on money laundering. That being the case, it is very important to separate the powers of these agencies. For example, I expressed concerns at the time of the creation of the new Revenue Canada agency that it could emerge as an IRS style agency, Godzilla the tax collector, which would have the power to persecute and relentlessly pursue individual Canadian taxpayers, and in many cases bring about undue suffering and unfair treatment of ordinary law-abiding, tax-paying Canadians.

The more powerful the agency, the more difficult it is for individual Canadians to muster the resources to fight it. My concern has been and continues to be with the new money laundering agency that we ensure that any sharing of information between this new agency and the Revenue Canada agency is done under very strict conditions.

For example, if the new money laundering agency sees some level of evidence to suggest money laundering and feels that sharing that information with Revenue Canada would help bolster the new agency's case in pursuing a case of money laundering against an individual or a group of individuals, that could be seen as being reasonable.

If, on the other hand, there is not sufficient evidence to suggest money laundering, but if the new agency sees some evidence that there may be some level of tax evasion and shares that information with the new Revenue Canada agency, I think that would be overstepping the boundaries and would be leading to an incredibly powerful, turbo-charged Revenue Canada agency that could wreak havoc on the lives of ordinary Canadians. We have to be careful to ensure that there is a Chinese wall between the Revenue Canada agency and this new money laundering agency.

The nebulous nature of the description of suspicious transactions is also disturbing. It seems to be a very qualitative description that is very difficult to narrow in a substantive way.

The issue of resources is very important. Certainly the RCMP calls this legislation long overdue, but we have to ensure that the RCMP on a national level is funded properly to pursue some of these activities and work with this agency. It is critical to ensure that we not create these new agencies without providing some level of resources to ensure that they can do their jobs and at the same time maintain our traditional policing of white collar crimes through the RCMP in a way that is consistent and which provides over a period of time a reasonable level of support and resources. The government has not provided ongoing and consistent levels of support to the RCMP, and in fact has starved the activities of the RCMP on a national level.

The Progressive Conservative Party supports this legislation. We support some amendments which in my opinion improve the accountability of the new agency. This is a step in the right direction but the government is prone to taking baby steps as opposed to more substantive steps.

While we do recognize that this is a step forward, a lot more needs to be done to ensure that ordinary Canadians are protected against organized crime. In the future we must work more proactively with our trading partners and with our partners in the G-8 and the OECD to develop solutions and introduce them within our borders earlier as opposed to always playing catch up and lagging behind our partners on something as important as money laundering and organized crime.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-22, the money laundering act.

The report stage amendments have been very constructive and helpful in addressing some of the issues I raised when speaking to this legislation earlier. The legislation without these types of constructive amendments would provide a carte blanche, a blank cheque to the new agency which has the ability to effectively pursue activities without any checks and balances and potentially persecute innocent Canadians in the course of its activities.

It is in the interests of accountability and ensuring that the rights of all Canadians are respected and protected against all powerful institutions, particularly these new agencies, whether it is the Revenue Canada agency or this new money laundering agency. We need to ensure that we in the House are vigilant in protecting the rights of each and every Canadian.

My greatest concern, and I raised this when speaking to this legislation earlier, is that ultimately the money laundering agency would have the power to refer information on questionable cases to Revenue Canada. If that is done only in cases where there are reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering is one thing. However, if in a case where there may not be enough evidence to suggest money laundering activities but some evidence of tax evasion exists and the money laundering agency refers the matter to the Revenue Canada agency, that is a very different matter. We need to ensure that with the combination of these two agencies we are not creating a turbocharged Revenue Canada agency that has a greater level of power to pursue and persecute Canadians.

My concern on the Revenue Canada agency as brought forth earlier was that it has the capacity to become an IRS style agency, Godzilla the tax collector. The new money laundering agency could augment the powers of an unaccountable agency and make it even more frightening to the average Canadian taxpayer.

The accountability and transparency that would result from the amendments would go a long way to help address a fundamental flaw with the original legislation. I would hope that members in the House will support these amendments and will continue to monitor the activities of these agencies on an ongoing basis.

We do not want to create a system of fear in Canada for the average taxpaying citizen that at the other end of the tax enforcement side we are actually creating a turbocharged Revenue Canada agency. We do not want to tilt the balance against the average Canadian taxpayer who in the past has had to deal with Revenue Canada, now the new Revenue Canada agency, without a lot of defences.

Again, with the new money laundering agency, anything we can do to ensure that its activities are held accountable by some means, in this case by reporting and by some independent analysis and parliamentary reporting and so on, that will all help take the necessary steps in the right direction.

The Progressive Conservative Party would be supportive of the direction of these amendments and hope that other members of parliament would see these amendments as being constructive.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, May 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-32, the Budget Implementation Act, 2000.

I have spoken in the House in the past about the government's failure to embrace the realities of a globally interconnected, hypercompetitive economy that is writing new rules for the game of economics. We do not write those rules. In fact we ignore those rules at our own peril.

The government continues to play by yesterday's rules and to foster the types of programs that were dubious 20 years ago but today are recognized as being downright wrong. It refuses to embrace some of the elements of tax reform and deregulation that are necessary to prepare Canadians to embrace these realities, not just to compete globally but to succeed globally.

I will speak to some specific elements of the Budget Implementation Act, Bill C-32. The first is the increase of the basic personal amount. In the budget the government is proposing to increase the basic personal amount by $100 this year. This works out to be a tax cut of about 33 cents per week or $17 per year. That is about four cups of Starbucks coffee over the next year for Canadians. I am sure Starbucks and all Canadians are grateful to the government for this grudging, belittling, ridiculous insult of a tax relief.

The plan we are looking at would effectively raise the basic personal exemption over a period of time to $8,200. The fact is that in the U.S. the basic personal amount at which one begins to pay personal income taxes is not hit until about $11,000 Canadian. We are taxing the poorest of the poor in Canada. We call ourselves a kinder and gentler nation, but the fact is that in the U.S., our neighbour to the south, the greatest economic superpower in the world, there is actually more compassion extended to lower income Americans relative to the tax system than what is afforded to Canadians by our tax system.

The Progressive Conservative Party task force which reported in January would raise the basic personal amount to $12,000. We would like to see that amount raised further, but there is a huge difference from $8,200 to $12,000. It would liberate a number of Canadians from the Liberal tax regime which is attacking them at the very lowest levels of income.

One of the greatest disappointments in the budget was the failure of the government to commit significantly to increasing Canada's health and social transfers.

I do not need to remind anyone in the House that the Liberal government devastated health care in Canada by making draconian slashes to health care, by reducing health care funding and by putting health care in a crisis in every province in the country.

For the government, the finance minister and the health minister to be condemning provinces as they try to work creatively under the stress created by the government's draconian cuts to health care and social transfers is hypocritical at best.

The government has been the Dr. Kevorkian of the Canadian health care system. Through its indifference to the provinces and its failure to fund properly health care in Canada, the government has effectively almost euthanized the Canadian health care system or the capacity of the provinces to provide the type of health care system Canadians need in an increasingly expensive health care environment. If the federal government wants to play a meaningful role in working with the provinces and determining the future of health care in Canada, it had better come to the table with its chequebook.

There was a time that health care funding in Canada was shared 50:50. The federal government would provide 50% and the provinces would provide 50%. At that time there was a real partnership between the federal government and the provinces. There was some legitimacy to the notion that the feds and the provinces could work together on seeking new and innovative solutions to health care.

Currently some estimates are that federal government contributions are down to as low as 13%. It is very difficult if one is only paying $1.30 of $10 worth of gas to tell the driver where to take the car. The government is refusing to step up to the plate and provide adequate funding and leadership to address the complexities of health care in this very complicated period.

When the Canada Health Act was first introduced, health care realities were fairly simple. Since then pharmaceutical costs have increased to about 30% of total health care costs in Canada. Most pharmaceutical costs are covered privately. With the rising cost of pharmaceuticals and the increasing rate at which the pharmaceuticals are comprising our overall health care spending, we already have a two tier health care system. The federal government is not addressing the rising cost of pharmaceuticals and the composition of total health care costs as comprised by pharmaceuticals.

The federal government is not addressing the biotech industry. Increasingly there are very advanced and complex approaches to health care, almost to the extent that miracles are possible. However the cost of these health care miracles is immense. We have to address what could actually be considered ethical issues and work with the provinces on them.

Is it possible to have universal access to all new and advanced therapies and treatments? Has the federal government worked with the provinces to estimate what the cost would be to provide to each and every Canadian with the total and utter extent of treatments that are available to them in today's global health care environment? These types of things have to be considered.

Currently our health minister is sounding less like a health minister and most like an electioneering politician. Unfortunately, until we see some real movement of the federal government on the part of both the finance minister and the health minister on the health care funding issue, I would suggest that Brian Tobin, Premier of Newfoundland and former Liberal cabinet minister in this House, is correct when he says that the government has missed the boat by not reinvesting significantly in health care.

Across Canada the medical associations, nurses associations and provincial governments all agree that the federal government has to take a more proactive and aggressive approach to health care in Canada. It has to either butt out or butt in with more money for investing in health care. Clearly the budget missed the point on that.

In terms of the government's failure to embrace the importance of general tax reform, it is important to point out that our competitors in every country in the industrialized world are using tax reform and tax reduction as a vehicle to greater levels of economic growth and opportunity for their citizens.

Over the past 10 years Ireland's GDP on a per capita basis has increased by 92%. During the same period of time the American GDP per capita increased by around 20%. Canada's GDP per capita increased by an anaemic 5%. Clearly, as citizens in other countries are getting richer, Canadians are getting poor.

Productivity is the currency of the economic environment. If we are allowing Canada to fall behind, effectively we are reducing the standard of living of all Canadians not only now, but well into the future. The Royal Bank of Canada's chief economist, John McCallum, predicted not so many weeks ago that under current trends Canada's standard of living would be approximately half of that of the Americans, that within 15 years our standard of living would be reduced to half of that of Americans.

The brain drain is a damning barometer of the performance of the government. Over the last several years the number of people leaving Canada to seek opportunities elsewhere in other countries has gone from 16,000 per year to approximately 100,000 per year. That is happening under the stewardship, or lack thereof, of the government.

It is not just a matter of tax tinkering based on Liberal focus groups and short term political polling. We need significant levels of tax reform focused on doing what is right for Canadians well into the next century, not simply poll monitoring focused on Liberal fortunes in the next election.

[Petitions, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from my constituents. The petitioners ask that parliament withdraw Bill C-23, affirm the opposite sex definition of marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is recognized as a unique institution.

[Cultural Industry, May 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to speak to Motion No. 259, a votable motion put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.

It is very important to recognize, going back to Pericles and ancient Athens, that civilized societies have always supported the arts and culture. It is a tradition that has been valued throughout history. We should seek to maintain and improve this with policies, not specifically tax policies, but policies that support and encourage culture and the development of the arts in Canada, which has had a long and diverse history.

As an Atlantic Canadian from Nova Scotia, one of the most culturally diverse and productive regions of the country, we value a tradition of excellence. In fact there are economic opportunities for all Canadians in recognizing and harnessing the power of the arts and culture community, whether it is the Lion King in Toronto, or musicians like the Rankin Family in Atlantic Canada who started from very humble means and have done extremely well, to artists who have reached international acclaim, like Dr. Alex Colville who is a resident of my riding. These types of success stories are worthy of recognition. However, we have to do more to help artists when they are starting off.

This legislation is very sound from the perspective of the hon. member's desire to help. However there are some difficulties in its implementation and I would like to point out a couple of them.

It is very nebulous in terms of describing who qualifies and how the term “artist” fits a specific individual and whether or not that can be defined and the definition defended effectively.

Also, the hon. member points out the financial roller coaster artists are on. An artist may go for several years without payment and then receive a lump sum payment recognizing contributions made over a period of time. The best way to address that would be through income averaging. This would also address other people who are similarly predisposed through the nature of their business to receive a lump sum payment in recognition of work completed over a period of several years. Income averaging would be the best way to address that.

The average income of an artist in Canada is currently estimated at about $13,000. The issue raised by the hon. member can be addressed in a more broad based way by significantly raising the basic personal exemption for all Canadians. The Progressive Conservative task force which reported in January recommended an increase to $12,000. This would help significantly. That being the case, we should move over a period of time to raise the basic personal exemption higher.

The hon. member also recognizes that tax relief can play a very important role in helping artists pursue their chosen field and that of culture and art and keeping them in Canada. That is important because it indicates that he also recognizes the importance of lowering taxes for all Canadians to ensure that Canadians regardless of their career or life pursuits can choose to stay and prosper here in Canada. Whether it is in dot-com, e-commerce, biotech or traditional industries, Canadians can have a future right here.

The hon. member has demonstrated clearly that he recognizes the important role that tax policy plays in encouraging or discouraging pursuits of particular activities. I think in that vein he would agree with me, that we should continue to be vigilant in ensuring that the tax burdens of Canadians are not excessive when compared to those in other countries.

Clearly whether Canadians wish to pursue careers in the arts, the new economy or the traditional economy, we want them to be free to do so right here in Canada. I am sure he would share with me the need to reduce taxes for all Canadians based on his basic premise that decreasing taxes can help encourage people, this case artists, to pursue and maintain a certain level of activity.

The issue of capital gains taxes needs to be addressed as well. In Canada we currently tax at 50% of the regular inclusion rate for donations of publicly traded or listed securities to charitable foundations or institutions. Whether it is a hospital, a university, an endowment fund or a cultural activity we tax 50% of capital gains. Inclusion rates are taxed in Canada for donations of publicly traded or listed securities. In the U.S. there is absolutely no capital gains taxes on contributions of listed securities.

That has led over the years to a significant disadvantage for Canadian universities, Canadian hospitals and the Canadian arts community. It has created a disincentive for high net worth Canadians to contribute listed shares of publicly traded companies to the cultural and health foundations and universities.

I propose what we proposed at the time of the prebudget report. The Progressive Conservative dissenting report recommended the elimination of capital gains tax on gifts of listed securities. That would go a long way to encourage high net worth individuals in Canada and Canadians of relatively modest means who may have done very well in equity investing in recent years to help foster a greater environment for cultural activities in Canada. That is one way this could be addressed.

I would also be interested in exploring the examples of other countries relative to special tax exemptions for those engaged in the arts. Some special tax treatment is available to those in the arts in Ireland. We heard earlier today of the tax treatment of artists in the province of Quebec. It would be interesting to note the success of that over a period of time.

By and large there is only one party in the House of Commons that consistently opposes any support for the arts in Canada. I expect it would probably kick out a member of its caucus if it were discovered he or she had gone to live theatre. It is important that there be an almost all party commitment to the arts and cultural community in the House of Commons.

While I may disagree with the particular vehicle set forth by the hon. member to help create a better environment for culture and artistic diversity in Canada, I can assure him that the Progressive Conservative Party remains committed to work with altruistically oriented parties in the House. We must seek better ways to support and encourage the arts and all types of creative endeavours for Canadians whether they be involved in graphic arts, the dot-com universe, weaving, painting, dancing or play writing. One of the things that defines us as Canadians is our unique cultural vibrancy from coast to coast to coast and which we shall continue to have with the proper support and encouragement of all Canadians.

[Petitions, April 14th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Motion M-128. Institutional reform is something for which I believe there is a broad based level of support, not just within this parliament but from Canadians, and that we do need a significant level of institutional reform to make parliament and our democratic institutions more functional. There are a number of things that need to be done.

There has been a secular decline in the role of the member of parliament over the last 30 years. It started in the late 1960s when the practice of debating the estimates in the House of Commons ceased and instead committees took over some of that. The notion of committees taking over some of these responsibilities previously held by the committee of the whole in the House of Commons is not in and of itself necessarily a bad thing. The difficulty with it is when the committee structure becomes so partisanly controlled and, of course, comprised of a majority of the government.

Often we get the idea in the House as members of parliament that the committees are operated as branch plants of the ministers' offices and in fact committee chairs are often at the beck and call of ministers it seems. Sometimes the legislative agenda of committees seems to be more dominated by the legislative agenda of the executive than it probably should be. I think there would be a rather significant level of agreement with that from both members on the opposition benches and members of the government side.

This proposal brought forward by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford would change the standing orders to provide direct access to the agenda of the House of Commons for petitioners representing 2% of the eligible electorate. It does this by requiring qualified petitions to be the basis for legislation or an order of the House to meet the demands of petitioners. A mandatory process of time allocation or closure of debate governs the considerations of all qualified petitions.

It is ironic in some ways that the hon. member, who regularly objects to the government's use of time allocation, is prepared to have it further enshrined in the rules to cover this proposal. Time allocation, some arbitrary allocation of time to any legislation whether imposed by the government or some institutionalized parliamentary procedure, is equally egregious. This proposal would give something to petitioners that members of the House do not enjoy and that is the guaranteed consideration of any proposal meeting the 2% threshold. I have some concerns about that.

At the heart of the discussion is the age old question of what is the role of the member of parliament. Are members of parliament here to represent their own best judgment and to represent the best interests of their constituents by using that judgment? In a representative democracy this is a very important issue.

A representative democracy is based on the premise that when a member is elected to the House, that for the period of a member's term he or she makes decisions. The member's goal is not only to represent the views of his or her own constituents but also the interests of all Canadians in this House. Every four years there is an opportunity for the electorate to make a decision to re-elect that member or to elect somebody else.

If in fact the hon. member actually believes we should be moving away from the principles of a representative democracy to a direct democracy, I have some significant concerns as would many Canadians when they really thought about it. What is the magic of a 2% threshold? It is an arbitrary figure. Certainly it is a large number of people, but 2% of the electorate certainly does not represent a majority. It is 2%. Why should special powers be given to 2% of the electorate that is denied to other petitioners? Are the ideas or grievances of persons lacking resources to garner the 2% threshold automatically less worthy than the beliefs or concerns of the people who may account for 1.5%?

At present the House requires 25 signatures on a petition. This was put in place in reaction to abuses that took place in the past when petitions were used to delay or oppose government bills. Those days are gone and the House should back Canadians who petition the House of Commons on legitimate issues.

All members take very seriously the petitions presented in the House. I listen intently to petitions when they are presented. I consider the views of individuals who have through the petition process an opportunity to have their views heard here in the House of Commons. Through the private members' process, which should be bolstered and improved, individual members of parliament have the opportunity to represent views presented in petitions from their constituencies, not just on Wellington Street but on the main streets of their ridings. We should be using the private members' process, as should the government. All parliamentarians should advance the notion that there should be a greater level of engagement for private members to bring forward through the private members' process constructive motions and legislation that can benefit Canadians.

My concern is with who would use this provision. It is a ready opportunity for many of the moneyed interest groups and so-called ordinary citizens are quite likely to initiate petitions. If we look at the U.S. with the well financed and powerful lobby organizations, the difficulties and problems are far greater with the degree to which these lobby organizations are financed.

This would invite the same type of what the hon. member may view as direct democracy. I consider this as being an opportunity for some of the major lobby organizations and individuals with money to use the process to garner support and actually gain direct access to the House of Commons. In some way they could push aside the elected members who are here as part of a representative democracy to not only recognize the concerns of focused special interest groups, but also to make decisions on behalf of all Canadians.

I have a number of concerns. The hon. member has spoken a number of times about the importance of his constituents. If the majority of his constituents want something, then it is absolutely the right thing for us to do. I remind the hon. member that there have been times in the past when decisions have been made, which in retrospect have been the right decisions, that a majority of Canadians did not agree with.

One was the free trade agreement. The majority of Canadians voted against a free trade agreement in the 1988 election, but a visionary and courageous government was willing to seize the day. It had a vision for the future. Instead of focusing on polls, it took a significant risk. It actually implemented the types of public policy Canadians needed for the long term, not the types of public policy that would benefit the party in the short term.

Populism is the natural enemy of representative democracy. The poll based populism which is so pervasive in the hon. member's party, seems so palatable to people when they first hear of it. When Canadians have thought about it more clearly however, and they have, they have rejected the hon. member's party. Canadians have done this because they realize they are better served by thinking members of parliament who have a vision for the future and who will take risks sometimes and offer Canadians real solutions and courageous visionary policy on issues of importance to Canadians instead of focusing on short term polls.

The party the hon. member represents has at various times fought against the charter of rights. It has criticized the charter of rights and has referred to it as judicial activism. It has ignored the fact that in our system of government the judiciary has a role. Ultimately I am glad that we have a charter of rights to protect Canadians against members of parliament who would go with the tyranny of the majority and where majority rules in areas where it should not, such as minority rights.

I could go on an on about this motion. It clearly will not work.

[Fundraising, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there is no solicitor like an old solicitor. If there was no conflict of interest, why is federal ethics counsellor actually investigating?

Barry Campbell, a friend of the minister, was a lobbyist for the Bank of Nova Scotia from May 1998 to mid-March 1999, a period when the bank mergers were under discussion and review by the government.

Why did the minister compromise the merger review with his close affiliation with the bank lobbyist representing the Bank of Nova Scotia who later rewarded this loyalty with $70,000 of fundraising?

[Fundraising, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions.

Bank lobbyist Barry Campbell, a long time Liberal, organized a huge fundraiser for the minister last fall, raising over $70,000.

Did the minister consider the clear violation of the conflict of interest code that a fundraising event organized by a bank lobbyist for him would create?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999, April 6th, 2000]

One of the Liberal members opposite has commended me on my oratory today. I appreciate that. It is tremendously kind.

I thank the Liberals opposite for not changing those excellent policies of the previous government because, frankly, they have been the policies that have enabled the current government to eliminate the deficit, along with the support of the Canadian taxpayers who have been pummelled under this government's leadership. It could be said that the government opposite is a government of sound and original ideas. Unfortunately, its sound ideas are seldom original and its original ideas are seldom sound.

We are speaking today to Bill C-25, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999. This is a collection of tinkering measures that fail to address some of the significant tax reform issues challenging Canadians.

Under this government we have seen declining productivity and investment and, in fact, an exodus of not just Canadian talent, in terms of the best and brightest young people we have in Canada, but also an exodus of investment in what is sometimes called the corporate takeover of Canada. We have seen a huge loss of Canadian economic sovereignty under this government.

It is important to note that sovereignty is not about economic symbols. It is about economic performance. While the government will continually go back to symbolism and try to defend its record based on particular symbols, it is missing the basic message or mantra of the new economy which is that individuals, wherever they live in the world, are prosperous or poor based on the degree to which their governments create environments for their citizenry to participate fully in this new challenging global economy. This government is clearly failing to recognize the opportunities and challenges of this new economy.

Canadians deserve much better. Canadians deserve a government with a clearer vision, a government willing to take some risks on economic policy and forge ahead of where the polls are indicating the government should be right now and actually do some of the things that Canadians need to be done to prepare them for well into this millennium.

Based on the last three budgets, it is clear that the Liberal government is big on labels. We saw in the 1998 budget that it was the education budget and 12 months after that budget, over 12,000 Canadian graduates declared bankruptcy.

The 1999 budget was the health care budget. In the year following that budget, we still see the Canadian health care system in a shambles and health care reeling in every province in Canada, not because we have bad provincial governments but because the federal government has abdicated its responsibility to defend the Canada Health Act and has not provided the type of funding necessary for the provinces to maintain the principles of the Canada Health Act.

The year 2000 budget was the tax cut budget. Before this budget, Canada had the highest personal income taxes in the G-7. After this budget Canadians face the highest personal income taxes in the G-7.

What about corporate taxes? Prior to this budget Canada had the second highest corporate taxes of the 31 countries in the OECD. After the tax relief measures of the budget are fully implemented over a five year period, Canada will have the fourth highest corporate taxes of the 31 OECD countries. That is assuming that other OECD countries will not reduce their corporate taxes, when in fact 27 of the 31 OECD countries are already planning to reduce their corporate taxes.

While the Liberals pontificate about Canada heading in the right direction with their tax policies, I remind them that a tortoise heading in the right direction on the autobahn is still roadkill. The Liberals' tortoise tax reform is a hindrance for Canada and is holding Canadians back when we should be unleashing the Canadian potential not just to compete globally, but to succeed globally in this new economy.

Under the Liberals we have seen a reduction in our personal disposable income of about 8%, during a period of time when the Americans have enjoyed an almost 10% increase in personal disposable income. I suspect that I have to remind members opposite that it is impossible, wealth being a relative thing, for Americans to have become richer while we have been getting poorer.

This is one of the reasons we are seeing the dollar drop by approximately eight cents since the election of the government in 1993. The dollar is one of the best indicators of economic performance. It is like a share value in Canada. It reflects the confidence not just of Canadians, but of investors from around the world. Every time the dollar drops, Canadians have a pay cut. It reduces the standard of living and the purchasing power of Canadians who increasingly in the globally interconnected economy can purchase what they want and need from companies and individuals almost anywhere.

Our productivity growth has been the worst in the G-7 in recent decades. There has been a secular decline in our productivity growth rate, particularly relative to the United States. Again, that needs to be addressed. Broad based visionary and courageous tax reform and reduction is only one way, but it is a very important way to address that issue.

I will speak to some specific issues in Bill C-25. We support the demutualization of life insurance companies. That is a step in the right direction. It has already been the case in the U.S. and there is a broad based level of support within the life insurance community for this. Demutualization stands to benefit a lot of policyholders. Effectively in some ways it makes them shareholders in some of these companies. There are some benefits to that.

In 1999 there was an increase in the basic personal exemption by $675 to approximately $7,100. That is a baby step in the right direction. To be taxing Canadians who are making $7,100 is purely too low a figure. Comparatively in the U.S. one does not start paying income tax until one's income reaches approximately the equivalent of $11,000 Canadian. We are supposed to be a kinder and gentler nation yet with the recent budget, we will be taxing people who earn only $8,000. The increase is a step in the right direction, but just a baby step.

Again bracket creep was not eliminated in the 1993 budget. A lot of these little tiny baby steps on tax reduction were eliminated by bracket creep in the years since then.

On the issue of the deficit surtax there was an announcement in the 1999 budget for a reduction in this tax and we supported that. It should have been done earlier.

The 5% deficit reduction surtax was not touched in the 1999 budget. In the 2000 budget there was a commitment to decrease it by 1% per year. Of course the government is reticent to reduce the 5% surtax because it is a surtax on who the government considers to be high income Canadians. It is part of the politics of envy the Liberals try to create in Canada and an attitude of anti-wealth or anti higher income which is a recipe for failure in Canada.

Canada's highest marginal tax rates are higher than all but two of our trading partners. Canadians are taxed at the highest marginal tax rate when they hit an income of $70,000 per year. In the U.S. one does not hit the top marginal tax rate threshold until $420,000 Canadian. That says to an MBA graduate or someone entering the computer industry, software industry or e-commerce industry who is starting at that pay almost immediately after university that we do not want them here, that we do not want their talent or their innovation. Unfortunately when we say that to them all their potential to build better futures for themselves and their companies and a better future for a country will benefit other companies outside of Canada. It will benefit countries other than Canada if we are not very careful.

In this legislation which has to do with the implementation of the 1999 budget there has been a bunch of tinkering, a series of baby steps that do not really address the holistic and systemic issues facing Canadians. It indicates the anemic approach by a tired government which Canadians are growing concerned about. They watch this complacent government and the near toxic levels of arrogance which emanate from the government benches. They know they are paying a significant price for a government with no vision and no courage to lead Canada bravely into the 21st century.