Scott Brison

[The Economy, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians' after tax income has declined by 7% since the early 1990s. One in five Canadian children are now living in poverty. All Canadians, particularly low end Canadians, need tax relief now.

In the last budget the finance minister took $2.5 billion of Canadians' money to put into a millennium scholarship fund. How much of that money has benefited Canadians this year when they need it?

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, did the member actually say that some Canadians may starve, but not many? Does he actually believe that the homeless have chosen somehow to be homeless? Does he believe that there are not children who are going to school hungry in the mornings? Does he recognize that in constituencies like mine there are families of four making less than $10,000 per year, living in squalor?

Perhaps it is easier for him. Based on statistics, he has a 9% poverty rating in his riding. But for those of us who represent ridings with significantly more poverty this is a real issue. It is very easy for someone in the House making around $100,000 a year to pontificate about Adam Smith, but there is a lot of poverty out there and there are a lot of people who need our help.

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would urge that the parliamentary secretary not reduce this to pure partisanship. This issue requires all parliamentarians to work to ensure that this issue is addressed because poverty and particularly poverty affecting children is something that all parliamentarians should take very seriously.

My question for the parliamentary secretary relates to the employment insurance fund. The fact is that EI premiums are a regressive tax on the poorest of Canadians. Somebody making $39,000 per year in Canada pays the same amount of EI premiums as somebody making $300,000 per year. It is grossly unfair in that regard.

The changes made by this government to EI benefits has hurt significantly. The draconian changes have savaged benefits for instance for seasonal workers. In my riding 4,580 people qualified for EI in 1994. That was reduced to 3,130 in 1997.

I want to read from correspondence received from one of my constituents. I want the parliamentary secretary to hear this so that he has some awareness of how his government's changes in employment insurance have affected people living in rural Canada and the rural poor. This is one letter I received:

How do you expect people to live on $200 per month for food, clothes, fuel, lights. Try to run a vehicle when the nearest town is 40 miles away. The government has never fought for seasonal workers. Seasonal workers need fairer treatment. How do you think small businesses, stores, farms can deal without crop pickers, without road work, without forestry workers, without strawberry pickers and planters, blueberry rakers, what about landscapers and roofers?

The changes made have impacted significantly, particularly rural Canada, and have created a sense of poverty that is egregious and unacceptable in our country. It is time we stand up and take off our ideological blinders in the House. It is time to do what is right and either reduce the EI premiums such that more Canadians can go back to work or take that fund for what it was designed, a fund to benefit those people who paid into it. It is absolutely grossly unfair that the EI fund which was designed to benefit the poorest of Canadians is being taken now by this government to pad its books to look better for the finance minister's records. It is no good to have a country that is in the black when Canadians are in the red.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her question. It is a very important question. We have two areas of government policy in question here. One is domestic legislation on the environment brought forward by the current minister of trade when he was minister of the environment, and the other is trade policy. There are two separate areas.

I would argue the MMT legislation brought forward by the current minister of trade was badly designed legislation that was not designed to effectively stand up to the rigours of NAFTA and to the questions of national treatment.

National treatment is a fundamental part of trade agreements and our obligations under NAFTA. But national treatment simply means we are obligated in Canada to treat companies from another country with the same treatment that we would provide to our domestic companies.

If legislation is designed effectively that would apply for instance to our domestic companies in a non-discriminatory way, to protect the environment, that legislation would be tenable under NAFTA. If legislation is designed very specifically to target one foreign company it may not be tenable. That is why we have to become more rigorous as legislators in developing legislation that can stand up to the rigours of national treatment and the questions therein. I would argue that it was bad legislation. It was poorly designed and it did not stand up.

The whole question of national treatment boils down to one fundamental question. If we would not allow a Canadian company to participate in environmentally unsound behaviour then we would not allow a foreign company to participate in environmentally unsound behaviour. It is a national treatment issue. Pollution and environmental externals do not know national boundaries.

I do not see and have not been convinced by any of the opponents of liberalized trade how national treatment can jeopardize our environment if legislation in Canada is designed to stand up to the rigours of those trade agreements that we have signed and received the benefit of as Canadians.

[Supply, February 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, we understand the occasional mistake and that is fair.

My apologies to the hon. member from the Liberal Party for he unwittingly was taking the space of a Conservative, which they seem to have done a lot of since 1993. That being the case, that will not always be the case so they can enjoy their time in the sun at this juncture.

The issue and the motion before us is one of critical importance. It is very positive that the New Democrats have brought forward this motion for an important debate today and for an important debate in the future on the issue of water and more specifically on bulk freshwater exports.

I have some concern about the motion upon first glance. I will quote the motion specifically. It recommends that the government “should introduce legislation to prohibit bulk freshwater exports and interbasin transfers”.

I would support and our party is supporting this motion. We want to ensure that a debate on this very important topic occurs here in the House of Commons.

We believe that the government should introduce legislation such that there can be a debate in the House of Commons on this issue, a full debate that can delve into this extremely serious issue. That being the case, I think we all need more information before we would necessarily support in the future the legislation which the government brings forward in terms of prohibiting bulk freshwater exports and interbasin transfers.

We will be supporting the motion today because of the importance of this debate. That being the case, if and when the legislation is actually brought forward, we would appreciate the opportunity to debate fully the pros and cons of the legislation.

It was noted earlier, and it is very important to recognize, that the PC Party did in the NAFTA negotiations move to protect freshwater. During an earlier exchange between my hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party and a member from my party, some questions were raised as to the sanctity of water and the protection of water under NAFTA.

The fact is that trade agreements and trade negotiations are ongoing. This is not a static process. A trade agreement is not reached and then that is the end of it. An ongoing process of negotiation and discussion occurs, not just between countries, but between subnational governments within a sovereign state like Canada. That is an important issue which has to be discussed more fully within this House once the legislation is brought forward. We have to discuss the jurisdictional authority over water within Canada and the roles of subnational governments with the federal government in terms of the jurisdiction and beyond that, the role in terms of the conservation of water.

Water is a unique commodity. It is more fundamental obviously to human life than any other commodity and certainly any potentially exportable commodity.

It is not just a trade issue, it is not just an environmental issue, it is even a foreign policy issue. In a post cold war environment with an increasingly complicated world in terms of foreign affairs, with the declining role of the nation state, water is going to be—it is not a matter of will it be—but water is going to be the source of conflict in the future. In the past it may have been oil or some other commodity, but water in the future will be more important in the role it plays in our foreign policy and in terms of world conflict.

In an age where we talk more of human security versus national security, water certainly plays a role in both. Those will be issues that we have to delve into with significant debate. This type of debate has to exist in the committees for example, environment, trade, intergovernmental affairs, as well as in this House.

The U.S. and Canada have no shortage of things to fight over. We have beer, wheat, lumber, magazines, all kinds of trade issues to deal with on an ongoing basis. Canada has 20% of the world's freshwater supply, most of it in the Great Lakes. The remainder is pouring unchecked into three oceans. The United States with one-tenth of our freshwater has nearly nine times as many people, a great deal of whom want to live in the scenic but dry southwest, but all of whom need water.

Certainly there is growing pressure on Canada to export water in bulk. These attempts of course have run afoul of environmentalists, the Canadian government and Canadian nationalists. Naturally it has ended up in the courts as part of the ongoing process of international trade engagement.

The latest battle in California between Sun Belt Water company and the province of British Columbia is just another example of the types of ongoing negotiations and legal battles that we will have within the NAFTA framework.

We should always expect that these will occur periodically.

It is very important that we do not dismiss at hand the export of water. Some estimates are that 60% of our freshwater supply is wasted. All someone has to do is spend a rain soaked winter in Vancouver to recognize that we have a significant supply of freshwater. A significant amount of our water is running unchecked into oceans.

Certainly water is different. Maude Barlow and the Council of Canadians argue that water is different. Maude Barlow and the Council of Canadians believe that nothing should be traded. She and her organization do not believe that in any way, shape or form trade can benefit Canadians. I disagree fundamentally with that principle.

We are supporting the motion today because we feel it is an important debate. We will not be supporting the amendment, however, because the amendment is unequivocal and says that Canada should not be party to any international agreement that compels us to export freshwater against our will. The word compels has its inherent ambiguity.

I do not believe that any member of this House has all the facts to make that kind of unequivocal judgment at this time. We need the debate.

Currently the government will dither and dilly-dally as it is wont to do with a number of these types of issues. Water export opportunities are appearing. In Gander, Newfoundland McCurdy Enterprises, formerly a construction company, has a proposal to load water from Gisborne Lake into oil tankers and ship it to parched souls in Asia. There are issues in British Columbia.

There is an economic opportunity but we cannot partake in economic opportunities if they compromise our environmental policy in this country. That is something I would argue no member of parliament would want to do.

We cannot separate economic and environmental arguments. The separation of economic and environmental arguments has led over the years to the degradation of the environment. It is extraordinarily important that these two areas, economics and the environment, are inextricably linked in public policy. We have to get our heads around this.

We will be supporting the motion. We will not be supporting the amendment. We look forward to a legitimate debate in the House of Commons about this very important environmental and economic issue.

We would hope that when that debate occurs we can consider all the spheres of influence involved, including our foreign policy, our policy in terms of foreign aid and our obligations to people in a human security and not just a national security context, and that we deal very seriously with an issue that could very easily be turned into a political issue and not a public policy issue.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that is changing dramatically in Atlantic Canada is natural resource development. There is natural gas development in Nova Scotia and the Hibernia project in Newfoundland. We would hope that in the not too distant future these provinces would actually be have provinces.

I do not honestly believe that equalization payments contribute to dependency. When I speak of social spending policies I am not talking about income support, I am talking about education, health care and so on.

Those areas do not represent a dependency. They represent a basic quality of life that is required for anyone to succeed. If we want Nova Scotians to succeed we need to provide enough funding for a strong education system and for a good health care system.

The hon. member raises the very important issue of dependency. We must consider whether the government has over the past 30 years, in trying to protect Atlantic Canadians from the risks of the future, actually prevented some Atlantic Canadians from participating fully in the opportunities of the future.

He does have a point. I would suspect that some of the policies which have been implemented have not been successful. Equalization in itself, as a policy, has actually had some level of success in at least providing a level of opportunity for those people to succeed either in those provinces or to go elsewhere. In particular, young people need to be provided with a sound footing to get them through the first years.

I agree with the hon. member that we need an industrial strategy. We need something that can actually harness the powers of the free market in a global environment so that all Canadians can succeed. However, that cannot be done simply through equalization. It cannot exist in isolation from other government policies and leadership in other areas. Frankly, that is what is really lacking at this point.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He raises a very good point.

I would suggest that if the member wanted to see British Columbia become a beneficiary province the best way to ensure that would be to maintain a New Democrat government there for a long time. In fact at some point in the future that may occur.

But seriously, it is an extraordinarily complex formula. We were briefed several times on the formula and it is very complicated, quite frankly, for a student of these affairs to understand. From a public relations perspective I do not know how to get the point across.

What is important for Canadians living in the contributing provinces to realize is that the people who are on the receiving end do not use the funds in a wasteful manner. They are being used for the basic social fabric, education, health care and those fundamental areas that everyone in Canada values. What makes Canada unique is our ability to provide the funds.

The people who simplistically say that we should cut off equalization have to realize that those people would go somewhere to find opportunities. Ultimately the social problems that would exist in a particular region, such as Atlantic Canada, would exist in another region if we were not able to provide some basic level of service in the areas of social spending, education and health care. Those problems would not disappear simply because of the lack of equalization.

Through an industrial strategy we could ensure that in 10 or 15 years equalization would be less necessary. We have to move on that type of policy. However in the short term it is a fundamental tenet of Canadian social and economic policy that simply needs to be maintained at this time.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comment.

The hon. member may not have heard the first part of my speech which was prior to question period. At no time did I say that we did not support equalization. In fact I defended the tenets of equalization vociferously.

I agree with the hon. member that it is absolutely essential to the equality of opportunity across the country that we maintain and strengthen equalization.

I appreciate the hon. member's intervention because I would not in any way want my words to be interpreted as not supporting equalization. It is quite the contrary. We recognize it as a cornerstone of Canadian social policy. Our party defends it and we recognize its importance.

What I was suggesting, relative to ghettoization, is that without equalization there would be a ghettoization of Canadians because there would be some groups in some regions of the country who would simply not have the same access to opportunity as others. Without equalization we would have a ghettoization. I hope that clarification is to the member's satisfaction.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of equalization is fundamental to Canada. Equalization has represented a cornerstone of the social and economic policies in Canada. The equality of opportunity that has been provided by equalization is pivotal and important if we are to ensure that throughout Canada people have access to the levers of the free market and a global economy.

It is very important that we recognize the differences of the country and encourage people to succeed in their provinces and to access opportunity. Without equalization, without this commitment to what is essentially Canadian, we would be imperilling that opportunity and that tenet of Canadian policy.

I mentioned earlier that in Manitoba there is some significant concern over the reduction in equalization payments that this adjustment process would result in. It reminded me of an article I read last spring in the Winnipeg Free Press of Saturday, May 17, 1997. It followed the Reform Party's announcement on equalization and was called “Securing Your Future”. They were calling for a cut in equalization payments by 12% or $1 billion. They were looking at readjusting equalization so as not to include some of the provinces that are currently receiving it.

Manitoba would be one of the provinces that would be cut out of equalization. I will give an idea of the impact on Manitoba. Manitoba's deputy premier Jim Downey at that time called the Reform plan to cut equalization payments to only three payments frightening. He said that at first blush it would cause a remarkably severe impact on Manitoba and a loss of $1 billion or about one-sixth of the province's gross revenues. He said it would essentially wipe out 25 provincial departments or the entire education budget. He was explaining what the impact in the short term would be of this type of draconian policy.

We all believe in the free market. We must all understand that the free market is only successful if all Canadians have access to the levers of it. In a knowledge based society equality of opportunity means equality of educational opportunities and health care. All these policies tie together.

We will not stand by and see a ghettoization of Canada. It is a remarkable achievement in our country that we have been able to provide some semblance of equality across the country in terms of opportunity.

We would like to see the government move forward not just with an equalization policy to equalize opportunities but with something more fundamental than that, an industrial strategy for our country, which is clearly lacking; a commitment to reducing interprovincial trade barriers; a commitment to reducing taxes; a commitment to reducing the regulatory burden on individuals and on small businesses; and a commitment to ensuring that Canadians can not only compete in a global environment as we enter the 21st century but can succeed in that environment.

Our party has always been committed to these goals. We would like to see the government commit in the upcoming budget to the type of fiscal policy and type of economic policy that would lead Canadians proudly into the 21st century. Maybe some day equalization will not be necessary because all regions of the country will succeed and all Canadians will have an opportunity to participate in the type of economic growth that everyone deserves.

[The Late King Hussein, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party I would like to extend my condolences to the Jordanian royal family and to the people of Jordan on the loss of King Hussein.

As world leaders today mourn the loss of this great man, the question arises: Where is the Prime Minister of Canada? U.S. President Bill Clinton and three former U.S. presidents have managed to make the time to go to King Hussein's funeral. The leaders of all G-8 countries, except Canada, are in Jordan. Even the Russian Prime Minister with his failing health, Boris Yeltsin, is defying his doctors and has left the hospital to attend the funeral of King Hussein. But our Prime Minister is skiing in British Columbia. According to the PM's office he just would not be able to get to Jordan in time for the funeral despite 24 hours' notice and a government jet at his disposal.

This is a diplomatic snub. It is a slap in the face to Jordan, an international news story and an embarrassment to Canada. It is an affront to our historical leadership in the Middle East. While we should be mourning the loss of Jordan's King Hussein—