Scott Brison

[Charitable Contributions, June 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to speak on this motion being put forward by the member for Fraser Valley.

The PC party is willing to support this motion on behalf of charities across Canada. With the latest round of government downsizing, charities across the country have been placed under even more pressure to perform in many of the same areas previously the exclusive domain of government.

I think of areas of health care, for instance where many hospitals across Canada have had to increase their private fundraising efforts to make up for the slack of the downsizing of government funding and the reduction to CHST transfers to the provinces which has resulted in a tremendous amount of hardship, especially in the Atlantic provinces where the local tax base simply cannot support, under current charitable donations regulations, the amount of fundraising required to keep our health care system alive and well.

I think of the Victorian Order of Nurses. The VON is a national organization with branches across the country. In recent years the role of the VON has been forced to expand exponentially as our health care services have been cut by the Liberal government. Many branches have been forced to increase their fundraising efforts to make up for the decline in funding resulting from these higher level cuts in federal government funding for health care.

It is one thing to offload financial responsibility to the provinces. It is another thing to offload leadership, which is effectively what the federal government has done in the area of health care.

The VON branch in my riding of Kings Hants has suffered severe funding cuts from the municipality as the counties struggle to deal with the cuts from the provincial and federal governments.

When the federal government reduces funding to health care it creates a domino effect whereby the province of Nova Scotia and ultimately the municipalities have to pick up the slack. We simply do not have the local tax base. That is why this motion is very important. It recognizes the needs at the grassroots level for changes to charitable donations and the treatment of charitable donations to increase the incentive for Canadians in communities across Canada to contribute and to help pick up the slack for the cuts and the reduced responsibility of the federal government.

A charitable organization like the VON offers essential health services to the elderly in my riding. Programs like the PEP program, promoting elderly participation, which was initiated with the help of Health Canada during the Conservative government's time in office, help keep seniors active and involved with other citizens in their community. They are very important, particularly in the context of an aging population. These are programs that no longer receive government funding and the charities have had to find alternative funding arrangements just to continue these services.

Organizations like the VON are now forced to fundraise to subsidize visiting nurses programs, for instance to individuals who need to be checked at home. For the elderly who cannot afford to pay for home visits these services are extraordinarily important.

These visiting nurses programs, combined with the PEP program, respite care and meals on wheels, would not exist if not for the dedication and perseverance of volunteers and of course the generosity of donors.

When a person representing a political party in Canada can offer a potential donor a greater tax incentive to donate to their political party than an individual canvassing for a group like the VON that provides essential health services, it uncovers an injustice in our tax system and one that the member for Fraser Valley is quite right in recognizing and in addressing with this motion.

It highlights a larger problem, that being the complexity of Canada's tax code. If I had a complete copy of our tax code it would stand at about the same height as I am standing. I studied taxation as part of my finance degree in university. Not only was it one of the driest courses I have ever taken, which I would not wish on anybody, but it acquainted me with the incredible and egregiously complex nature of the Canadian tax code.

It is appalling that a person with a small business in Canada has to hire a tax accountant to deal with the government. Filing a tax return should be a simple transaction between the person and the government. They should not need to be represented by a third party to deal with the government. This motion helps to recognize the greater problem, which is the tremendous complexity of Canada's tax code. The PC Party will continue to fight for a fairer, flatter tax system.

As I discuss tax relief for low income Canadians, it should be remembered that tax reform needs to be done in a more holistic manner instead of addressing one part or another. It is unfortunate that much of the tax reform brought forward serves to complicate and not simplify the tax code. The guiding principle behind tax reform should be tax simplification.

Even the finance committee recognized the need to assist our charities in their efforts to expand their fundraising activities. During pre-budget consultations last year witnesses who appeared before the committee suggested that a motion similar to this motion be brought forward. The finance committee included this idea in its recommendations to the Minister of Finance.

Charities like the VON and particularly charities involved in the provision of health care, which has been so tremendously affected by the irresponsible cuts of the Liberal government since 1993, should not be disadvantaged compared with political parties when canvassing for donations. If we were to increase the advantages of donating to charitable organizations, or if they were at least brought into line with political contributions, charities across this country would receive considerable benefit. In fact, all Canadians would benefit from such a change. Charitable organizations offer essential services to society and they should be encouraged, not discouraged, by parliament to continue their activities.

[Canada Grain Act, May 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-26. This government has defeated a number of amendments to Bill C-26 that would have made it much better.

The amendments which were put forward by the hon. member for Brandon—Souris took into account an important aspect of the bill that is clearly absent. The majority of the stakeholders who appeared before the standing committee on agriculture wanted the specialty crops insurance program to be voluntary. The amendments that my party put forward spoke to this aspect and the government did not address it.

A resolution was passed at the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association annual meeting and similar motions were passed at the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association convention, the Western Canadian Barley Growers Association convention and by the Saskatchewan Pulse Crop Development Board. The motion reads as follows:

Whereas the majority of Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association members also are growers of specialty crops, and

Whereas the proposed Special Crops Rural Initiative Program would appear to favour the Canadian Grain Commission and not necessarily special crop growers, and

Whereas the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program is promoted as being voluntary, it is in reality a form of negative billing which all consumers reject—, and

Whereas the scheme has questionable support at the farm level, and

Whereas the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association rejects the compulsory nature of the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program, and

Whereas the special crops Industry has flourished without such a program,

Therefore be it resolved that the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association inform the federal and western provincial ministers of agriculture of their concerns and at the very least that the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program be truly voluntary at both the growers and the special crops dealers.

This resolution aptly describes what Bill C-26 has failed to do. It fails to give farmers a choice, not unlike what the government did with Bill C-4, which failed to give farmers a choice in how they would sell their wheat. The compulsory nature of special crops insurance is a form of negative option billing. Today's producers run large operations and should not have to apply to opt out and then receive their money back if they do not wish to participate.

Farming businesses should have the right to decide themselves if they want to be bonded or licensed and, if so, to pay the bills themselves. Producers should have the choice to decide for themselves that there is too much risk selling to unlicensed buyers. Special crops producers would be better off having a choice between selling to large licensed grain dealers and small unlicensed grain dealers. That would make sense.

That being said, I must also mention the constructive work that was done at the committee level on this legislation. The committee looked at several issues of concern and the government introduced several amendments to make this legislation better for western Canadian farmers. The committee members from all parties actually supported some of the government amendments. To the surprise of many members on this side of the House, the government actually provided some reasonably sound amendments. However, Bill C-26 would have been much better for western Canadian farmers if government members had voted in favour of the PC Party's amendments at report stage.

The bill is composed of three parts. It would first repeal the Grain Futures Act. In essence, the Grain Futures Act allows for the province of Manitoba, through the Manitoba Securities Commission, to regulate the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange instead of the federal government through its Canadian Grains Commission. This is related to the Manitoba Commodities Futures Act which was enacted by the Manitoba government. This was an idea suggested by the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange.

The WCE wants to access the hog industry. Instead of working with two separate regulators, the WCE will conduct all of its business through the Manitoba Securities Commission. This is a positive change for the agriculture industry and the PC party supports this aspect of the bill.

Second, it would amend the Canada Grain Act to allow specialty crops, for example soybeans, to fall under crop insurance plans. This would also permit the separation of licensing and security provisions for specialty crops dealers. This government believes that the inability to separate these two activities has been the primary problem in developing an insurance plan for the special crops industry of western Canada. By forcing such a separation in law and by putting the administration of a voluntary insurance plan under the Canada Grain Commission, Bill C-26 would remove the onus on special crops dealers to post costly security against the possibility of their default in payment to special crops producers.

The Canadian Export Development Corporation, CEDC, would be the insurer.

Also the government would lead people to believe that the insurance plan is voluntary. There are many people in the farming community who are sceptical that this insurance plan is voluntary.

Third, the bill would incorporate the Canada Grain Act within the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, thereby allowing the Canadian Grain Commission to impose fines for most violations of the Canada Grain Act and its regulations. This is a positive legislative measure because it enables the Canadian Grain Commission to be more flexible and effective.

I conclude by saying that the PC party supports this bill. But we could have made this a much better piece of legislation if the government had supported the amendments put forward by our party. It is our job as legislators to work together in a non-partisan way, for the benefit of all Canadians, to try to do what is best for all Canadians and, in this instance, what is best for western Canadian farmers. I hope that in the future, and at all times in our deliberations in this Chamber and in the committee rooms, we try to work together, not against each other, to help all Canadians.

[Taxation, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, listen to this quotation: “Whatever may be the situation in the past, we are now confronted in this country by very serious problems and the government should address these problems. They should not seek refuge in history”. That was from Paul Martin Sr. in 1956 in the House.

I have a news flash for the minister. Ten cent cuts are not good enough.

In Halifax in March the minister said that significant payroll tax reductions would not lead to job growth. Yet in his budget he reduced payroll taxes for youth significantly. Why is it good enough for young people but not good enough for all Canadians?

If payroll taxes will not lead to job growth, why did he give—

[Taxation, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we asked the finance minister to cut EI premiums on October 7, October 31, November 7, November 28 and December 1. The minister has refused.

High payroll taxes kill jobs. Will May 27, 1998 go down as another day that this minister refuses to give Canadians the tax breaks and the jobs they need?

The minister is trying to build a war chest on the backs of unemployed Canadians. Does the minister honestly believe that significant payroll tax reductions would not lead to job growth in Canada?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-36, in Clause 105, be amended by deleting lines 4 to 26 on page 53.

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-36, in Clause 108, be amended by deleting lines 5 to 13 on page 56.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-36, in Clause 109, be amended by deleting lines 36 to 45 on page 56. Group No. 9

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 25th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-36, in Clause 104, be amended by replacing lines 4 to 23 on page 51 and lines 1 to 40 on page 52 with the following:

“(8.2) With respect to 1999 and 2000, the Minister shall refund to the employer the amount by which the total of all amounts paid by the employer as the employer's premium during each of these years exceeds 2.8% of the total insurable earnings paid by the employer to his employees for each of these years.

(8.3) With respect to 1999 and 2000, the Minister shall refund to each employee the amount by which the total of all amounts paid by the employee as the employee's premium for each of these years exceeds 2% of the total of all insurable earnings received by the employee for each of these years.

(8.4) The refunds provided for in this section are payable by the Minister within three months after the end of the year for which the premiums were deducted or payable.”

[Division No. 158, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, sound economic policy involves dealing with the challenges facing Canadians in a holistic way, with consistent economic policies, not stopgap measures that further complicate, for instance, the Canadian tax code.

The millennium scholarship fund will only benefit—

[National Head Start Program, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on Motion No. 261 put forward by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. The member continues to demonstrate his commitment to progressive social policy. I have spoken about this issue previously in the House and it is with great pride that I do so today.

Good government means providing the vehicle for a prosperous Canadian economy and also ensuring equality of opportunity in that prosperous economy.

The best economic system to provide prosperity is the free market, but the free market is only sustainable if all citizens have access to the economic levers. I believe that if we were to implement a national head start program and focus on early intervention, we would be going a long way in addressing the equality of opportunity and the access to those levers.

Recently several issues have been debated in the House and focused on by the Canadian people. One is the Liberal government's $2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund introduced in Bill C-36 which will be debated later on and which has been debated quite extensively in the House lately. Another is the government's new posturing on the Young Offenders Act. Not surprisingly the Liberals have missed the point on both programs.

Motion No. 261 speaks to a process that is far more admirable, effective and economical than these government sponsored programs. Motion No. 261 is an early intervention program that promotes prevention instead of punishment.

Study after study suggests that one dollar invested in a child in the formative years, particularly between birth and three years of age, and some studies say birth and six years of age, can deliver a six dollar and some say a seven dollar return on a child during those formative years. Some studies indicate that a one dollar investment in a child between birth and the age of three will provide a return of seven dollars to society.

Programs like the head start program in Moncton, New Brunswick offer this alternative, an economic return already in Canada. Not all areas are so fortunate.

From personal experience, I grew up on the Hants shore in rural Nova Scotia. In grade 6 there were 23 students who left grade 6 at the same time I did to go to another school. Only 8 of those students ever graduated from high school, 8 out of 23. I have some degree of experience and indeed a very personal empathy for this issue.

More recently in that community there has been significant progress by that school. The Dr. Arthur Hines School has become a leader in Nova Scotia in terms of providing equality of opportunity in rural Nova Scotia. I commend the principal, Hazel Dill, for her hard work. I also commend grassroots organizations such as the Hants Shore Health Clinic that work on these head start and early intervention programs.

There are other programs in my community, including an adult literacy program which is being promoted by Patricia Helliwell. It is achieving significant progress with people who have fallen through the cracks in the system early on. I commend that adult literacy program for its commendable work and its effectiveness in helping provide these people with an opportunity.

I cannot help but think what if we really started to deal with the roots of the problem. What if we got to these people earlier, when they were children and a significant impact could be made. Then someday perhaps we would not need adult literacy programs in Canada because all Canadians would have achieved a basic competence in communication and literacy.

The government has chosen a different more politically palatable route. It has decided to use the memorial fund for the Prime Minister. This Canadian millennium scholarship fund will only benefit 7% of Canadian students who attend university when it is implemented two years from now. If the government had put this $2.5 billion toward a national head start program, it would have provided a better economic return on that money for Canadians.

However the Liberal Party's focus group and polling data have told it to spend the money on university students, that post-secondary education is a more politically palatable initiative than is early intervention. The facts are contrary to this. Experts on post-secondary education will agree that the best bang for the buck for the Canadian taxpayer is to invest in the youngest of Canadians, those Canadians who are most vulnerable to negative influences and who can benefit most from positive influences, those between birth and the age of three.

I assume based on focus groups and polling data that the government has recently decided to get tough with young offenders. Arguably it is extremely important that the Young Offenders Act be tightened and that young people be made more responsible for their actions. Again the Liberals have really missed the point.

Harsher penalties will not prevent young people from committing crimes. We must address the flaws in the Young Offenders Act but what can we do to prevent these young people from turning toward crime? Why are we not dealing with these issues in a more holistic manner instead of by knee-jerk reaction and crisis management? The real answer is early intervention. A national head start program would go a long way toward addressing that.

A stable and caring environment during a child's formative years offers the best opportunity to provide a productive and stable adolescence and ultimately a productive and prosperous adulthood. Studies have demonstrated that this early intervention is one of the best social policy approaches.

In the finance committee hearings earlier this month I questioned Professor David Stager from the University of Toronto. I asked him how he felt about early intervention. Professor Stager is an expert on post-secondary education. When I asked him how he felt about the investment we could potentially make in early intervention he said that the best bang for the buck would be before school. There was a splendid synthesis done this past fall of the research in the area of human capital. It concluded that early intervention has the greatest pay-off for a number of reasons.

This man is an expert on post-secondary education and an advocate for post-secondary education who has spent his life advocating investment in areas of post-secondary education. He told the finance committee that the best investment for society to make is in early intervention before children even get to elementary school where much damage could have already occurred if positive environments were not provided earlier.

I commend the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for his forward thinking and his commitment to progressive social policy. His motion would be very effective in addressing the real needs of Canadians at a very critical time. We are entering the 21st century. We have a global knowledge based economy that will generate the economic growth of the 21st century.

We in this House can make a difference so it is absolutely imperative that we focus on ensuring that young Canadians have every opportunity. If we as public policy makers and parliamentarians can ensure that young Canadians do not just have as good a chance but that they have a better opportunity than people in other countries, we will be doing a great deal to ensure that Canada is on a firm footing and that young Canadians are poised to participate actively and prosper in the new economy.

This type of commitment will prevent the necessity of a TAGS program in the 21st century. It will prevent the necessity of a lot of the social investment that has been more reactive than proactive.

As an Atlantic Canadian, I have watched over the years as successive governments have tried to effectively deal with the situation in Atlantic Canada frankly by using money on social spending as opposed to social investment. Unfortunately these governments in trying to protect Atlantic Canadians from the risks of the future have prevented them from participating in the rewards of the future.

That is where aggressive and forward thinking social policy, such as an early intervention program, would make a difference. Then we would not have to be engaged in regional economic development debates in 20 years in this House because we would have provided the equality of opportunity which is necessary to allow all Canadians to participate in growth. As an Atlantic Canadian it is very important to me that we continue to work to this end.

I would urge every member of this House to consider very carefully and to support this motion. I think it is very important for us, when provided with the opportunity, to make the right decisions, to make decisions that will last much longer than many of us will be in this House and to provide those types of benefits. It would be an affront to the people who put us here not to do so.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 13th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, this government's approach to budgetary decisions is a patchwork quilt of interventionist policy that lacks the type of consistency required for sound economic policy.

We have proposed 19 amendments to Bill C-36. I want to ensure we have proposed these amendments in a very constructive non-partisan way because we want to make significant improvements to this legislation which will benefit all Canadians and which will be a credit to this House.

Two such amendments we have proposed would see both private and public institutions treated similarly by the millennium scholarship foundation. For instance, we believe private institutions require representation at the board level and at the membership level of the foundation. It is absolutely essential that students in private educational institutions across Canada have that kind of representation.

Private colleges and career colleges are growing across Canada because they represent the needs of the workplace. They are more sensitive to labour mobility and a lot of the facts of life of the late 20th century and the early 21st century in terms of the needs of Canadian employers.

For this millennium scholarship fund to not recognize the importance of career colleges and private educational institutions would be a travesty. One of our amendments calls for membership at the board of directors level and at the membership level of the foundation for representatives from career colleges.

Another amendment we have moved would allow students studying provincially certified programs at private institutions access to the scholarships as well. This is consistent with our belief that career colleges and private institutions and students studying at those institutions deserve to be treated with respect and deserve to be thought of with the understanding they are going to be making a significant contribution to Canada in the 21st century.

Each province currently has standards and criteria for funding for programs so we do not have to reinvent the wheel. We can simply rely on the provincial certification process which has worked extraordinarily well to date. The federal government need not reinvent the wheel or start a new bureaucratic process to do this. We can simply rely on the good judgment of the provinces.

Some of the legislation governing federal boards and agencies must provide a proper framework for accountability and transparency, and this framework is lacking in this bill. For boards and agencies functioning with taxpayer money there must be an accountability to this parliament and to all Canadians.

Transparency means that the stakeholders, ordinary Canadians and their representatives in parliament, have free access to information sufficient to enable them to judge the make-up of the board and the board's conduct of its business. Unfortunately the arm's length nature of the millennium scholarship foundation and the lack of transparency denies Canadians that access and denies Canadians the opportunity to judge whether the millennium scholarship foundation will meet the needs of ordinary Canadians.

Two and a half billion dollars of Canadian taxpayer money is going to a private foundation which would not be accessible through the Access to Information Act, the books of which will not be available to the auditor general. What the government is really doing is saying “here is $2.5 billion, do not worry about screwing up, you operate at arm's length and you are free to run your own show and the auditor general will not have access to your books anyway”. The auditor general is the Canadian taxpayers' watchdog in Ottawa and to deny Canadian taxpayers access and due diligence over the books of $2.5 billion of their money is a travesty.

It is debatable to what extent this foundation is at arm's length given that the government appoints a chairman and a third of the board. The other two-thirds are appointed by members who in turn are initially appointed by the minister. Most of the money will come from the federal treasury and yet this is considered an arm's length foundation.

The annual report is to be tabled in parliament. The auditor general questions exactly how arm's length the millennium foundation will be. In chapter 9 of last month's report he states: “It relates to what we would call the essential nature or substance of these types of entities. We will be examining this matter further and will report separately if significant findings emerge. Questions that we will address in this study will include whether, in substance or in fact, such entities operate at arm's length from the government”.

The auditor general questions the degree to which this will be an arm's length foundation and I think Canadians require greater accountability and assurances that this $2.5 billion is to be invested properly and will benefit all Canadians. That is why we call in our amendments for a greater level of transparency and a greater level of accountability for these funds.

We have also put forward an amendment that would require a five year review to be conducted by someone who is independent of the foundation. The Liberals do not care if this review is done by someone with close ties to management who would take a cursory look around and write a glowing report and then collect a fat fee for telling management what it wants to hear.

Canadians deserve better than that. Canadians deserve to have true accountability. We are offering government members an opportunity to redeem themselves in this instance by supporting some of these amendments and effectively ensure that Canadians will have external auditors who will do unbiased evaluations of the millennium scholarship foundation's activities without the bias or prejudice of appointment by the board.

I urge members to support this amendment so that all members of parliament can judge for themselves the success or failure of the millennium scholarship fund and its value to the Canadian taxpayer.

Another amendment we have put forward would allow the board to indefinitely block the release of unfavourable annual reports by simply refusing to approve them. Under the current legislation if a report comes forward that would be an unfavourable annual report the board can indefinitely block it from public viewing. That is unacceptable.

We propose that effectively any report or any annual report will be made available to the Canadian public after a reasonable period of time. Currently these types of negative annual reports can be shelved indefinitely, denying Canadians the access to information and the accountability and transparency they need.

There is also an amendment we are proposing which would require that some directors know something about investments. They are going to be given $2.5 billion. We do feel that they should know something about investments. Perhaps they will lend the money to the provinces, as was done with the Canada pension plan money resulting in the stellar performance that we have seen in recent years during a time when we have seen unprecedented growth in the equities markets around the world.

We believe that there should be criteria for the board members that include some knowledge of the investment industry and some knowledge of portfolio management. This can prevent poor returns in fixed income securities. It can also prevent high risk situations à la Orange county derivatives or shares in the next Bre-X.

It is increasingly apparent that the Minister of Finance does not have a particularly good relationship with the auditor general. I would venture to say that is probably one of the greatest understatements made in this House this year. The auditor general's accounting advice is routinely ignored by the Minister of Finance.

We are looking to provide the type of accountability through these amendments to this legislation which will provide ordinary Canadians with the accountability they need, independent of the auditor general and independent of the Minister of Finance. We need to ensure that this money is accounted for properly and that ultimately the millennium scholarship foundation results in the betterment of Canadian educational opportunities and competitiveness in the 21st century.

I do not have time to devote my speech to some of the other amendments, but we will have some opportunities later today. I urge all members to take a look at these amendments in a non-partisan and constructive way. That is the way they were developed and proposed.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, May 13th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-36, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 10 on page 20 with the following:

“46. (1) Subject to subsection (2), from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund there may, on the requisition of the Minister of Finance, be paid and applied for payment to the Foundation the sum of two billion five hundred million dollars.

(2) The sum referred to in subsection (1) shall not be paid to the Foundation in respect of a fiscal year that ended before the date of the coming into force of this Part.”

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-36 be amended by adding after line 10 on page 20 the following new clause:

“46.1 The Access to Information Act applies to the Foundation as if it were a federal institution.”