Scott Brison

[Income Tax Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on behalf of Progressive Conservatives and all Canadians on Bill C-244.

As well, I commend the member for Mississauga South on this initiative and on his hard work and diligence in representing and seeking solutions and assistance in visionary policy on behalf of Canadian children.

As everyone knows, the importance of child friendly policies are absolutely essential, especially as we enter the 21st century as a knowledge based global society. I think it has never been more important than now to invest in our young people.

I have some difficulty with the complicated nature of the changes to the tax code. I would echo some of the comments of my hon. colleague from the Reform Party on this.

As everyone knows, today millions of Canadians are filing their income tax returns and millions of Canadians have hired accountants and tax lawyers to enable them to effectively liaise with their own government.

It is an affront to a democratic society that in an industrialized nation with a high rate of education, Canadians need to hire professionals just to deal with their own governments on something as fundamental as paying taxes.

It is clear that we definitely need to simplify the tax code and the size of the tax code. I studied taxation law at university and got a finance degree. The tax code is egregiously complicated. I have some difficulty with any measure that serves to further complicate the tax code.

I do respect the premise under which the member for Mississauga South brings forward this legislation. If one parent wishes to stay at home in a family during the formative years of their child's upbringing I do not believe they should be penalized by the tax code, which currently is clearly the case.

I am interested also to learn that the hon. member has brought forward other proposals, including the conversion of the child care expense deduction into a non-refundable tax credit and extended it to families with a stay at home parent. I believe that is the kind of policy that would be less complicating potentially than the current legislation we are discussing but would have a similar impact. I think the important thing is that the intent and the impact is very sound. Again we are supportive of that intent and that potential impact of tax policy that will reduce the disincentive currently for families that are trying to do the right thing and look after their children.

The difficulty with tax policy, like so many public policies, is the law of unintended consequences. When we have, as my hon. colleague from the Reform Party has pointed out, a tax code of 1,300 pages it does bring to light the fact that there are a lot of unintended consequences with a tax code that complicated.

This week in the finance committee we are studying Bill C-36 regarding the creation of the millennium scholarship fund. One of the witnesses was David Stager, an economics profession at the University of Toronto. He stated unequivocally that adequate support in a child's formative years has a far greater social and economic impact than funding later in life.

An investment in preschool education, particularly prior to age three, will provide society with a better return on that investment than an investment in primary education. An investment in primary education will provide society with a better return on investment than an investment in secondary education. An investment in secondary education will provide a better return on investment than an investment in post-secondary education.

At a time when we are committing $2.5 billion worth of Canadian taxpayer funds to the millennium scholarship fund I think it is time that we really worked together in the House to develop solutions similar to what the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has suggested in head start programs, for instance, which are designed to reach out to high risk children who are most vulnerable.

One of the studies that was conducted in the United States accounts for the result that $1 invested in children in high risk situations up to age 3 will provide society with a return of $7, I believe, by age 25, if one combines employment insurance costs, welfare costs, if one considers the costs of the judicial system, the police and the penal system, all the things that occur because children are neglected up to age 3.

It is absolutely essential that we develop some way either through tax policy, and that is one alternative—I respect the hon. member for Mississauga South for bringing light on this issue—or through direct programs that would be designed to effect change in that area. Perhaps it is time for us in the House to look at a national head start program.

My own preference when I am talking about tax policy is to simplify the Canadian tax code and thus make it fairer. Not necessarily reducing all taxes but reducing some of the absolute gross unfairness that exists in the Canadian tax code. I believe that if we do simplify the tax code and we do make the tax code essentially what it should be in the first place, a revenue generating vehicle and not a vehicle for social engineering, we can then use social policy to invest strategically in those areas where Canadians need investment most. One of those areas might be a national head start program.

To the hon. member across the House who just asked if I filed my return, no, but I will be shortly. It is so complicated.

The head start program that is currently in Moncton, New Brunswick was modelled after similar programs in Hawaii and Michigan. These programs do not address the economic situation of the parents as much as they address the social aspect and the interplay between the parent and the child.

My concern with some of Bill C-244 is that it does have the potential to benefit some families, depending on incomes, significantly more than other families. I would favour, for instance, the member's earlier initiative of the tax credit. I think that is far fairer in many ways.

I urge this House to continue to work in a multi-partisan way to develop solutions. When we hear a member of the Reform Party talking about a head start program, I think that is very positive. When I see a member of the Liberal Party developing policies relative to the task, I see that we are all looking for the same end although we may differ on the means. However, I suggest we continue this dialogue and continue to develop, debate, discuss and implement policies that will work.

We are again concerned about further complicating the tax code. There is a strong argument to be made that there is a current punitive treatment of families trying to do the right thing for their families. Perhaps that playing field needs to be levelled in the short term. Tax reform of this nature is better than no tax reform at all. However, let us keep our eye on the ball for the long term.

The best policies in the long term involve a simpler, fairer and less complicated tax code which benefits all Canadians and a government that is not afraid to invest strategically in the needs that face Canadians as we enter the 21st century at a time when it is more important than ever in a global knowledge based society that our young people are provided with the best opportunities in the world, that we have a society that is not only prosperous but fair, that the equality of opportunity is not just a phrase but a fact in Canada and that we are not having debates on child poverty in this House 10 years from now.

[Hepatitis C, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this government is running out of provinces to hide behind.

Canadians were unable to bank their own blood before 1986 and had no control over whether they were infected with tainted blood. But the health minister and the Prime Minister do not care about that. They care more about class action suits. It is not the first time they have dragged innocent people through the mud for class action suits. They should be doing the right thing and they refuse to.

I ask the Prime Minister, the next time he appoints a Minister of Health, will he appoint a doctor instead of a lawyer?

[Hepatitis C, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are on their way back to town. My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. How much is this vote on a mere motion going to cost Canadian taxpayers? What are the travel costs to fly ministers, members, other sheep and staff back from their junkets around the globe and return after this vote? Why could those dollars not have been put where they should have gone, to hepatitis C victims?

Instead of earning frequent flyer points perhaps the Liberals could earn points with ordinary Canadians—

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that although Quebec has been strongly supportive of free trade, I come from a province that was in free trade prior to Confederation. We have some contributions and agree with the member on that.

Smaller countries have more to gain from liberalized trade in many ways than some of the larger countries. That has been demonstrated in almost every equation, such as in the access to larger markets, especially for a country like Canada where it is absolutely essential.

In terms of the support within Quebec for free trade, I would expect that the support would be there and will continue to be there. The benefit has effectively led to the tripling of exports since 1988.

I appreciate the member's intervention. I look forward to continuing this dialogue elsewhere.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention from the hon. member.

I have tremendous concern about the gap between the rich and poor. In the U.S. there is the gated community concept. Families and individuals live in gated communities. They pay for their children's private education, private hospitals and their own security service. They live in gated communities which are effectively insulated from the public at large. They do not really care about what goes on outside their communities.

Capitalism without the effective interventions of the state in areas of health care and education is not sustainable. I mentioned Karl Marx and said that he may have been right about unfettered capitalism but he was wrong about communism. The communist system arguably would not have a tremendous gap between the rich and the poor because everybody would be poor. However, I do not think that is the most effective system either.

I again commend the member for Lac-Saint-Jean for having initiated this debate. The benefit is that we have the opportunity to debate in a very philosophical and concrete way important policy initiatives. We are able to look at the problem very seriously.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

The Liberal Party has been consistently inconsistent in its trade policy. Recently the Minister for International Trade said the Liberal Party was on the vanguard of the rising anxieties of the free trade agreement of 1988. In fact the Liberals were the leaders of the anti free trade movement in 1988. Now the Liberals cannot get enough free trade. In fact they like it so much they do not feel it is important to negotiate or to engage Canadians in these discussions. That is how much they like free trade.

We actually have some commitment to commitment. They are born again free traders. Now with the public opposition mounting they are posturing against the MAI agreement. Or at least they are indicating in a very public sense that they have some difficulties with it when in fact privately they do not have a great enough understanding of it to have any opposition to it.

The PC Party believes that a good multilateral investment agreement could benefit all Canadians. However we do not believe that any agreement at any cost without any negotiation or consultation with Canadians is the right agreement. The lack of public consultation within Canada on the MAI is appalling. The motion today has helped us bring to light some of this lack of consultation.

It is important that we have public debate on this kind of issue. Public debate is the best way to dispel some of the arguments put forth by some of the most vociferous opponents and indeed proponents of the MAI. There is common ground between these two extremes. That is why the PC Party asked the subcommittee on the MAI to table the agreement before parliament 15 days before it was ratified by cabinet. The idea was taken from a bill introduced by Alexander Downer, the Australian minister of foreign affairs, in the Australian parliament in 1996. This became the Australian model for treaty negotiations.

The Bloc motion claims an agreement like the MAI would weaken legislative rights. That is why the PC Party introduced a recommendation to the MAI subcommittee to conduct a full impact analysis of the effect the MAI would have on our federal, provincial and municipal programs.

The Bloc's motion blames globalization for the growing gap between rich and poor around the world. Globalization is not the largest contributing factor to this dangerous spread between the rich and the poor. Globalization is not all bad nor is it all good. It is like most things. It brings risk and it brings opportunities.

The Americas and Europe have come to see the benefits of trade union rights and child labour legislation but they have become wealthy enough to absorb those costs. Without the expansion of liberalized trade, the engine of job growth, workers in underdeveloped countries may never have that same opportunity.

Liberalized trade is the most effective lever that developing countries have to bootstrap themselves into a decent standard of living, the decent standard of living we take for granted in this country. Free trade critics argue that globalization pushes labour offshore to cheaper markets when in fact the majority of foreign investment flows between rich countries, or flows between rich countries in search of markets, not poor economies offering cheap labour.

The effect of globalization forces free trading economies to increase labour flexibility. For those countries that increase their labour flexibility, it allows them to react quickly and adapt to shift people and resources away from declining industries and toward growing ones.

This motion should not be about the fear of liberalized trade and its perceived effect on the gap between rich and poor. Free trade has not been the cause of the increase in this gap, and there is very little substantive or credible data to support that argument.

If one looks at the export levels of Quebec in 1988 before the FTA and in 1996, exports have increased from $16 billion to $40 billion. Those exports are extremely important to Quebec. Those figures have helped to stabilize the employment levels in Quebec, not destabilize them.

If we are serious about child poverty in Canada, perhaps we should be working together to create an economy that works in a country that works. We know full well the cost of separatism, the debate on separatism and the cost to children and all people in Quebec in terms of poverty. We should be very careful that we are not blaming the wrong demon when we talk about child poverty.

Bloc members should be reminded that their PQ cousins in Quebec have vowed to remain part of NAFTA if separation occurs. They understand full well that NAFTA has benefited Quebec as it has benefited Canada.

The most important contributing factor to the gap between rich and poor has been a global transitional economy from the resource and manufacturing based economies to the information technology and knowledge based economies. This gap between rich and poor has been exacerbated at this critical and pivotal time in this paradigm shift by the cuts in the health and education transfers made by the Liberal government in Ottawa.

A new study which came out recently states that after the changes were made to the unemployment insurance fund, only 36% of unemployed Canadians now actually collect EI. The 35% decrease in health care, welfare and education funding to the provinces invoked by the Liberal government has disproportionately affected the poorest of Canadians. It has denied the poorest Canadians equality of opportunity which is fundamental.

We believe in the free enterprise system. We believe it is the best system for all Canadians. For the free enterprise system to be sustainable, all Canadians need access to the levers of the free enterprise system. They need a strong health care system. They need a strong education system.

Unfettered capitalism is not sustainable, nor is unfettered socialism. A balanced free enterprise system with a sound education and health care system is the best system for everybody. It could be argued that Marx was wrong about unfettered communism, but he may have been right about unfettered capitalism.

We need to ensure that a balanced approach which combines lower taxes, globalized opportunities in trade and strong health care and education systems is a recipe that will not only benefit Canadians but will benefit children around the world.

The cuts the Liberal government has inflicted on ordinary Canadians and the poorest of Canadians have affected the access of young Canadians to the opportunities provided in a global knowledge based economy as we enter the 21st century.

If we are really serious about addressing child poverty in Canada, I have some suggestions. I reiterate that we should support and continue to seek solutions to this problem. The government should work toward this.

We must utilize a progressive trade policy and a progressive free enterprise domestic economic policy. The combination of those two policies will first of all ensure that Canadians have opportunities to participate in the global economy and second, that they are not burdened by intrusive government in Canada which denies them the opportunity to participate effectively in that global economy.

I would suggest as well that we work together across Canada toward a national unity agreement that works and stop this endless debate on the national unity issue. We must work to stop the tremendous cost that has been borne by ordinary Canadians and ordinary Quebeckers for the separatist movement over the past 20 years.

We must start working together to build economic bridges across Canada and economic bridges around the world which will benefit young people in Canada and around the world.

If we work seriously toward those ends we will all be better served. In fact all Canadians will be better served by constructive policies coming from all sides of this House.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the member for Lac-Saint-Jean for the intent of this motion. While we may differ on the means, we agree on the end. We would like to eradicate child poverty in Canada. Progressive Conservatives recognize that one of the best levers to eradicate child poverty, not only within Canada but globally, is liberalized trade.

It was a Progressive Conservative government that led Canada into the free trade agreement in 1988 and the NAFTA in 1993. In fact if members want to talk about transparency and about openness and engagement, there was a federal election fought in 1988 on the free trade agreement. Compare that to the secrecy of the current MAI discussions and negotiations, Canada's participation and lack of consultation within Canada.

[Depository Bills And Notes Act, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to recognize that when we are discussing an extremely dry piece of legislation many people in this House are possibly not particularly interested in delving into the intricacies or the details of it.

One of the most important or interesting areas relative to this legislation is that it originated in the Senate. Recently in his speech, ostensibly on Nunavut, the Leader of the Opposition focused his speech on the need for Senate reform. He engaged in an extended series of character assassinations of many people in the other place, many of the Senators, and engaged in what many senators and also many members of this House found to be offensive.

The important thing to recognize is that while we do have a Senate and that while we do have an upper chamber, that Senate is to be and should be utilized to provide service and expertise on this type of technical legislation to the Canadian taxpayer.

Other members have outlined the purpose of this bill and it is effectively to facilitate the settlement of securities for which the investor does not actually take physical possession. I will not go into great detail about the substance of the legislation. That has been covered quite thoroughly.

Department officials have said that the Depository Bills and Notes Act is a technical piece of legislation needed to support improvements in the efficiency of capital markets in Canada. I would agree with the Reform member speaking earlier relative to the risk given the millennium or the year 2000 factor.

Earlier today I was reading Edward Yardeni, a leading economist from New York. He suggested the year 2000 problem is far more serious than governments like to admit, partially because governments fear the eventual law suits that could emanate from the year 2000 problem. This legislation has the potential to increase the exposure of Canada's financial marketplace to the year 2000 problem and this government has yet to make a serious credible commitment to address this issue.

That the bill was introduced in the Senate should give some of our colleagues in the Reform Party some evidence of the importance, necessity and value of the contribution made by our upper chamber.

The Senate had meaningful committee meetings on this piece of legislation, as we will hear. It even introduced and passed an amendment to clarify the bill. Frankly, on this type of legislation, on financial services, economics or regulatory issues, the Senate is a bountiful supply of knowledge and expertise. The Senate is a valuable resource we should utilize in this House to benefit all Canadians.

To the chagrin of the Leader of the Opposition even his own caucus members have suggested we use the Senate more. In a recent finance committee meeting, the chair announced he was asked recently in writing by the member from Prince George—Bulkley Valley to strike a joint committee between the House of Commons and the Senate finance committee to study the bank merger issue more thoroughly.

I commend the member from Prince George—Bulkley Valley, a Reform MP, for recognizing the institutional knowledge and expertise we have in the Senate of Canada. Taxpayers are already footing the bill for a bicameral government. Why deny Canadian taxpayers the full benefit of their investment in this system? Why does the Reform Party not suggest utilizing the Senate more at this juncture instead of less? Let us make sure Canadian taxpayers are getting their money's worth.

The Senate has introduced some very meaningful legislation recently, including Senator Kenny's tobacco legislation and Bill S-3, which I have already commented on.

Some people will even argue that while the Senate may not be elected it has offered a more effective opposition to the government in the past five years than the official opposition parties in this House. The Senate has also held important and useful debates on electoral boundary redistribution, the Divorce Act, the Newfoundland school issue and assistance for post-secondary education.

Instead, some of the opposition parties have voiced strong concern over this practice of introducing legislation in the Senate. In fact when I consider the amount of time the Reform Party has taken recently to pontificate on the role of the Senate in a parliamentary democracy I tend to think that we have lost a lot of good opportunities for meaningful debates about the real issues in this House.

It is the same Senate that the Leader of the Opposition's father sat in for a number of years. It seems strange to me that someone would go to such lengths to attack a Canadian institution that one's father was actually a member of. I noticed a particularly interesting statement in the Ottawa Citizen made by the Leader of the Opposition's father in defence of the Senate in 1981. In that statement he said:

We constitute more than a chamber of sober second thought. We have been appointed to represent our respective provinces in this House. We have been selected to provide the necessary checks and balances on a parliamentary structure where representation by population results in imbalances that invite the kind of abuse of parliamentary majority power that we are witnessing today.

The Leader of the Opposition contradicts his father's remarks when he speaks as he did last week and said that members of the Senate do not represent provincial or regional interests. I feel it is very important to recognize that our Senate can, should and will, if utilized, provide the necessary leadership, judgment and expertise we need, especially with this type of legislation.

When the Leader of the Opposition was speaking about the Nunavut legislation he engaged in a number of character assassinations. It was unfortunate to hear some of the inaccuracies and the really incredible allegations that he made. After he would attack a member of the Upper Chamber at great length, he would then engage in a bit of a disclaimer and say “Far be it for me to judge that particular member”, when he knew that his words were nothing but character assassinations in vitriol.

I had an opportunity recently to visit the official website of the Reform Party where I read inflammatory and factually incorrect statements about members of the Senate. I could only surmise that the Reform Party has compromised its own position in terms of hate literature on the Internet when in fact it is using the Internet to spread factually incorrect, inflammatory and what I consider to be dangerous character assassinations via the Internet.

It is unfortunate that more members of this House do not recognize the contribution that the Senate has made and can continue to make to this type of legislation. Our party believes and has laid out certain ideas that can be implemented sooner rather than later, including the provinces putting forward lists of names for the Prime Minister to choose from when he is making the Senate appointments and limiting the term of a senator to 10 years.

Indeed, it was our party and the Conservative government under the leadership of Brian Mulroney that appointed the late Stan Waters to the Senate.

In the interim, until we have Senate reform, all members of this House should continue to work on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers to ensure that we are maximizing the level of expertise that we have in the Upper Chamber to provide the maximum level of benefit to the Canadian taxpayer by providing the types of legislation that will benefit the Canadian taxpayer as we enter the 21st century.

[Taxation, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we need to address this problem. Almost every member of the House has rural communities that are dealing with this issue. It is a problem that crosses party lines.

The Liberal government chose to extend benefits to urban firefighters without considering the deduction for their rural cousins. Rural firefighters across Canada deserve the same benefits as urban firefighters. They risk their lives in the same manner and deserve the same type of benefit and treatment as their rural counterparts.

This Liberal government has refused to assist in addressing this problem. We really hope it reaches out and tries to do better for the rural firefighters of Canada.

[Taxation, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this year's budget announced an increase in the emergency services volunteer tax free allowance. The difficulty is that unless they receive remuneration for their services, volunteers cannot claim any tax deduction. Typically urban volunteer firefighters receive some form of remuneration while rural firefighters do not.

Why is the government treating rural volunteer firefighters as second class cousins compared to urban firefighters? Will the minister offer a tax deduction to rural firefighters as well?