Scott Brison

[Canada Pension Plan, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week the government appointed 12 directors to the new CPP Investment Board. Directors Mary Arnold, Dale Parker, Joseph Regan, Richard Thompson and board chair Gail Cook Bennet have all made substantial contributions to the Liberal Party either personally or through their own companies.

Is this another example of Liberal political interference in the Canada pension plan? Are Canada Pension Plan Investment Board seats for sale by the Liberal Party?

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important as we enter the 21st century and as we are poised to participate in a global knowledge based society that we debating the issue of e-commerce and the issues of the Internet in the House.

We need to create in Canada domestic policies that provide an opportunity to Canadians not only to compete globally but to succeed globally. That means more than simply changing our approach to e-commerce. That means creating domestic economic policies that succeed and allow Canadians to succeed. That means effecting change in the structural barriers we have to competitiveness and productivity in the Canadian economy, eliminating interprovincial trade barriers, reducing the tax burden, reducing the regulatory burdens and allowing Canadians to grasp the levers of the free market in a global sense.

This new world of globalization that has been demonized as of late due to some failures in domestic economies represents more opportunities to Canadians than threats. But we have to ensure that the policies we create and the legislation we pass in this House are able to guide Canadians and this very important industry for Canadians into the 21st century.

This is particularly relevant if we consider the very sparse population over a large country. We have already demonstrated because of that situation and the position Canadians are in an ability to succeed in e-commerce. My part of the country, Nova Scotia, has one of the fastest growing high tech industries in the country. We are succeeding because of the quality of life issues, the death of distance as a determinate in the cost of telecommunications and our proximity to markets like New York and Boston.

Now we, as legislators, have to work with our provincial legislatures to ensure that we create policies that allow provinces like Nova Scotia, Alberta and Manitoba to succeed in this environment.

I agree with the principles of trying to at least come to grips with regulating the Internet. It is extremely important that we come to grips with this challenge. It is not a matter of whether we come to grips with the challenge but it is how we will do it.

the Internet is a lot like an adolescent in some ways. Governments are seeking to treat the industry as an adolescent, to try to create rules to control this adolescent.

When we are parenting or creating regulations for adolescents we have to realize that adolescents are in a period of change and transition. This industry is in a period of change and transition. It is important that we do not create rules and regulations that reflect the realities today but that are not adaptable to the realities of tomorrow because this industry is changing extraordinary quickly.

We have to balance this whole privacy issue. Privacy versus consumer protection is going to become increasingly important. They need not be mutually exclusive in what we do. There will be stresses to make it very difficult, particularly if we consider the global consequences of what we do relative to the Internet.

I can look at something on the Internet from Finland, for example. Finland may be guided by completely different rules than Australia. If we look at something from Finland, we may as Canadians be looking at a medium that is controlled by completely different legislation from something from Australia. It is very important that we do not deal with this complex global issue in isolation.

Canada has an opportunity, I would argue an obligation, to pursue this on a global basis through the OECD perhaps and to demonstrate the type of strength that Canada has been able to demonstrate in the past as a middle power as being very effective in guiding the changes necessary to ensure we balance privacy versus protection in this industry.

I was interested in hearing the comments of my colleague in the Reform Party. It is interesting because the Reform Party is averse to regulation in this area because it may lead to tax. It is kind of a difficult position in some ways for some members of the Reform Party. In a sense as the party of social enslavement and economic freedom, it brings the whole contradiction of its policies into line because effectively it wants to give people all kinds of freedom with their cheque books but it wants to control what they do in their own homes. There is an inherent contradiction in those policies, in particular when we are dealing with issues like the Internet.

I point that out because as the party of economic and social freedom, our party will be consistently vigilant in defending the rights of Canadians to succeed in a free market and to also enjoy freedoms in their own homes and with their families and in their country, the types of human rights absolutely necessary to the quality of life in this country.

It is extraordinarily important that we address the fundamental economic issues as well as the tax issues relative to e-commerce. I received recently a briefing on some of the e-commerce tax issues. These are becoming increasingly difficult, in particular with complex financial instruments like derivatives. How are we as regulators going to track these increasingly complex financial instruments? How can we tax these financial instruments and these exchanges through commerce?

Although I do not have all the answers I probably have more than some members opposite. We need to work collectively, not only within the House but with all our provincial counterparts and in a global sense with other countries, to ensure we are creating regulations for the Internet that will grow and will not inhibit our opportunities in this extraordinarily important area in which Canadians can prosper and succeed in protecting the privacy of Canadians.

At this juncture we are debating the MacKay task force and discussing changes in the Canadian financial services sector. No other sector has been as dominated by technology as the Canadian financial services sector. We are grappling with the idea of trying to control the Canadian financial sector. We are trying to create a balance between competitiveness, consumer protection and the success of our financial services sector into the 21st century. We must recognize that this industry is controlled largely by changes in technology.

Some people have bank branch myopia. They somehow think the prevalent provider of banking services is still the bank branch. It may be now but in 10 years we will find it difficult to explain to a new generation that we used to go to a bank branch to withdraw money and to talk to a loans officer. More and more of these functions will increasingly be done in front of a computer terminal. That is why any legislation debated in the House needs to consider the incredibly dynamic risks and opportunities of this new medium of e-commerce through the Internet.

We will miss the point if we ignore the impact of technology on sectors like the financial services sector and if we pursue policies and procedures like the Liberal witch hunt on the banking industry that was conducted last summer. The Liberals are wont to sacrifice good public policy at the pyre of political palatability. That is the Liberal way.

I commend my colleagues opposite. There has been a proselytization that should be commended. As we debate e-commerce in a global environment, we should remember that it was not that many years ago that many members opposite fought vociferously against the free trade agreement which paved the way to allow Canadians to compete and succeed in the 21st century. It was our party that was proud and steadfast in defending the principles of free trade and in defending the opportunities for Canadians to compete in the 21st century.

I suggest David Orchard would find a more natural home among the social and economic Luddites opposite.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned John Palmer. Last night it was demonstrated that John Palmer, the former boss of Bernard Dussault, is being muzzled by the government.

Last night when I asked Mr. Palmer about the soundness of the Canada pension plan, about the case review committee and about Bernard Dussault's firing, Mr. Palmer asked the chairman of finance committee whether he could answer the question and the answer was no. He was muzzled and I was cut off from asking a legitimate question.

Why is there a conspiracy to muzzle? Why is the Canadian government hiding the truth about the Canada pension plan?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada pension plan is being tainted by Liberal political interference.

Bernard Dussault the former chief watchdog of the plan was fired because he refused to be muzzled by the finance minister's information police, the case review committee which screens all requests for their political sensitivity.

Dussault was asked twice to fudge the numbers to make the minister look better. Dussault objected. He was fired. Why the cover-up? Will the government tell the truth to Canadians about why it fired the man who knew too much?

[Tax On Financial Transactions, October 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague in the New Democratic Party for having brought forward this issue to the House of Commons.

When James Tobin introduced the concept of a Tobin tax 20 years ago it did not make much of a ripple, which were his words. In fact, it sank like a rock. Periodically we hear about a Tobin tax and the idea flares up again typically during times of economic turmoil.

In the current context, with $1.3 trillion traded daily in global capital markets, it has raised its head again similar to the Loch Ness monster. Periodically this monster pops up. Some people see it, typically during periods of turmoil.

I think the hon. member has done us a service by bringing the issue forward so that we can debate and discuss the Tobin tax in the House. I have significant concerns about the Tobin tax. Not that I do not recognize the importance of developing market controls or developing some way to effect the prevention of the types of financial disasters we have seen in Southeast Asia, prior to that in Mexico and with the Barings Bank and some of the spinoffs of that debacle, or BCNI. These types of disasters have been very damaging to economies not only within the sovereign borders of those states where they emanated from but in a global sense.

I do disagree with the concept of a Tobin tax. I feel there is a certain amount of economic naivety that ignores some of the unintended consequences of this type of tax. One of the important things we must seek to protect in a global knowledge based society is the efficiencies of our capital markets. Those efficiencies can benefit in many ways as opposed to hurt.

In recent weeks and months we have seen the Asian crisis and the resulting difficulties. We should not be asking whether Tobin taxes could have prevented the Asian crisis because arguably they could have or other arguments say they could not have, but we should be asking why currency speculators found an opportunity to begin with in those Asian countries. The fact is governments in southeast Asia were operating fiscal policies inconsistent with their monetary policies.

By global speculators seeing this inconsistency, finding an opportunity to make money and investing as such they corrected an inherent wrong in those economies much more quickly than would have occurred if we had a Tobin tax. It is kind of like would we prefer as a country with structural deficiencies in our economy either fiscal or monetary to sit on the curb bleeding to death or get hit by a bus and be taken to the hospital. The fact is that currency speculators, and arguably they are like a bus, draw very quickly global attention on some of these hemorrhaging economies and cause us to fix them a lot faster with the types of tenable, long term, sustainable, market driven solutions which ultimately will prove to be the best.

Mr. Tobin referred to the tax initially as throwing sand in the wheels of international finance. I suggest those people who believe we can through something like the Tobin tax throw sand in the wheels of international finance may have their heads in the sand. It is a huge global enterprise that Canadians can participate in and one that Canadians can succeed in if we create the appropriate incentives and structural elements in the Canadian economy and efficiencies to do so. The Tobin tax would work against us.

The idea of imposing a tax on foreign exchange transactions sounds fairly innocent, making speculation more costly and in proposals supporters claim that would inhibit speculation. The question we have to ask ourselves is if speculation can cause corrections which ultimately eliminate government ability to make the wrong decisions and to create or to pursue fiscally profligate policies that are in the long term unsustainable, whether we really want to stop that. The idea of financial tax to rebuff financial markets pops up periodically and most economists reckon that a Tobin tax would not work nor would it be desirable. The main problem is enforceability.

Even if we had each OECD country sign on, which would be a big step, trading would simply move off shore to Singapore or other countries such as the Cayman Islands or somewhere else which would see a tremendous opportunity. The tax would have to cover a whole range of financial transactions, not just foreign exchange trading.

One of the most difficult financial transactions to actually track and one that would be almost impossible for a Tobin tax to effect would be derivatives. Derivatives and other increasingly complex financial instruments are becoming increasingly prevalent in the global markets and the Tobin tax would not be able to effect change.

I could spend 20 minutes describing the Tobin tax and my difficulties with it. The UN describes the Tobin tax as a sort of Luddite proposal in terms of its intention to reverse the general decline in the cost of international financial transactions. We should be looking at some of the things that we could do and I am glad this debate has come to the House. Some of the things we should do is work with the IMF to improve reporting such that we see more quickly situations developing in countries. We can improve the reporting of governments. We can improve openness and transparency of government policies, directly inconsistent with what this government has done.

If we look at the dollar debacle of this summer when this government was blaming currency speculators, the Prime Minister was behaving similar to President Suharto. He was blaming currency speculators for the weakness in Canadian currency when the structural impediments to Canadian productivity in this economy are the real culprits. It is not the currency speculators. It is governments that pursue economic policies that are unrealistic and governments that do not maintain the type of transparency and openness with the international markets to make them aware of the types of things they are doing that reduce their credibility and ultimately lead to issues like the systemic decline in the Canadian dollar or in issues in southeast Asia where monetary policy was inconsistent with the fiscal policy.

[Agriculture, October 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, an emergency debate was held this week in the Nova Scotia legislature to debate the crisis faced by Nova Scotia farmers who have suffered their second consecutive severe summer drought.

The summer of 1997 was the driest growing season in nearly 40 years and 1998 has been even worse. The effects of the drought are extensive, including reduced milk production, reduced apple, vegetable, berry and potato crops. Higher feed crops are now threatening our beef industry.

The economic hardship for farmers is extraordinarily serious. Many will soon be on the verge of bankruptcy. Federal support programs like NISA are simply not meeting the needs of Atlantic Canadian farmers in crisis. Immediate financial assistance is essential to prevent many from going out of business.

This is no time for finger pointing between federal and provincial governments. Both levels of government must respond immediately to the crisis facing the Nova Scotia agricultural industry.

I urge this government to immediately assist these farmers in crisis.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today before the House to address Bill C-55, the Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act.

First I want to state my position relative to issues including trade. Our party continues to support and believe in the intrinsic strength of trade. We recognize that if we are to enable Canadians to prosper in a global and increasingly competitive environment we need to seek ways to attach the hands of Canadians to the levers of opportunity.

We should not try to protect them from all the risks of globalization if in doing so we prevent them from participating in the opportunities and the rewards potentially gained from full and unfettered participation.

That being the case, we have strong reservations about unfettered free market dogma that may denigrate or reduce our ability to protect our culture. The Conservative government of the past with the free trade agreement sought to protect culture. We recognize that Canadian culture, particularly with a relatively small population—effectively we are a mouse sleeping next to an elephant—is in a unique situation.

We cannot take a cookie cutter approach or some type of economic dogma that will effectively say how we should pursue this. We can believe in free trade. We can believe in achieving success in a global environment and still stand in this parliament to protect the ability of Canadians to speak to each other through cultural vehicles like the Canadian magazine industry.

I believe many of us in this House feel quite strongly about the MAI, that there is a need for and significant benefit to be derived from a multilateral agreement on investment. However, that does not mean any multilateral agreement on investment. There were some serious flaws in the MAI and culture may not have been adequately protected under it. That was the objection France took to the MAI.

That being the case, I believe it is in the best interests of all Canadians for parliamentarians and this government to work toward a multilateral agreement on investment.

It is important before we pursue trade agreements that we increase the level of dialogue between Canadians and their governments. That is why we need to follow the model of the Australian government which in 1996 introduced the Australian model for treaty negotiation which increased significantly the dialogue between the federal and provincial governments. In fact municipal governments should be consulted as well because these governments are affected significantly by the federal government's engagement in trade treaty processes and deserve to be consulted.

If we do that we will help decrease the demonization that has occurred because of globalization. If we open up the process to Canadians and allow them to see clearly that globalization is not all bad we will achieve far more than the current behind closed doors strategy that the government is pursuing.

The government developed this piece of legislation to help protect our Canadian magazine industry following last October's WTO ruling against Canadian imposed excise tax and custom tariffs on split run magazines entering from the U.S. In the ruling the WTO maintained that these measures contravened existing international free trade agreements.

Bill C-55 is a very important piece of legislation. Aside from providing support to our Canadian magazine publishers it sends a clear message to all Canadians that we are intent on protecting and maintaining our cultural sovereignty in the midst of ever increasing pressures from global forces, particularly, as I mentioned before, the U.S. I described it as being analogous to a mouse next to an elephant and in a cultural sense that is very accurate.

The pop culture which emanates from the U.S. is very difficult to compete with, but I would argue that our Canadian cultural policies have resulted in some significant successes by providing an incubational cultural setting to musicians such as Sarah McLachlan, Bryan Adams or K.D. Lang who have gone on to become very successful. These individuals started as a result of cultural policies in Canada which enabled them to grow and develop their skills in the Canadian marketplace first.

The Canadian magazine industry is similar to that. We want to protect our cultural integrity in Canada. It has been a major priority of any trade discussion. Conservative governments fought to protect culture in trade discussions as early as 1988. Most recently the stumbling block in the MAI for both Canada and France was largely due to the reticence of OECD partners to engage in more stringent protection for cultural industries.

It is very important to note that the WTO in its decision was not questioning Canada's right to protect its cultural industries. It objected to a policy that directly targeted U.S. magazines. Rather than target U.S. magazines directly, Bill C-55 will focus its attention on putting restraints on advertising services. Essentially, Bill C-55 will restrict the sale of advertising directed at the Canadian market to Canadian publications.

It should be noted that U.S. magazines can still sell Canadian advertising in their magazines. However, these advertisements must appear throughout their North American publications. They cannot be solely targeted toward the Canadian market.

The bill contains provisions that would allow the government to impose stiff fines as high as $250,000 on foreign publishers who contravene this legislation.

This is a very complex issue and Bill C-55 seeks to address it. I am somewhat concerned about the ability of legislation of this type to control or to effectively try to regulate what is going to become an increasingly difficult industry to regulate. Magazines are one thing. The Internet is another. Increasingly Canadians are going to be reading publications, newspapers, magazines and books on their computers.

These are questions we have to ask. They deserve significant diligence, research and rigour to ensure that we develop public policies that are not only relevant in 1998 but are relevant as we enter the 21st century.

I believe that Bill C-55 is the right legislation now. We have significant concerns about the bill and, hopefully, they can be resolved. We have concerns about the effects of harmonizing commercial postal rates, which I will elaborate on later in my discussion.

Some people may be wondering why we should impose measures to protect our Canadian magazine industry. Reform members have expressed their consternation that we would try to protect the Canadian magazine industry. Reform has 60 culture critics in its caucus. Unfortunately most Canadians do not share their views that Canadian culture should not be protected. We feel very strongly about this in our caucus. That may be one of the defining differences between a Progressive Conservative and Reform leadership at this juncture.

There are very important reasons for us to protect this particular industry. The Canadian magazine industry employs a large number of Canadians and pumps millions of dollars into our economy. It provides employment opportunities to thousands of Canadians. Many of our most distinguished writers have developed their skills through the Canadian magazine industry and have gone on to succeed internationally.

The Canadian market is one of the most open markets in the world for imported magazines. Imports account for 50% of magazine sales in Canada and over 80% of newsstand space. To say that somehow we have inordinate amounts of protection for the Canadian magazine industry which is preventing foreign publications from entering is an easily debunked argument.

Despite the intense competition from foreign magazines, Canadian magazines continue to attract their share of viewers, allowing them to compete in a very competitive industry. At this stage, without this type of legislation, we would not be able to ensure that Canadian magazines would survive.

I look at it from a national unity perspective as well. It is very important for us to protect our ability as Canadians to converse with each other. The Canadian magazine industry plays a very important cultural role in defining who we are as a people and where we stand as a nation. Culture defines our beliefs and our values.

We are not automatically born with a culture. We may be born into a culture, but it is something we learn. It is a nurturing thing. It is one of the things I treasure as a Canadian.

One of the cultural entities I treasure as a Canadian is the CBC. That is another defining difference between a Progressive Conservative and Reform leadership at this juncture, although Reform has a lot of very good members, all of whom will be welcomed into our ranks after Saturday.

We need Canada's magazine industry to prosper so that future generations of young Canadians have the opportunity to learn more about their country and to gain a better understanding of peoples across this great nation. One of the things Canada suffers as a sparsely populated, large geographic mass is that there is not enough opportunity for our peoples to speak with each other and learn more about each other. One of the ways to facilitate that is to protect our magazine industry.

The member for West Nova, a member of our caucus, is on the heritage committee and has studied this issue at length. I always have some concerns about measures that may be viewed as being protectionist. In discussions with him I have learned a great deal about the uniqueness of the Canadian magazine industry and the importance of this industry to our culture, to our young Canadians and to our education system. I share his views that the magazine industry needs to be protected.

Successive governments have implemented laws designed to help Canadian publishers gain sufficient advertising dollars to remain competitive in this market. The issue beginning in 1993 with Sports Illustrated opened the door to competition that would have gutted the Canadian magazine industry if it were allowed to go ahead unfettered.

If we look at the fact that Canadian publishers rely on advertising revenue for anywhere from 65% to 100% of their income, it is imperative that we intervene to protect them against potential competition from U.S. competitors in this very important cultural sector.

Advertising plays a pivotal role in modern day society. It has increasingly become a cornerstone of communication. We are seeing it everywhere. Prior to radio and TV, magazines could depend on receiving the bulk of advertising revenue. However, they have since struggled to maintain their own niche and their own market to survive.

Advertising has changed in the last 10 years more than it has changed in the last 60 years. I would argue that due to technology and emerging global markets we are going to see the Canadian magazine industry and the entire media changing so rapidly that in a fairly short period of time we are going to have to evaluate the real needs and how we are going to go about protecting Canadian culture in the future.

It is going to become increasingly difficult. We have to become more rigorous. We need to work with other countries, particularly countries with a small population base, to develop strategies to protect their cultural interests. At the same time we do not want to hold them back or handcuff them to the Luddite mentality that somehow trade is going to hurt the country. Trade is not the enemy here. However, unfettered global forces, when an incubational industry is not ready, can have a demonstrably negative effect on a particular industry or sector. What we are saying is that we need a transitional strategy to allow Canadian publications to get to the next step.

At some point, and it is already happening, Canadian cultural entities cannot only compete globally but can succeed beyond our wildest dreams globally. However, it takes an incubational structure to allow that to occur in a large country with a very small group of people. We must never forget that.

One size does not fit all in economic policy; one size does not fit all in trade policy. With the combined impact of globalization and what has been in some areas unfettered market forces, we must be careful to ensure we attach people's hands to the labours of the global opportunities and that we provide people with the opportunities to succeed in a global environment. It may be such a thing that Marx may have been wrong about communism, but if we are not careful, it may prove that he was right about capitalism.

We have a great deal of work to do. While we continue to espouse, support and develop freer markets with greater trade opportunities, we must ensure that we do not forget the people we represent. We need to ensure they can compete and succeed in those markets.

It means things like a vibrant cultural industry. It means a strong set of educational policies in Canada to provide young Canadians with the skills to compete and to succeed in a global knowledge based society.

In the national unity context, we are about to see an election in Quebec. Many of us are watching this election, as we have watched those elections in the past, with a great deal of concern and interest. We need to ensure particularly in a national unity context at this critical juncture that we facilitate the ability of Canadians to speak to each other in a very profound way.

This is not the time for allowing the Canadian magazine industry to wither on the vine.

This bill is far from perfect. Despite having a full year to consult with the leading international trade experts, countless legal advisers and representatives from Canada's publishing industry, we find that a number of issues still need to be clarified.

As I mentioned earlier the postal rate changes could have adverse effects on small community based publications. Legion branches, which previously enjoyed postal rate subsidies, could be in danger of losing this assistance. That is a great concern. We do not do enough for our veterans. We need to work harder to support our veterans and our legions. The same could be said for members of religious denominations who provide their congregations with periodicals and updates of church activities.

Because those organizations are not charging their members for their materials, they are no longer entitled to direct postal rate subsidies as are other Canadian magazine publishers. This issue must be addressed by the minister either through amendments or regulations. I am certain the member for West Nova will be providing and promoting appropriate amendments for this.

The last section of the bill which relates to the grandfathering clause must be more clearly defined. As it stands, the bill appears to restrict important contributors to our Canadian magazine industry such as Reader's Digest and Time Warner from ever expanding their present interests to future investment possibilities. I understand that was not the nature or intent of the bill. We have to be careful in this House and in the other place to always beware of the law of unintended consequences and to be extremely careful, rigorous and thorough in the legislation we produce.

In short, we support, with some reservations, Bill C-55. We believe that Canadians need to compete and succeed in a global market, but at the same time we have a vibrant cultural industry in Canada that is too important to throw away.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right to recognize that if any leadership is to be provided on issues like interprovincial trade that leadership will come from provincial premiers due to the current vacuum at the federal level on leadership issues. He is quite right to recognize that we need a greater participation of the province in these areas, that the provinces must grab hold of these issues and make the changes necessary to guide us into the 21st century. Clearly his government has abdicated that level of leadership on the federal-provincial stage. I appreciate his input, his vision and his observation of this important trend. I hope he continues within his own caucus to urge this type of participation at the federal level in interprovincial trade issues, constitutional issues and taxation issues.

There was a time not that long ago when federal governments provided significant leadership on these types of issues. When that happened there was a very active policy and legislative agenda. It was place in the late eighties and the early nineties under Brian Mulroney who is deservedly receiving an Order of Canada today. That included a set of structural changes for the Canadian economy, changes like free trade, the elimination of the manufacturers sales tax and the deregulation of financial services and transportation. These changes led to this government's ability to eliminate the deficit.

I appreciate his recognition of the important role of federal leadership in many of these areas. I am optimistic that at some point as things change, and Saturday's events may be pivotal in this, there will be a time when the federal government may play this type of active role in making the required decisions and in working with the provinces by taking a leadership role. The government can cut spending to the provinces, it can offload many responsibilities but it cannot offload or downsize leadership.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right in recognizing that our member for Markham has a tremendous background in the computer industry, an inherent knowledge of e-commerce and in fact contributes on an ongoing basis at the industry committee.

The member raises an interesting issue with respect to provincial borders, state laws and the importance of working to eliminate these barriers.

I would argue that electronic commerce has the ability to do what governments have lacked the will and courage to do, and that is to reduce and eliminate interprovincial trade barriers in Canada. Interprovincial trade barriers cost Canadian jobs in a tradition sense. In fact, an increase of 10% in interprovincial trade would bring about 200,000 much needed jobs to Canadians. The whole concept of there being more trade barriers between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia than exist between Nova Scotia and Israel is absolutely absurd.

Yes, we do need to engage in an ongoing dialogue with other jurisdictions. Yes, we need to bring down trade barriers. But although e-commerce and the Internet will force the government's hand in a lot of areas, I suggest there is still no replacement for leadership. We need to move proactively as opposed to being moved by where the industry is going to take us. I think we should be looking ahead and actually trying to develop policies that reflect where we want to be taken by these industries.

I would also reflect briefly on what the member was saying about the growth of knowledge based industry in Nova Scotia. There is one company in Windsor, Nova Scotia, Orion Electronics, which is currently planning an expansion. Hugh Roddis of Orion Electronics chose Windsor because of the quality of life, the cost of living and the fact that he wanted his daughter to have the best education, and Kings-Edgehill, a private school in the area, offers an international baccalaureate program. He chose Windsor because he is in information technology. He does not have to be in Toronto, Boston or New York.

I would appreciate the member's feedback on this. Our entire economic development strategy for Atlantic Canada must be increasingly cognizant of the opportunities that we have, focusing on the depth of distances as a determinant in the cost of telecommunications argument and focusing our efforts on New England, New York, Boston and companies in other areas where people are looking for a better quality of life.

I would like to see from the government, frankly, an industrial strategy that is more holistic, that is more inclusive and that in fact represents economically sustainable long term vision for Atlantic Canada as opposed to a stop-gap approach.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-54. I typically speak on financial issues and I sit on the House of Commons finance committee.

I am intrinsically interested in the whole issue of e-commerce. I do not think we can deal with financial issues without considering the importance of e-commerce technology. This is particularly important when we are considering issues such as the MacKay task force because increasingly the global financial industry is being dominated by e-commerce.

We should consider how the world is changing and recognize that the changes are largely driven by information technology. We need to recognize that Canada can become a leader in cyberspace. To become that world leader and carry the title of the most connected nation, the government must conduct itself accordingly. We must be visionary. We need to strike a balance between the privacy of Internet users and the legitimate marketing efforts of Canadian businesses. If we make the right decisions Canada could be a leader in e-commerce.

Trust is at the centre of this entire exercise. Internet users need to trust the security safeguards put in place by online marketers. Canadian industry needs to trust that legislation will permit them to responsibly do business on line. Canadian taxpayers need to be assured that they are getting value for their money from their elected officials and that our work will develop a comprehensive, state of the art electronic commerce policy.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Canada is poised to become a world leader in e-commerce. As a large country with a huge geographic mass and a sparsely populated geographic mass we have developed many ways and means to service that mass. The Canadian banking industry, for example, is largely dominated by electronic commerce and has done a capable job of meeting the needs of communities across the country.

It should not be lost on our colleagues in the House today that Bill C-54 is in many ways the first step in our developing a regulatory infrastructure for electronic commerce. In many ways this is the 21st century equivalent of the first spike.

The first spike was the free trade agreement supported and spearheaded by my party back in 1988 when members opposite tended to be more Luddite in their approaches. We understand that was not necessarily dominated by their convictions economically but instead was driven by their convictions of political survival and what was politically palatable at the time. Hypocrisy being only half a mortal sin, I guess we should be tolerant of these transgressions.

The Internet continues to grow exponentially with implications for every Canadian business, government department and Canadian resident. The industry committee must continue to work in a diligent and, I would argue, non-partisan effort to achieve responsible legislation.

The issue goes well beyond the boundaries of the industry department. As I mentioned earlier I sit on the finance committee. The issues we are dealing with today, including the emerging changes to the Canadian financial services sector, are largely dominated by technology and information technology. Just as the Y2K bug issue impacts on every facet of government, we must recognize that the legislation we are debating today will impact on every level of government and all types of business.

E-commerce will have far more implications than just privacy issues. The government needs to come up with a comprehensive plan, one which addresses uniformity in the digital marketplace, online eavesdropping by security forces, public-private online relationships, competition, the role of small and medium enterprises, and Canadian heritage and culture. The list goes on and on.

I am in the process of reading a book by David Brin called Transparent Society: will technology force us to chose between privacy and freedom . Another book I read recently was the Death of Distance which is focused on the death of distance as a determinant in the cost of telecommunications.

These global forces are shaping our economy. It is extremely important for all of us in the House to be familiar with these forces so we can ensure Canadians are prepared to prosper in that economy.

One Canadian executive made an interesting observation on the issue. I think it bears repeating in the House. He said that a fax machine was only valuable when the rest of the world has a fax and that value explodes exponentially with membership.

Extending this advise logically, the corollary would be that the government must be very careful so as not to allow the Internet industry to falter. There is a fine line between too little oversight over issues of privacy and too much oversight. A tremendous regulatory burden exists now for Canadian business. It could threaten to stifle its potential to compete and prosper in an emerging e-commerce industry if the government were not rigorous in ensuring that the costs of regulatory burden would not exceed the purported benefits of the regulations.

Many industries are immune to Internet competition. When a family in Wolfville, Nova Scotia, which is in my riding, decides to have a Saturday night barbecue, it is unlikely they would turn to the Internet to supply their hamburger buns. It is probably more reasonable to assume that given the choice they would rather step into the warmth of a bakery to purchase their rolls.

Many consumer choices remain which can be reviewed and ordered in a visual pleasing format on a computer screen. Perhaps the message is that the butcher and baker are safe but the candlestick maker should beware.

There is no doubt that my analogy is somewhat simplistic, but it leads me to a discussion of the pending showdown between downtown and cybertown. As we balance our policies to protect the interests of downtown, we need to ensure that we do not prevent Canadians from participating in opportunities in cybertown.

There is a fine line between protecting Canadians against the risk of a global knowledge based society and preventing Canadians from participating fully in the opportunities of a global knowledge based society.

Incentives are a very intricate balance in the marketplace. Some are intrinsic such as the desire to be self-employed. Some are dominated by quality of life issues. For instance, with the death of distance as a determinant in the cost of communications, communities in places like rural Nova Scotia become increasingly attractive for people to live in.

People can choose where they work and where they shop. We must recognize they do not have to be in those places physically. I would promote that this represents an unprecedented economic development opportunity for remote communities. Information technology for Atlantic Canada could be the equivalent of what the shipbuilding industry was to Atlantic Canada during the age of sail, if we make the right policies.

The important issue to note is that where artificial incentives are created by legislation there is almost certainly an equal and opposite disincentive. The law of unintended consequences kicks in as government policy kicks in. The job of legislators should be to determine the disincentive and to debate it rationally.

Recently the federal revenue minister announced that the government was not interested in creating new taxes for e-commerce. Tentatively I wish to commend him on that position. Canadians have spoken loudly and clearly that we do not have a stomach for new taxes. Instead we should be looking for ways to reduce taxes and reduce the complexity of our current tax system.

The question we must ask ourselves is how we apply existing tax legislation in a fair, predictable and revenue neutral fashion. At the present time the situation exists whereby online retailers who are set up in Prince Edward Island and ship to provinces like Ontario are not required to collect sales taxes. Instead it is the consumer who is responsible to remit the sales tax to the province in which they reside. This may come as a shock to the revenue minister so I ask him to brace himself if he is listening. By and large I suspect these taxes are not being remitted.

This is not an insurmountable problem, however. Time and time again Canadian industry has shown its willingness to comply with the necessary regulations which allow government to collect the revenue needed to provide the services Canadian demand.

At issue is the interim situation. There appears to exist a marketplace where those who open storefronts, employ sales clerks and pay commercial property taxes will also have to endure a competitive disadvantage. They will be required to collect sales taxes that their online competitors may be able to escape. This situation should be addressed sooner rather than later. There should not exist a timetable for when tax regulations will be fair. Fairness must come as an inherent fundamental cornerstone in tax policy.

I have dealt with a purely domestic Internet tax issue. Now I want to turn our attention to taxation in the international marketplace. At the recent OECD e-commerce ministerial conference held in Ottawa much of the focus was on the principles of e-commerce taxation. There was fundamental agreement in five following areas.

The first was neutrality. This would see that the taxation would seek to be equitable and fair as it pertained to both e-commerce and traditional forms of commerces.

The second was efficiency. This would target compliance to ensure that it would meet the dual objectives of limiting costs and administration.

The third was certainty and simplicity. This would ensure that taxation levels and collection procedures are transparent and predictable.

The fourth was effectiveness and fairness. This would limit the potential avoidance and evasion and guarantee that the right amount of tax was collected at the right time.

The fifth was flexibility. This provision is included to assist legislators as they attempt to keep pace with emerging technologies.

These principles do not only apply to e-commerce but should apply to all types of taxation. Consistent with the Mintz report presented in June to the finance committee, we need to develop a fairer, flatter, simpler tax system in Canada and help to eliminate what I consider to be a regulatory burden, that is an egregiously excessive tax burden and a complex tax system that penalizes legitimate businesses. Fair minded, far reaching in their scope, these high brow goals could be used to describe the principles necessary in taxation to create not only fairer e-commerce but any area of business.

These principles seek to equalize a world of incongruent tax regimes. Perhaps they could not be implemented by a single nation state or even negotiated over a long term phase-in within the realm of a free trade agreed. However that is not the world we live in today. As borders become less and less consequential in global trade in many ways we need to demonstrate consistency and co-operation between countries both in terms of tax policies and tax co-operation to avoid avoidance.

At this time there is no international formula for taxation to balance the playing field. If we tried to negotiate such a treaty it would take a long time. It would be a very long and arduous process. It would entail the same pitfalls that have currently been encountered with the multilateral agreement on investment. While the agreement is not necessarily inherently bad, the process of its negotiation has been far too exclusive. As such Canadians and other citizens around the world have not been effectively engaged in the discussion.

The House is charged with the duty of protecting and fostering Canadian interests. As far as I can see we have to choose to be a player in a liberalized trading world, or we can follow the path of protectionist policies, a trail that will most assuredly lead us to a dead end. The PC Party is the author of or a founding partner in the most successful trade agreement in the nation's history. It is not about to turn its back on free trade.

However, we must be realistic about the competition that exists out there. The cold reality is that Internet commerce cannot help but be brutally efficient. Price comparisons will be performed in a matter of minutes, eliminating what used to be an entire Saturday of window shopping. Price as a determinant will become the overriding decision maker in the Internet.

When we understand this, coupled with our knowledge of our completely uncompetitive situation, we must recognize that our tax system, our regulatory burden and the inherent structural deficiencies that we have in the Canadian economy need to be addressed.

Improving productivity needs to be the goal for every government policy, not only for Bill C-54. Any government policy debated in this House needs to have as its principal goal the improvement and the augmentation of Canadian competitiveness in the global environment in the 21st century.

By and large, regulation of the Internet has been a failure in every jurisdiction that has ever tried to overstep the boundaries of common sense.

On November 23 the CRTC will begin hearings on what kind of regulation, if any, is needed for new media and the Internet. The commission has been vilified for this and has been accused of empire building.

We believe that this is exactly the kind of exercise we must engage in. That is not to say we will support any move to censor the Internet. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. The private sector must determine what the future holds for the Internet and the public sector has a role to facilitate this debate.

One of the realities we must accept is that the Internet is expanding at a rate which far exceeds our ability to respond with legislation. In fact, if we were to promote and pass legislation that creates an excessive regulatory burden, I would argue that we would not be able to put in place a regulatory infrastructure that would be capable of enforcing legislation passed in this House or developed by a committee. We have to be careful that we not only create a regulatory structure that is fair, but that is in fact enforceable.

Government will have to rely, frankly, on the private sector to produce new technologies which individuals can use to access or eliminate specific Internet content as they see fit.

The role of government will be greatly curtailed in this exercise if we do our jobs properly. In fact, we can create a relatively self-regulating e-commerce industry that can both achieve the goals of helping Canadians access the levers of economic opportunity in the global environment while at the same time protecting their privacy.

The expansion of technology that was originally devised as a research tool for academics has surprised all of us. Recently an IBM executive referred to the phenomenon as the digital revolution and labelled its impact as being no less in scope than that of the industrial revolution. Like the industrial revolution, the Internet and e-commerce have the ability to change the way business is done, the way governments are organized and the way economies are structured.

Let us think for one moment of how the Internet and technology have changed our role as parliamentarians. Twenty years ago we would have had as parliamentarians greater access to information than our constituents. Today our constituents have access to the same information that we have and at the same time that we have it due to the Internet and technology.

I would argue that for us to remain relevant individually as parliamentarians and collectively as a parliament and as a government that we need to become more rigorous. We will not be judged on what information we have, but increasingly we will be judged on the quality of the decisions we make with that information.

That is very exciting because I think the demand will be on us to become more relevant and to make decisions that are sound and not necessarily purely politically palatable in the short term sense, but the right decisions from a public policy perspective in the long term.

This represents a significant democratization of democracy. It will affect the way we do our jobs. It is another way that technology is changing the way we are living as Canadians and the way we do our jobs.

The challenge is to ensure that we balance these various goals, as we pursue these somewhat inherently incongruent goals, treating the complexity of what is an extremely complicated public policy issue, with the maturity that I believe our constituents deserve. We cannot relegate this to three-second sound bytes. It is not going to be reduced to that if we pursue this in a mature way.

The subject of global e-commerce should not fill us with fear. Many people would urge that we move in a Luddite way. One of those individuals is running for the leadership of my party at this juncture, but hopefully that will be put to bed on Saturday and Mr. Orchard will continue to destroy windmills or to pursue Luddite-type activities in other parties. I would suggest that he has a natural home in a party that now sits on the far right in this House, ironically.

In any case, there is no basis for the fears of the Luddites in my opinion. The only fear that can be legitimized is if governments and members of this House lack the courage to attach Canadians to the levers of a global economy which can provide unprecedented—