WITNESSES LISTED OFF MYRIAD GOVERNMENT ACTIONS THAT IMPOVERISH PEOPLE AND WIDEN INEQUALITY.

Governments impose high social-assistance clawbacks and taxes on poor and disabled workers, so the harder they work the less money they take home. A Library of Parliament report released last August showed that minimum-wageearning disabled workers in some provinces lose as much as $1.15 to taxes and clawbacks for every extra dollar they earn from work — the equivalent of a negative wage. Worse, if they earn more income, they also per cent, such as Bombardier executives, who got 50-percent pay hikes weeks after Trudeau Liberals offered the company a $372-million taxpayer-backed handout. After transferring money from the working class to the super rich, governments then say we need “redistribution” programs to transfer the money from the rich to the poor.

In all these cases, governments claim to be the solution to the problems they cause.

The new Conservative report calls on the doctor to stop poisoning the patient and instead follow the ancient principle of medicine: “First, Do No Harm,” the title of the report.

It proposes that the government end corporate welfare and other programs that transfer scarce funds to the rich from the rest; remove all capital gains taxes on private company shares and real estate donated to charity; pass a “Make Work Pay Act” that would reduce clawbacks and taxes so working always pays more than staying on social assistance; eliminate carbon taxes that harm poor families; and allow individual aboriginals on reserves to get mortgages to own their homes just like everyone else, so they can build collateral and credit history and replace poverty with property.

Conservatives believe in work instead of welfare, and family and community instead of bureaucracy. Those in poverty work tirelessly to escape it. Their loved ones and charities never stop finding ways to work miracles to help them. Government should stand on their side, not in their way. facilitating contractual dealings — and, when necessary, infringement actions.

Another advantage of strong IP rights is that they greatly encourage foreign direct investment, which brings with it proprietary technologies which then disseminate through the economy, by licensing and worker training.

Often cited in defence of weaker IP rights is Canada’s balance of trade in IP. Some fear net outflows of royalty payments — to the U.S., for instance. There is no basis for such fear. First, Canada’s balance of trade in copyright goods and services is positive. It is only slightly negative in patent-protected technologies. Moreover, balance of trade reflects consumer choice more than structural economics. It is no basis for IP policy. And even if there were a negative balance of trade, would that really argue for expropriation of IP rights at the border any more than for confiscation of other trade goods?

Stronger IP rights are entirely to Canada’s benefit. It is time to move forward with building an IP strategy that serves our needs.