Rick Dykstra

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his appreciation for the hard-working employees of the auto sector. The members of the CAW and members of the community of St. Catharines work extremely hard and are dedicated individuals to that sector. Productivity and quality coming out of the Glendale plant in St. Catharines could not be better. It is one of the best not only in our country but in North America. I appreciate his noting that.

There is certainly from a broad base perspective a focus that we have taken as a government to ensure that all sectors in this country are ably prepared to tackle the issues that they face today and to continue to be competitive. Not only that, but we have to make sure that over the long term they are going to be competitive, that they are going to be able to remain in business, that they are going to stay in communities like St. Catharines, Burlington, Peterborough and Oakville.

I certainly look to the Minister of Industry and his efforts to come forward with a further plan that will see from a strategic perspective investments in some of the areas that we need to make and that we have made. I think of training and re-educating and the role that we need to play to ensure that we remain competitive and continue to work toward a much more competitive environment here in our country.

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made note of the industry report, which was debated at great length in the finance committee prior to our coming back here in December. He spoke well of the report. The industry committee was ably chaired by the member for Edmonton—Strathcona who also came to the finance committee to speak to this report when it was being debated.

Although my colleague questions and honours the report itself, he did not want the chair of the industry committee to speak to the issues that he is speaking to today. I never had the chance to ask him why he would not let the chair speak but I will leave that as it may.

One of the most important aspects in that report, which was submitted to the finance minister, was the accelerated capital cost allowance, the two year program that would benefit industries all across this country. In fact, the most important part of that report was implemented in the 2007 budget. Prebudget consultations were held across the country and Canadians and businesses told us that this was a good idea and that it was important to have it in the budget. Hopefully there is the potential to extend that program.

The Minister of Finance listened closely to the comments and has read the submissions that were made at the prebudget consultations to consider further extending the two year manufacturing accelerated capital cost allowance. We will need to wait for the budget but I know he listened very closely.

[Committees of the House, February 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for providing me with the opportunity to talk about what this government is doing to help the manufacturing sector. I also want to say that the finance committee is trying to work through these issues with all parties. I certainly appreciate the member's efforts in that regard.

I want to mention a few facts about our economy because, quite frankly, our economic fundamentals are exceptional. We are experiencing the second longest period of economic growth in the history of our country. Core inflation has remained within our set range of 1% to 3%. Our unemployment rate is the lowest in more than 30 years and there are more Canadians participating in the workforce than ever in the history of Canada.

We are reducing debt and we are on the best financial footing of any country in the G-7. We are the only country of the G-7 with ongoing budget surpluses, plus a falling debt burden.

Nevertheless, we must remain prepared for the challenges that confront us, including a significant rise in the Canadian dollar and its impact on the manufacturing sector, increased competition from emerging economic giants, such as China and India, and a shortage of skilled workers and an aging population.

As the world changes, Canadians need to work together to make Canada even more prosperous and strong, which is why our government developed Advantage Canada, a strategic, long term economic plan designed to improve our country's economic prosperity both today and in the future. This plan sets Canada on a path toward achieving five key advantages that will strengthen our nation and show a modern, ambitious and dynamic Canada to the rest of the world.

First, the plan will create a tax advantage for Canada by reducing taxes for all Canadians and establishing the lowest tax rate on new business investment in the G-7.

Second, a fiscal advantage will eliminate Canada's total government net debt in less than a generation and will create a strong foundation on which to build sustainable prosperity.

Canada's entrepreneurial edge will reduce unnecessary regulation and red tape and lower taxes to unblock business investment. By building a more competitive business environment, consumers will receive goods at lower prices and Canadian businesses will be better equipped for global success.

The Advantage Canada plan will also create a knowledge advantage by developing the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world.

The fifth part of the plan focuses on an infrastructure advantage in order to create modern, world-class infrastructure to ensure the seamless flow of people, goods and services across our roads and bridges, through our ports, our gateways and via our very important public transit systems. Each component of the Advantage Canada plan will benefit the manufacturing sector.

Today's motion asks the government to introduce tax measures to support Canadian manufacturing. Recently, the Minister of Finance was in Quebec City as part of the government's prebudget consultations to hear about the challenges facing the manufacturing sector. The finance committee went to Montreal to listen to manufacturers about the types of steps that we need to take to enhance the manufacturing sector in our provinces, territories and throughout the country.

Although it has been a difficult period for many, manufacturers in Canada have been resilient. In the face of adversity, they have acquired more and better technology and equipment. They have improved productivity, have become more diversified and have broadened their reach in this highly competitive, global marketplace. Manufacturers are responding to this difficult situation and so are we.

The government is lifting the tax burden by lowering taxes of every description, including a historic reduction in business taxes.

Canada's strong economic and fiscal foundation has provided the government an opportunity that few other countries have: to put in place historic, broad based tax reductions that will strengthen our economy from one end of the country to the other.

I am talking about the comprehensive tax reduction action that this government has taken since coming into office. Many of the tax reduction initiatives brought forward by our government are broad based, while others will provide direct strategic tax relief to the manufacturing sector.

The capital cost allowance system determines how much of the capital cost of an asset a firm may deduct each and every year. The rates are generally set so that the deductions for capital costs are spread over the useful life of the asset. This ensures the accurate measurement of income for tax purposes and promotes neutrality with respect to investment decisions. Where a capital cost allowance rate is too low to reflect an asset's useful life, an increase to that rate can reduce the tax burden on investment and increase the efficiency of the tax system.

As part of the government's continuing review of capital cost allowance rates and to further the Canadian tax advantage, budget 2007 contained a number of changes to capital cost allowance rates to better reflect the useful life of assets. For example, budget 2007 increased the capital cost allowance rate for buildings used for manufacturing or processing to 10% from 4%. This change will better reflect the useful life of the buildings in the sector because, as we know, in the manufacturing business buildings tend to need repair and rework based on the fact that they are used sometimes on a 24-hour basis. Those repairs should be reflected, quite frankly, in the ability of the company to make and earn a profit.

This year's budget also increased the capital cost allowance rate for other non-residential buildings to 6% from 4%. Furthermore, the budget increased the capital cost allowance rate for computers, an important asset for the manufacturing sector to 55% from 45%.

In addition to those rate changes, to better reflect the useful life of assets in recognition of the economic challenges facing the manufacturing and processing sector, budget 2007 introduced a new temporary investment incentive for manufacturing and processing businesses.

For investment in eligible machinery and equipment, until the end of the 2008 year, businesses engaging in manufacturing or processing will be eligible to claim an accelerated capital cost allowance at a rate of 50% on a straight line basis. This rate will allow these investments to be written off in a two-year period on average after taking into account the half year rule which treats assets as if they had been purchased in the middle of the year.

Taken together, those measures will provide a much more favourable climate for manufacturing and processing businesses to accelerate or increase their investment in buildings, in machinery and in equipment. What is more, those measures will assist the manufacturing sector in restructuring to meet the challenges they are currently facing.

Ours is not a government that rests on its laurels. Even after the budget of 2007, we knew we had more work to do for individual Canadians, for families and, in particular, for businesses across the country, which is why in the economic and fiscal update we are reducing the general corporate income tax rate to 15% by 2012. This broad based tax reduction will improve the investment environment for every sector of the economy, including the manufacturing sector.

Tax reductions announced by this government, the majority of them broad based, will result in $8.2 billion in tax relief for manufacturers and processors. This includes tax reductions totalling $2.6 billion over this and the next five years in the recent economic statement of October 30, 2007, and $5.6 billion for measures announced in the last two federal budgets and the tax fairness package.

However, It is not only the federal government that can provide tax relief to Canadian businesses. Provinces also have an important role in improving Canada's business tax competitiveness.

To encourage further provincial action, budget 2007 put in place a financial incentive to facilitate the elimination of provincial capital taxes and indicated the government's willingness to work with the provinces to complete the sales tax harmonization initiative. Canadians are already reaping the rewards of the first of these measures.

Since the announcement of the measure to encourage provinces to eliminate their capital taxes as soon as possible, both Quebec and Ontario have acted to qualify for the incentive and Manitoba has also announced its intention to do so.

Canada now has a solid, statutory, corporate rate advantage over our partners in the United States and this advantage will continue to grow year after year through 2012.

In addition, as a result of this government's actions, Canada will meet the Advantage Canada goal of establishing the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment by 2011.

As I said at the outset, I am glad the hon. member's motion provided me with the opportunity to tell the House what action this government has taken to assist our manufacturing sector.

[Justice, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are really seeing the true colours of the Liberals when it comes to being tough on crime.

Last week Premier Dalton McGuinty met with the Liberal leader and pleaded with him to ask his Liberal senators to speed up the passage of the tackling violent crime act. The Leader of the Opposition said, no.

Premier McGuinty said:

Now it's winding its way, in a very slow fashion, through the Senate. The Liberals have some influence over that. We want that to receive passage.

Will the Minister of Justice please explain to the Leader of the Opposition why the bill should become the law of the land?

[The Environment, December 11th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canada recognizes the need to take a complete approach to address climate change and air pollution.

The world is moving to address climate change and the environment and Canada intends to lead the effort at home and abroad.

Today, a software program for businesses, which assesses the viability of clean energy options, was announced. A lot of pollution is happening over here on this side of the House.

Could the Minister of Natural Resources tell the House how our government is ensuring that Canada is at the leading edge of clean technologies to reduce emissions and adapt to environmental change?

[Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, November 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the contradictory message delivered by the member, with whom I sit on the finance committee. I was very attentive yesterday to his motion and was intrigued that he used the industry report as part of his presentation this morning.

He may have used, I would like to call selective memory, but probably a selective choice of words in the document from which he quoted. If he had read the document carefully, he would have seen that one of the important parts of that document was the foreword inserted by the chair of the industry committee. It states that on behalf of the committee, the recommendations presented in this report should be implemented in a timely fashion. He does not say abruptly, stupidly, without thought, without the necessary work in order to ensure that taxpayer money is spent wisely and that all companies in this country that would benefit from further tax reductions or proper investments from government could benefit from them.

While the member was quick to point out the aggressive nature upon which he acted yesterday, which I do not think was in a very thoughtful manner, he should have accepted the amendments moved by the Conservative members of the committee. We are in agreement with the report and take no issue with it, but we certainly will not move forward in a manner that either handcuffs industry and manufacturing in this country or handcuffs the financial aspect of the Minister of Finance's responsibility.

Therefore, I would ask the member to at least acknowledge that the implementation that the finance minister and the government included in the budget, which he supported, the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturing that has produced $1.8 billion of investment, of which the majority of the funds are used by manufacturing companies in Quebec, is a benefit to his province and this country.

[Child Safety, November 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as the father of three children, it is my duty to look out for their well-being. When purchasing products, all Canadians deserve to have confidence that what they buy will be safe for them and for their children. Parents want to know what their government is doing, what action it is taking to ensure our children's safety.

During the 13 long years of Liberal mismanagement, not once did the Liberals take action on this issue. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health please let us know what the government is doing on behalf of our children?

[Tackling Violent Crime Act, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Don Valley East asked why an omnibus bill. I should clarify for her as she should know and perhaps she does know that this in fact is not an omnibus bill.

An omnibus bill is a piece of legislation that has legislative impacts on various ministries. Based on that, I would have to conclude that an omnibus bill actually has a number of different ministry changes involved in it.

This bill is very specific. It has five very specific points and clauses in it that are specific to the justice ministry. Therefore, she could claim that it is a comprehensive bill, but it certainly does not fall under the term that she uses of an omnibus bill. She may wish to call it that, but technically and in the House she should be referring to it as a comprehensive bill.

She talked about all of the issues the Liberal Party has so much difficulty with. I would remind her that the Liberal Party members that represented her at committee in fact moved one amendment to the entire bill.

My question for her is, how much time is she personally going to spend helping the good senators in the Senate, most of whom are Liberal, so that in fact they will rush this bill through that house and make it legislation? She also should support her members at committee who in fact supported the legislation and only moved one amendment at committee.

[Committees of the House, November 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the legislative committee on Bill C-2.

I am speaking from this side, but I certainly want to comment that while there were some tight constraints put around the delivery of this report back to the House, every once in a while, even though it may not be recognized, all members from all parties of the House do work together on good legislation to move it forward.

We have delivered this back to the House a day in advance. My compliments to all members of the committee.

[Criminal Code, November 14th, 2007]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (credit for pre-sentencing custody).

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to introduce this private member's bill on behalf of my riding of St. Catharines and our country.

The proposed enactment will amend the Criminal Code to provide that a person who spends time in custody before sentencing will be credited for that time at a ratio of one day of credit for every day served. The ratio may be increased to one and one half days of credit for every day served if, and only if, the judge is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that warrant it. However, a person who has been detained as a result of a breach of a condition of judicial interim release is not eligible to receive any extra credit for pre-sentencing custody.

Convicted criminals should do the time for the crime for which they are sentenced.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)