Dave Van Kesteren

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the hon. member for his fine work and for his tutoring as well. I might add that, since I arrived here, the hon. member has been my neighbour and many times we have had discussions.

It is fairly obvious, as he correctly stated, that as a nation we need to trade and we are good at it. The other thing we need that is absolutely essential is a level trading field. I believe that if Canadian companies, manufacturers or those involved in the service sector, whatever area in which they are involved, including farmers with their produce, can trade on a level trading field, we will be able to trade with any nation. Canadians will always rise to the occasion and be able to compete. The end result is that there will be more employment in this country and more products produced. It is the spinoff to the rest of Canadian society that will benefit us all.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if I heard the question correctly, the member made reference to the American free trade agreement with Panama. He is correct that there are ongoing discussions and, more than that, Canada and Panama are currently engaged in negotiations for a tax information exchange agreement. However, the Americans have ratified their agreement. His premise that the Americans were in the act of doing this and, therefore, we should too, does not exactly add up since the Americans have already ratified their agreement. We feel it is also imperative and important. Those negotiations will take place, as well as the tax ramifications.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I do not think the hon. member on the Liberal side will be disappointed. In the coming years we will be working on these deals. There will be many more in the making.

It is a pleasure to rise today to talk about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the concrete benefits that this trade agreement will provide to Canadian businesses exporting to Panama.

The member for Malpeque has criticized this agreement, saying that trade with Panama is in insignificant and accuses the government of exaggerating its benefits to Canadians. Apparently the $111 million worth of exports that went to Panama last year is insignificant. What that member fails to realize is that every one of those dollars directly supports our economy and Canadian jobs and that is in no way insignificant.

During the 13 years in office, the Liberals signed 3 trade deals, but in less than 6 years this Conservative government has signed agreements with 9 countries and we are negotiating with many more.

This is why I would like to share with the House the impact that this agreement will have on Canadian companies and exporters.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is a high-quality, comprehensive agreement that will bring tremendous benefit to our economy. A free trade agreement with Panama will give Canadian exporters, investors and service providers preferential access to a dynamic and fast-growing economy that recorded a GDP growth of 10.6% in 2011.

Once implemented, the agreement will improve market access for Canadian exports in the Panamanian market by lowering trade barriers. The elimination of tariffs will create tremendous opportunities for increased Canadian exports to Panama.

Once the Canada-Panama free trade agreement is in place, Panama will eliminate tariffs on 95% of recent non-agricultural imports from Canada. The remaining tariffs will be phased out over 5 to 15 years. This is significant considering that Canadian exports on non-agricultural products are currently facing tariff peaks of up to 81% of Panama, while the average most favoured nation tariff rate for non-agricultural products stands at 6.2%.

The elimination of the vast majority of tariffs will benefit Canadian workers from coast to coast to coast, including producers of forest products, pharmaceuticals, machinery, automotive, vehicles and parts, information and communication technology and aerospace products.

Let us look at the impact of the agreement on some specific sectors of our economy.

The pulp and paperboard producers of British Columbia will certainly benefit from this agreement. In 2011 Canada exported $5.3 million of pulp and paper board products to Panama. Though many of these products were not subject to custom duties, tariffs ranging from 5% to 15% are levied by Panama on a range of paper products. Obviously market access is not optimal. This agreement will eliminate those tariffs, which will consequently offer new commercial opportunities to Canadian exporters of goods, such as wallpaper, packaging materials, boxes and corrugated cardboard.

Another sector that will see benefits is the pharmaceutical industry, which saw Canadian businesses export $5.1 million of pharmaceutical products to Panama in 2011. According to the terms of this free trade agreement, Panamanian tariffs ranging from 5% to 8% on certain pharmaceutical products will be eliminated.

This trade deal with also benefit Canadian exports of industrial machinery and certain electronics. In 2011 Canada exported $12.8 million worth of machinery and equipment to Panama. These Canadian exporters will benefit from the elimination of Panamanian tariffs ranging from 5% to 15% on a variety of current and potential Canadian machinery exports. If Canadian businesses are able to sell their products in Panama despite these tariffs, imagine how much more successful they will be when their products have gained preferential access.

Another sector that stands to benefit from this agreement is the aerospace industry. Members of Parliament are likely aware that Canada's aerospace sector is highly competitive and has acquired a worldwide reputation for outstanding quality and performance. It is also important to note that it is a highly export-orientated sector. In fact, 80% of this sector's annual revenues are generated through exports. Panama imports some of these products.

In 2011, Canada exported $8.1 million worth of aerospace products, including various ground flying trainers, turbo propellers and airplane and helicopter parts. The implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement would further those export opportunities by eliminating Panama's tariffs on aerospace products that are currently as high as 15%.

It is undeniable that by creating new export opportunities in these sectors, this agreement will help foster economic growth. However, that is not all.

One additional sector that would particularly benefit from this agreement is the Canadian agricultural sector. Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector is innovative and competitive and is becoming increasingly focused on international markets.

In 2011, Canada exported nearly $25 million worth of agriculture and agri-food products to Panama. In agricultural products, Panama currently maintains tariffs reaching peaks as high as 260%. Upon implementation of our trade agreement with Panama, tariffs will also be lifted completely on 78% of Canada's agricultural exports to Panama.

Canada's high quality agriculture and agri-food products, such as beef, pork, frozen potatoes, malt, maple syrup, pulses, canola and sunflower seeds, will benefit from immediate duty-free access to Panama. For example, producers of frozen french fries in P.E.I. and New Brunswick would no longer face Panamanian tariffs of up to 20%. Canada's exporters of frozen french fries would benefit from the immediate elimination of Panama's tariffs on this product. Between 2009-11, Canada exported an annual average of $2.7 million worth of frozen french fries to Panama.

Our pulse and cereal exporters in Saskatchewan will also benefit from immediate tariff elimination with the implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Tariffs currently amounting to 10% to 40% respectively will be gradually eliminated with the implementation of the FTA.

Another sector that would benefit from the free trade agreement with Panama is our pork sector. Pork producers of fresh and chilled pork cuts and sausages would gain preferential access. In 2011, Canada exported about $5 million of pork products to Panama.

Canadian beef exporters would also benefit form this agreement. The FTA would result in the immediate elimination of Panamanian tariffs ranging from 25% to 30% on all of Canada's high quality beef cuts within a 200 ton tariff rate quota.

This agreement would provide significant benefits for our Canadians farmers. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement being debated here today would ensure that our Canadian agriculture and agri-food producers and exporters are fully able to compete with other preferential suppliers to Panama.

There are many more examples that I could cite but the fundamental point is that the tariff elimination driven by this agreement would create the potential for increased Canadian exports to Panama, and that is a good thing for Canadians.

Pursuing new trade opportunity is a win-win for Canada and its trading partners. Canada benefits from the jobs, prosperity and consumer benefits that come from increased trade. That is why it should not come as a surprise to the members of this House that Canadian companies are in support of this agreement. Throughout the negotiations, Canadian officials consulted with the private sector and the message was consistent and clear: Canadian companies want this deal. If Canadian companies are telling us that they want their government to implement this agreement, why should we, as elected officials, deny them those benefits?

Canadians value the real and tangible benefits that trade brings to our country and that is why Canadian companies support our government's efforts to forge new trade opportunities around the world.

Closer economic integration with Panama promises to deliver further gains for Canadian exporters, investors, consumers and the economy as a whole. By eliminating tariffs on these goods, Canadian exporters and producers will be able to compete on a level playing field against competitors from other countries, such as the United States or the European Union, that have or will soon have preferential access to Panamanian markets in the near future.

For all those reasons, I ask all hon. members to support the implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister for the hard work that he has done. I mean that in all sincerity. It is incredible the amount of trade and the work that we are continuing to do. We are not stopping.

In my riding of Chatham—Kent Essex, a largely agricultural riding, what will it mean for the people who are involved in the agricultural business and trading and some of those aspects? What will it mean for trade for those farmers?

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue serves on finance committee as well and she does an outstanding job.

Ten minutes goes by so quickly, but a point that I was trying to get to in my speech was that the navigable waters act is very important to my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex, as it is I am sure in her riding as well. We have flat land in Chatham-Kent—Essex. It does not get any flatter and we have many drains and ditches. I am hearing from cities, townships and counties how the old law that the member referred to is making it difficult to put in things as simple as a culvert to cross a ditch.

We are doing things that need to be done. We are doing things that make sense. As a result, we should have a strong impact on our economy. That is precisely what we are trying to do with the legislation.

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, that is an area of real concern as well.

I have served on both the finance and the industry committee. One of the studies that was produced by the industry committee back in 2007 touched on those areas. The Liberals were in opposition at the time and the committee submitted an unanimous report to the House.

One of the areas of great concern is how we can best use research money and how to make that effective. This is a constant struggle. This is something that we as a government, and members on all sides of the House when we serve in committee, try to get right. The objective is to, first of all, have good research because we all benefit from good research. Second is to make sure that the research that is done will provide jobs. The result will be stronger economies. I think we are—

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege and a delight to speak to Bill C-45, the final implementation of the budget act, the jobs and growth act. It is titled, “jobs, growth and long-term prosperity”. The reason we chose that title is that the focus of this bill is for just that: for long-term prosperity, for jobs and for growth.

We have heard the numbers countless times. On our side of the House, we are reminded that since this government has been in office and since that horrendous crash in 2008-09 when so many jobs were wiped out, not only here in Canada but across the world, there has been an increase of 820,000 net new jobs. That is an outstanding number.

We also hear the statistics that we rank among the highest in the G8 nations, that we are in the best fiscal position and that we are among the highest in growth in G8 nations.

That does not say there is tremendous growth. We know that in the world today there has been an enormous slowdown. Yet repeatedly, for the last number of years, Canada has managed to hold a position and to build some strength in that position, as well.

We also know that when governments get it right, when governments help create healthy climates, jobs are created. That is the main focus of this government and the reason we have focused so much on those areas. We do that by, first, listening.

I have the privilege to serve on the finance committee. We are involved in budget consultations at this point. We meet every night, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. We meet from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. We ask people and groups from right across this country to come in to speak to us and to tell us what they feel this government has to do to be successful, to grow those jobs, to get those people back to work, to help young Canadians who are coming out schools, be they high schools, colleges or universities, to get jobs. We listen to these groups and these people.

We listen to industry. Again, I was fortunate, in the first four years I served in this House, to serve on the industry committee. In the industry committee, again, we invite industry; we invite labour; we invite all these groups to tell us just what we can do as a government to make things work.

It is people who create jobs. It is businesses that create jobs. Governments create healthy atmospheres.

We listen to business groups, we listen to labour and we listen to the experts. We learned great lessons from the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington last Friday. He gave us a little essay in the house on Keynesian policies and how many governments today—most governments in the western world since before World War II—embarked upon that kind of plane where governments were told they need to spend to stimulate the economy. I think most of us would probably agree with that, but we have had a bit of runaway Keynesianism.

There was another school of thought at that time, the Austrian school, the Mises, that taught it is the responsibility of governments to maintain and make sure their books are in order. We did, and we do what the experts suggest we do. The first thing they tell us, repeatedly, is to get government spending under control, eliminate the deficit.

It is a fact that this government is concentrating on lowering government spending. We do not agree on both sides of the House. Often times, we hear it is the role of government to spend more, to spend our way out of a recession or that, rather than cut spending, maybe we ought to raise taxes.

We hear repeatedly, not just from businesses—obviously businesses do not want to be taxed and corporations do not want to be taxed—but we hear from the experts, the economists, that it works in reverse and ultimately when businesses and corporations are taxed, they take that cost and add it to the cost of products. Then we become uncompetitive in the world. Therefore, our goal on this side of the House is to make sure tax level does not become a burden and to make sure we do not impede growth.

One of the other things we heard repeatedly was to reduce red tape. Red tape is something that stagnates growth. It causes frustration in the marketplace. We have to eliminate those things that impede growth. I have spoken about a number of those areas, one of them being red tape. However, there are other things that governments do, oftentimes with the right intention, but we find out down the road that they cause more problems than they solve. Businesses asked that we not overburden them with taxes and regulations and that we open up the marketplace.

Canada is a trading nation. We are a nation that does a pretty good job at producing certain things. We are strong in extraction. We have a very rich resource sector. We are strong in service sectors, telecommunications and banking, and we do a good job in financing. We are able to export those to other countries. However, oftentimes there are trade barriers that pop up and make those things difficult for our companies. Therefore, our Minister of Trade has been extremely busy on a trade mission.

Let me read something he said:

In less than six years, [we have]...concluded trade agreements with nine countries: Colombia, Honduras, Jordan, Panama, Peru, and the European Free Trade Association member states of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Canada has also begun deepening trade and investment ties with the largest markets in the world, including the European Union, India and Japan.

The European Union has 500 million people.

Most recently, we announced in October that Canada has formally joined the trans-Pacific partnership, the TPP trade negotiations. This is a trade agreement under negotiation by 11 countries, which now include Canada and Mexico. The other members include Australia, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

Canadians can see that we are opening up these opportunities. This gives our companies, our people, an opportunity.

The Speaker is telling me I am running out of time, so I am going to talk about what is really near and dear to me, and that is the bridge to strengthening trade act. We have inserted a provision in the omnibus bill that allows for a bridge across to the United States in my neck of the woods, Chatham-Kent—Essex. Why this is so important is that we are a trading nation. The town of Leamington, which is part of my riding, has an enormous greenhouse industry. Two hundred trucks leave Leamington greenhouses bound for the U.S. every day. More than 70% of the greenhouse industry goes to the United States. There are 223 greenhouse operations in Ontario, and Leamington is home to the largest concentration of greenhouses. There are over 1,500 acres under cover. They tell me that one acre is equal to ten times the production on normal land. It is imperative that those goods get across to the United States. We need that crossing. Therefore, we have put a provision in the budget that would allow for its speedy construction.

I was also very privileged to be able to announce the gateway, the section of Highway 401 to the bridge. Last year in August the government announced we would spend $1 billion. A very important part of the budget is the trade issue. It is very important in my riding.

I encourage the opposition to look at those great benefits, not only for the country but for areas like Chatham-Kent—Essex, where it is so important that we continue this trade.

[Highgate Fair, October 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the privilege of attending the Highgate Fair, which has been celebrated for the last 158 years in the eastern part of my riding of Chatham-Kent—Essex. It is a wonderful event, with everything one has come to expect from a country fair.

One of the favourite events is the annual pie auction. This year I was especially honoured to auction off four pies baked by four young ladies aged eight to 13: Karen Scott, Amanda Litwin, Hannah Clark and Zoe Frazier-Clark. The enthusiasm and generosity of the crowd, along with the anticipation of digging into these great pies, resulted in raising over $1,400. The money raised will be used for the breakfast programs at St. Michael's school and the Naahii Ridge Public School, both located in Ridgetown.

I look forward to celebrating the 159th Highgate Fair and I take this opportunity to congratulate all those who work so hard to make the fair a great success year after year.

[Income Tax Act, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address a key issue in the debate on Bill C-399, a flawed piece of legislation, and to relate it to other more thoughtful ways in which we are helping charities and volunteers.

Before I highlight some of these areas, let me give a quick recap of what this legislation intends to do. Bill C-399 proposes a costly, new, non-refundable tax credit for individuals who perform a minimum of 130 hours of volunteer services for select organizations during a year and who make at least 12 trips in order to do so.

This proposal would cost over $100 million each year, and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for charities to track and administer.

One would hope, and I think Canadians have an expectation, that when members of this House introduce legislation it would be with the intent of benefiting Canadians. How would Bill C-399 benefit Canadians?

The member for Repentigny might be thinking that Bill C-399 would make it more attractive for Canadians to volunteer at their church, local youth group or community centre. As it is, a large number of Canadians donate some of their time to volunteering. In fact, according to a recent report by Statistics Canada, more than 13.3 million people, or 47% of the population, volunteered some of their time through a group or organization.

Clearly, Canadians like to volunteer. However, it is unclear whether the proposed tax credit would have any significant effect in increasing the rate of volunteerism in Canada. After all, proposals to provide tax assistance for volunteerism have been suggested before.

That being said, studies in recent years suggest that tax assistance, much like the tax credit we are debating today, would in fact not lead to an increase in volunteerism. In fact, a report out of Alberta, entitled The Potential Impact of Canadian Federal and/or Provincial Tax Credit Incentives for Volunteer Participation, suggests that not only would the introduction of such a tax credit not lead to an increase in volunteerism but it might lead to a decrease in volunteerism.

The report states:

The motivations of volunteers to “donate” their time may not be shaped nor directed by the “value” of their donation. The principle motivations are altruistic and egotistic in nature. The attachment of economic and specifically tax value to the “altruistic donation” may in fact reduce the motivations of volunteers to participate.

Similarly, a volunteer group in Quebec, Réseau de l'Action Bénévole du Québec, RABQ, found that tax credits did not result in more people wanting to donate their time to volunteering.

In fact, according to the former president of the RABQ, Rosemary Byrne, tax credits:

....didn't seem to have made a difference in terms of the numbers of people volunteering.

Byrne even went on to say:

No one in a lower tax bracket would have benefited at all; that was another disincentive.

If such findings are to be believed, it is doubtful that Bill C-399 is the correct approach to encourage more Canadians to get involved in volunteering. Quite the opposite, the facts seem to suggest that if the House were to pass such a bill, it would be harmful to the rate of volunteerism in Canada.

For these reasons, I am very skeptical as to whether introducing a tax credit such as this is the right course of action. Furthermore, after the comments by the president of the RABQ, I am skeptical as to whether or not any volunteers would even be interested in taking advantage of such a credit.

That is not all. Another issue that must be considered with this proposed piece of legislation is the administrative burden it would place on charitable organizations and non-profit organizations.

It will be the charities, churches, youth groups, et cetera that will be responsible for documenting the information that will be needed by volunteers and the Canada Revenue Agency to confirm that individuals qualify for the credit under the Income Tax Act.

This means that for each volunteer, these organizations would have to track and record how many hours people are present, what they are doing and if they travelled to the location. Simply put, this sounds like a huge waste of time and effort for these organizations. Not only would this be a drain on their human and financial resources, but it would take away from the ultimate goal of charitable and non-profit organizations, helping people.

In recent years, many charitable organizations have been criticized for not using their resources in the most efficient means possible. Understandably, Canadians are frustrated when they hear stories about the donations they make to their favourite charities being used more on administration costs than on the research, aid or cause to which they donated their money. My concern here is that this legislation would not only heighten this frustration but would force charitable and non-profit organizations to divert their precious resources away from the good work they do to overcoming this obstacle. The evidence shows that this would be a significant new obstacle for these organizations.

According to Statistics Canada, Canadians volunteered nearly 2.1 billion hours in 2010. I am no expert, but I am willing to bet that it would take anyone a lot of time to record 2.1 billion hours of volunteerism. I do not understand why we would want to impose such an unnecessary burden on these organizations. What would that achieve?

What does this bill offer to those wanting to volunteer or for those seeking to attract volunteers? The answer, it seems to me, is not much. While at first glance Bill C-399 might seem like a good tool to encourage Canadians to volunteer some of their time to a cause they hold dear, this bill falls short of the mark. In my view, it would do nothing more than place an unnecessary administrative burden on charitable organizations and non-profit groups, all while having no effect on increasing the rate of volunteerism among Canadians. Evidence indicates it would likely cause a decrease in the number of volunteers.

While I feel this bill was introduced with the best of intentions, I am not convinced it would benefit Canadians. I urge my colleagues to think carefully before casting their vote in support of Bill C-399.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 19th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech on this proposed agreement with Panama and I was encouraged to hear him talk about the importance of labour laws and the importance of respecting those laws in other countries.

There has been a considerable amount of criticism that for the labour unions in other countries these laws are not respected. Could the member just elaborate and tell this House the importance of that to this government and why we will continue to move in that direction?