Ed Holder

[CANADA-PANAMA ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to resume my comments with respect to the Canada-Panama free trade deal, which we hope will have the same success as Jordan did this past week. I want to acknowledge the members of the opposition who came together to help us move the arrangements for the trade deal with Jordan along. I hope that vision and support that they showed in the last free trade deal carries on this time. I would say to our friends in the loyal opposition, let us not do this for the sake of the opposition members being able to say that they have passed the deal so they as a party can never be told that they do not support free trade deals. I do not believe that is the case. Therefore, as my Cape Breton mother would say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I would like to encourage members opposite to share that same vision as we look towards Panama.

When I consider why Canada is doing any trade deals, let alone this free trade deal with Panama, it is really clear from my four years on the international trade committee that with the deals that we have signed, a very aggressive agenda with respect to free trade deals, we do it because it is in Canada's interest. We also acknowledge that it is in the interests of the countries that we trade with as well. What we tried to do is raise the level of quality of life of individuals. Without the ability to work or without solid employment, they do not have those same opportunities.

We trade with every country in the world. That is absolutely clear. Therefore, what we are looking for with Panama, as with the other trade deals that we have negotiated, is a rules-based system that will assist us when there are disputes and will make sure that we eliminate tariffs going from Canada to Panama and from Panama to Canada. That makes a dramatic difference for our country and certainly for theirs. However, there are a few advantages. If it were not in the interests of Canada, why would we consider doing this at all? It would be helpful for members of this House to have a strong sense of what it does mean for all of us to be able to put this deal together.

Clearly, the free trade agreement would require Panama to provide Canada with improved market access in a variety of areas. For those members of Parliament who have agriculture in their ridings, access to Panama in terms of imports of beef, cattle and pork matters. That is done through a combination of tariff cuts and transitional tariff rate quotas. That is very dramatic.

It is rather interesting that in August 2009, Canadian ministers announced that Panama had approved Canada's meat inspector system and lifted its BSE ban on Canadian beef. Those were progressive steps that were being taken with the long-term intent of putting the free trade deal in place.

In June 2010, our ministers announced that Panama had lifted its ban on Canadian cattle. As a result now, federally registered beef and pork meat establishments are able to export to Panama, as are Canadian exporters of cattle.

In addition to that, we put in what has now become a Canadian standard. We put in a labour co-operation agreement and an agreement on the environment. We look to standards for countries that are not as developed as Canada. We ask them to raise their standards as we deal with them. We think that is very important for the quality of life for Panamanians. In some sense it justifies the involvement that we have with them well. We think it is important and necessary for Panama to proceed on that basis.

All provinces would benefit in terms of the improvements of the framework that governs this free trade deal. Quebec, for example, would benefit from the elimination of Panamanian tariffs on exports relating to agriculture. I mentioned pork and in addition to that industrial and construction machinery, pharmaceutical and aerospace products. To my province of Ontario and my city of London, some key export areas are industrial and construction machinery, electrical and electronic equipment, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and furniture. The western provinces benefit. The Atlantic provinces benefit. There is not one part of Canada that does not benefit as a result of this free trade deal.

Therefore, I would encourage members opposite, as I know that members on this side will when we look to complete Panama, to give their full support, because it is clear that we almost had this done in the last Parliament. Then an election was put upon the Canadian people and as a result of that election the free trade deal with Panama died on the order paper. That can happen.

We have had debate upon debate about this. Frankly, I do not believe, as members from both sides may choose to ask some questions today, that there is any question that has not already been asked and answered, both in committee and in the House. That is to be fair to those members who were more recently elected because we covered this at length in our last Parliament.

For any questions members have, we will be candid and clear. I would ask for the sake of Canadian businesses to please help us pass the Panama free trade agreement.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. In my former life, when I was in the insurance business and specifically in employee benefits and pensions, one of my dear colleagues once said that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have a circumstance with the government where, frankly, we are allowed to be a little hopeful that our economy is getting stronger in a world where the economy has some great challenges worldwide. We can be proud of that, and innovation has a very direct impact on that. We will see that the government's commitment to innovation across various departments will help sustain us as we go forward.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Etobicoke North for posing that question. I think it is an important question, and let me explain why.

I explained in my comments earlier that the CPP is funded through employer and employee contributions. It is through that process that we come up with the funding that is available. However, the funds that are available to support OAS and GIS come from general tax revenues. In other words, there is no magic base of premium incomes to do that.

As I indicated, in 20 years the costs will go from $38 billion to $108 billion of taxpayer money, so with a modest, slight adjustment—and we are asking for a modest accommodation from folks who will eventually get to that senior group—we are going to ensure that we sustain a program for people's retirement that will allow them to live in dignity and that will show respect to them. That adjustment is the key to that outcome.

I would hope that members opposite appreciate that when prices triple in such a very short period of time, it is just a demographic issue. Again, I will reintroduce the name of that book, Boom, Bust & Echo, for their consideration as well.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, as I think about the question, it reminds me a bit of the situation when the Minister of Justice put forward the Safe Streets and Communities Act. It was a compilation of some eight different bills.

At that time, members opposite said that if we broke this down into individual bills, perhaps they might be able to support some of these things. Here is the challenge: every one of those bills had gone in front of Parliament and every one of them was rejected by the opposition.

Therefore, it strikes me that while perhaps it is a noble thought at one level, I frankly do not believe that the result would be any different from what it is today. Every aspect of the bill that is in place relates to financial issues, and I think it really does show a very clear path of where the government is going.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be here to speak in favour of Bill C-38. As I do, I reflect on much of the debate that has gone on, not just tonight, but the constant hours and hours of debate that have gone on in the finance committee. The amount of time that has been allocated to the bill and is still yet to come is unprecedented.

I find as I listen to colleagues opposite, while I have great regard for them, I hear more questions about the process than I do about actual questions about the budget. Therefore, it strikes me that while at one point there is a lot of broad talk about the importance of being able to ensure that we spend more time talking about the budget, it feels more like talking about talking. That is the concern I have.

Members in the House have heard me say in the past a great comment that my Cape Breton mom used to say, “After it's all said and done, there's a lot more said than done”. I really feel in some respects that this is what we have as this circle goes around and around.

In my city of London, in my riding of London West, people are concerned about their families and the economy. I get comments about how the Conservatives have handled that relatively well in the worst recession in all of our lifetimes, not just in the House, but Canadians throughout the country. We weathered that with high marks. We have created some 750,000 jobs, most of them full-time since that time as well. That is positive. We have the strongest financial institutions in the world. We are the envy of the G20 countries.

It would be great if I could ask members opposite to come forward and say that they are proud of this as well because there are some things that we do that we can take pride in as a country. We have those opportunities. There are rare times when members come together in solidarity and say “This is something that matters to us”. We respect the importance of Canadian workers, the people who are trying to do the best they can for their families.

There is a greater optimism now than there has been in some time. There are a lot of countries in the world, tragically, that we are glad we are not there because their tragedy and their stories are very suspect. I think their futures are much more bleak than Canada. I have great optimism for Canada, so I would invite members opposite to share some of that optimism.

I have some formal comments I would like to make because I think that is all part of this process as we try to get into some of the specifics of it.

The bill in front of us, Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, is intended to bring into force significant measures that we have introduced to ensure the long-term strength and sustainability of Canada's economy and its finances. Despite what others would say, these are measures that are decisive, effective and above all, fair.

It is said that if one wants to anticipate how one acts in the future, then look how they have acted in the past. I am exceptionally pleased and proud of how the government has respected our seniors. One just has to look at some of the incredibly positive benefits the government has provided seniors since coming to government, all to make the point that there is no greater respect than honouring those who have built our country and given us the many opportunities that all of us enjoy today.

I am honoured that our government introduced, then doubled the pension income credits for seniors to $2,000. The most dramatic benefit for married seniors has come in the form of pension income splitting, allowing Canadian seniors who receive qualifying pension income to allocate to their spouse, or common law partner with whom they reside, up to one-half of that income. That is phenomenal.

The government increased the age limit for converting RRSPs to RIFs. The tax-free savings account, or TFSA, is one of the most tax-effective and novel ways for seniors, in fact for all Canadians, to benefit. Canadians currently benefit from a retirement income system that is recognized around the world as a model that succeeds in helping Canadian seniors and we want to keep it that way for future generations.

That is why this bill, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, would ensure that it remains that way now and, frankly, for generations to come. We took action in this regard because quite simply, the old age security program was designed for a different time.

Let me give some background. Most members of the House will realize this and some will have to read it in the history books because they are a little younger than others. However, we have very bright young members who would get this. In the 1970s there were seven workers for every one person over the age of 65. In 20 years, there will only be two.

In 1970, life expectancy was age 69 for men and age 76 for women. Today, it is age 79 for men and age 83 for women. At the same time, Canada's birth rate is falling.

The good news about these statistics, though, is that Canadians are living longer and healthier lives, but there are fewer workers to take their place when they retire.

Here is the reality: Canada has changed. Therefore, old age security must change with it if it is to serve the purpose for which it was intended while remaining sustainable and reflecting evolving demographic realities.

If we were to remain complacent in the face of these developments, it would be financially unsupportable in the long term. The cost of the OAS program is scheduled to rise from $38 billion in 2011 to $108 billion in 2030. Clearly that is not sustainable, and not acting for Canadian taxpayers who expect this benefit when they retire would be economically irresponsible. In a caring country committed to its people, the government has an obligation to balance care and cost.

It is important for members of this House to realize that the OAS program is already the single largest program of the Government of Canada.

A recent National Post editorial stated:

Unlike the CPP, OAS is funded out of general government revenues, and will eat up more and more tax dollars as Baby Boomers enter their senior years.... That is not something that we can afford to ignore.

I would just challenge members. If they have never read the book Boom, Bust & Echo, which talks about the demographic reality, the changes that are coming through, such that the baby boomer generation is the one that is going to create the greatest demands on our social system, I would encourage them to read it just to give them some of the background. I think it would help all of us to understand better.

With the passage of Canada's jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, the age of eligibility for OAS and the GIS would be gradually increased from the age of 65 to the age of 67, starting in April 2023, with full implementation by January 2029. It is intended in that way to give the gentlest implementation and give a lot of advance notice for people to be able to plan and prepare. This change would not affect anyone who is 54 years of age older as of March 21, 2012. I feel it is a responsible and measured approach for taxpayers, particularly with those who have an expectation of these benefits and who expect and deserve no less.

To improve flexibility and choice for those wishing to work longer, our government will also allow for the voluntary deferral of the OAS for up to five years, starting July 1, 2013. This would provide the option for people to defer take-up on the OAS to a later time and receive a higher annual actuarially-adjusted pension as a result. The adjusted pension would be calculated on an actuarially neutral basis, as is done with the Canada pension plan.

This would mean that on average, individuals would receive the same lifetime OAS, whether they choose to take it up at the earliest stage of eligibility or defer it to a later year. The annual pension would be higher if they choose to defer. GIS benefits, which provide additional support to the lowest-income seniors, will not be eligible for actuarial adjustment.

These sorts of changes are in keeping with international best practices, as many OECD member countries have recently planned or are announcing increases to the eligibility ages for their public pensions and social security programs, including—and this is a long list—Australia, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

However, these are not the only areas where Bill C-38 would implement improvements to OAS.

The bill would also improve the way we administer OAS for Canada's seniors, while at the same time generating operational savings. The act would do so by putting in place a proactive enrolment regime that would eliminate the need for many seniors to apply for OAS and GIS. This measure would reduce the burden on seniors of completing application processes and it would reduce the government's administrative costs. What a boon that is going to be to seniors.

With the passage Bill C-38, proactive enrolment will be implemented under a phased-in approach from 2013 to 2016.

It is interesting that Gordon Pape, the noted financial columnist, also applauded this move, calling it:

...a welcome elimination of bureaucratic red tape that should have the effect of putting a lot more money into the hands of seniors....This means that many people will no longer have to apply for benefits when they turn 65 – the payments will come automatically. The potential gain for seniors is huge.

The federal government's task force on financial literacy reported that an estimated 160,000 seniors who qualify for old age security are not receiving benefits because they have not submitted a formal application. The loss in pre-tax income to these people is almost $1 billion.

However, the changes that simplify—

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a background of employee benefits and pensions and throughout that time I noticed that there has been a dramatic shift as it relates to pensions, RRSPs and, frankly, there has not been the uptake. As I have gone through my riding and asked questions about the interest in it, there seems to be a lot of interest in uptake.

I struggle because I am not sure why there is such opposition to this from members opposite, but I would ask my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London this question. Does he think, given a chance, that small businesses like the kinds of companies he represented in his pre-political life, would take a hard look at and participate in this program?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to speak on behalf of the Canada–Panama free trade agreement.

After hearing some five dozen-plus speeches on this that have gone on in the House during this Parliament and some five dozen-plus speeches in the last Parliament, I am reminded of something that my Cape Breton mother once said about politicians. She said, “After it is all said and done, there is a lot more said than done”.

I respect the fact that those members who are currently on the trade committee and those who are making comments did not sit on the trade committee in the last Parliament, so they did not have the experience from the last Parliament that they are garnering this time.

However, having sat on the trade committee since I was elected almost four years ago, and now going through some 125 to 130 speeches that we have heard on free trade with Panama, it is clear to me that there is nothing that is brand new. There is not one thing that is new that we have not heard time and time again. For the benefit of newer members, we have heard these issues over many years and we would have had a free trade agreement in place had we not had an election forced upon us back in May of last year. That agreement would have been put in place. It would have been better for Canada and it certainly would have been better for Panama.

As my colleague, the illustrious Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, said so eloquently, we already do trade with Panama. What we are now saying is that we are looking to put in place a rules-based system that would ensure that in the event of disputes, there would be a mechanism in place to more quickly resolve issues relating to trade.

We have also issues relating to labour rights, and we have an ILO-approved standard by which we are asking Panama to increase its standards. At the same time, Canada has that provision and has the ability to work with Panama to ensure that it is put in place.

If there is a reality that I have seen in my time in trade, it is clearly this: if we want to engage with and promote better conduct in countries around the world, we do not do that by shunning them. We do that by engaging them. We do that by trying to increase their standard of living. We do that by trying to increase trade with those countries. It betters Canada, absolutely, but it betters the other country with which we do business. That is the honourable thing to do. It is the right thing to do for Panama.

I say to members across both sides of this House that if we really have that humanity about trying to raise the level of human rights, trying to raise the level of business, trying to raise the level of people so that they are in a position where they can improve their lifestyles, we do that in part by trade. To members opposite who have said they support trade, I would ask them then to please support trade. Again, in my four years I have not yet seen members in the official opposition support one free trade deal. It would be great if they could get behind Panama to improve the standard of living for those people and to improve job opportunities for Canada, which has a huge impact.

I will leave it there at this point. I hope I will have an opportunity to address this Parliament again, but I sincerely ask all members of this House for their thoughtful consideration as we work towards Panama. We could do a great thing together.

[Plunkett Foundation, June 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to Steve Plunkett, a constituent who is the epitome of community leader. Steve is the president of the Plunkett Foundation, which provides support in areas of medical research and equipment. Through his profound generosity, Steve honours his parents, Dr. Earl Plunkett, an internationally renowned and respected physician, and his mother Corinne Plunkett. To date, the foundation has delivered $4 million to support critical and innovative health care initiatives.

Their flagship event and biggest fundraiser is the annual Fleetwood Country Cruize In, held this past weekend in London. In its eighth year, it is the largest outdoor car show in Canada, with 3,000 plus vintage cars, hot rods and custom specialty vehicles on display. In the past he has included four air shows in conjunction with the car show. He brings in world-class entertainers. All of this is hosted on his private estate, with two museums open to the public and incredible live concerts. They bring in the most famous cars and celebrities in the world, all in London, Ontario, all to support many local charities. Steve is the most passionate volunteer at the event.

I am proud of Steve and London is proud of Steve. I thank him for caring so deeply.

[Infrastructure, June 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government has made historic investments in infrastructure from coast to coast to coast. This has created jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity for Londoners and all Canadians. On Friday, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities announced the start of a series of round tables with our partners to guide the development of a new long-term plan for public infrastructure.

I would ask the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to please update the House on this important initiative.

[International Trade, May 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my top priority and that of our government is creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians.

The over 751,000 net new jobs created since July 2009 are positive signs that our pro-trade plan is on the right track for London workers and Canadian workers. Economic action plan 2012 announced a commitment to refresh the global commerce strategy.

Would the Minister of International Trade share with the House how our government is moving forward with what is the most comprehensive trade expansion plan in Canada's history?