Rick Dykstra

[Liberal Party of Canada, June 18th, 2008]

A lot of questions will be asked this summer, Mr. Speaker, but they will be for the Liberal Party to answer. I will explain.

There is an old saying that it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness, but if the Leader of the Opposition formed government and he imposed a carbon tax, our country would face a wall of darkness.

Canadians would be lighting candles, turning on light switches and cursing the Liberals. If the Liberals were to pass their permanent tax on everything, Canadians would be paying more every time they turned on the lights, and they would know exactly who to thank.

However, there is good news. The Liberals are not government.There is still one party that has always said no to higher taxes for Canadians. There is still one party that will not make seniors and Canadians on fixed incomes pay more for their heat and hydro. That is this party and this government, and that is what leadership is all about.

[The Environment, June 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I picked up this quote up over the weekend and I just had to read it in the House today. It states:

A carbon tax is less effective than a carbon market at reducing emissions. Some of my opponents for the Liberal leadership have suggested that a carbon tax would be the most effective measure to curb climate pollution. This is simply bad policy...

A carbon tax “is simply bad policy”. Who said that? It was not someone in our party. It was the flip-flopping Liberal leader. He said that he was completely opposed to a carbon tax. Now he wants to impose the mother of all taxes on Canadians.

However, we know one thing. We know there is one party that has always said no to higher taxes for Canadians. There is one party that will not make seniors and Canadians on fixed income pay more for gas, heat and electricity. That is this party, this government. Leadership is all about that.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

I will have the member know that these are my own notes. The member for Malpeque needs to know I write my own notes because that is critical to the story this evening. These may be estimates, but these are my notes.

It gives me great pleasure today to discuss the government's main estimates. I want to focus on an issue that is of great importance to the citizens of my province, the manufacturing sector. It is important to remind Canadians, as the United Steelworkers did, that the manufacturing crisis did not start when the Conservatives took office. The Liberals had 12 years to deal with this stuff and they did nothing. Unlike the Liberals, this Conservative government has taken decisive action over the last two years to help the manufacturing sector.

Ontario's automotive sector has been affected by the slowing global economy. The sector remains the largest manufacturing industry in the country and has a proven global reputation for quality and productivity, helping Canada rank as one of the top vehicle-producing countries in the world. I am proud to say that includes my home town of St. Catharines.

To maintain its leadership and competitive advantage, Canada's automotive sector is moving to become more innovative and adapt to new environmental standards. This requires a highly skilled workforce and increased investment in research and innovation to develop new process technologies and vehicles that are more fuel efficient and environmentally sustainable.

To help the automotive sector, the Conservative government has committed over $1.6 billion to measures that will help the automotive industry successfully meet these challenges. These include $1 billion in tax relief for the auto sector by 2012-13 and $250 million, a quarter of a billion dollar investment, over five years, through a new automotive innovation fund, to support large-scale research and development projects to develop innovative and more fuel efficient vehicles. It also includes $400 million as a contribution toward the access road to the new Windsor-Detroit border crossing.

In includes an enhancement to Export Development Canada's existing export guarantee program that will increase coverage, benefiting particularly those businesses in the automotive sector. Specifically, EDC will increase its guarantee coverage under the export guarantee program from 75% to 90% for loans up to $500,000. This will assist small and medium sized manufacturers in fulfilling export contracts. EDC is also working to enhance its financing and insurance products in support of the automotive and manufacturing sector.

We fulfilled our promise to cut the GST, and we have reduced it by two full points, making cars more affordable. In fact, last month, car sales rose yet again, the fifth increase in six months.

However, the Liberals want to undo these positive steps by not only increasing the GST, but also imposing, as the minister has clearly stated, a gouging gas tax that will make purchasing a car more expensive and devastate the auto sector in our province.

The list of what the government has done for the auto sector does not end here. Let us talk a little about research and development.

Maintaining Canada's competitive advantage also requires investment in research and development. Canada continues to be a world leader in funding post-secondary research, ranking second in the OECD and first in the G-7.

To maintain Canada's premier position, budget 2008 builds on this investment. When I say premier, I am not talking about the two former premiers from the Liberal Party who sit across the way.

I am talking about a budget that talks about investment to continue to support world class research and researchers at our universities, including $34 million per year to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council for collaborative research that directly contributes to the knowledge and innovation needs of Canada's automotive, manufacturing, forestry and fishing industries.

The government also recognizes that increasing business investments in research and development will be crucial for our long term competitiveness. Budget 2008 enhances support for business investments with improvements to the scientific research and experimental development tax, which we at finance committee call SR&ED. This new incentive and new program to support research and development investment in the automotive industry is something to be spoken about.

This government realizes that investing in the future means investing in knowledge, it means investing in science, and it means investing in innovation.

I want to speak a bit about the capital cost allowance. It was not introduced in 2008. In fact, it was introduced in 2007, but the minister extended the program. We are providing further assistance for Canada's manufacturing and processing sector by extending the accelerated capital cost allowance treatment for investment in machinery and equipment for three years. Specifically, the 50% straight line accelerated capital cost allowance treatment will apply for one additional year and the accelerated treatment will then be provided on a declining basis over a two year period.

I have to congratulate the member for Burlington who chairs the steel caucus. He is doing an excellent job. Representatives from the steel industry across this country sat down and met with us tonight and credited a number of things. The one thing that stood out this evening for us when they spoke was the fact that the accelerated capital cost allowance is telling its employees of the future that they are wanted, they are needed, and they are accepted in every manufacturing company in this country.

In addition, we are supporting small and medium sized businesses by improving the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program and easing the tax compliance burden by reducing the record keeping requirements for automotive expense deductions and taxable benefits. In other words, we are going to make sure we reduce the red tape.

Let me speak for a couple of moments about the community development trust.

While Canada's economic fundamentals remain solid, the government recognizes that there are some workers and communities that face challenges in adjusting to changes in the international economy. That is why in January 2008 the government announced up to $1 billion for the community development trust to support those experiencing hardship due to international economic volatility. The 2008 budget built on this initiative by providing an additional $90 million to extend to 2012 the targeted initiative for older workers to help older workers stay in the workforce.

A one billion dollar investment, $350 million in the province of Ontario, was an investment made by the federal government. As much as we would like the provinces and the territories to give the federal government credit for making this investment, we realize that those dollars are transferred to them to allow them to make decisions according to what they believe to be in the best interests of the businesses in their provinces and territories. We are not asking for credit. We did not ask the provinces to go out and state that we were the ones who provided that community investment fund.

It takes a lot of guts and it takes a lot of nerve for the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to allocate $1 billion for community reinvestment across this country with the full understanding that they and this government would not receive credit for it, not because we wanted the credit but because it was the right thing to do at the right time, in the right place, in this country.

Now, finally, Canada's economic fundamentals are solved and that is good news for all sectors and for all Canadians. We have paid down debt. We have reduced taxes paid by families and individuals. We have also cut corporate taxes.

In fact, let me take a moment to outline that we have taken steps federally by lowering business taxes to 15% by 2012. This will encourage investment, promote competitiveness, and most importantly, increase productivity. We certainly hope that other jurisdictions with large manufacturing sectors will follow suit and lower their corporate taxes. We can only lead by example; we cannot dictate.

The member for Markham—Unionville agrees with the significant steps that this Conservative government has taken. Some may be surprised to hear that, but he does. He said that corporate tax cuts are one of the best strategies to attract investment.

Let me ask the finance minister or the parliamentary secretary in the time remaining to speak about the many positive measures that we have advanced for the manufacturing, auto and forestry sectors.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, I certainly have enjoyed the evening so far.

I thought it was time to thank all my colleagues, all the minister's colleagues, for being here this evening for this debate. In particular, I want to mention that I serve on the finance committee with the minister, the member for Whitby—Oshawa, the parliamentary secretary, the member for Macleod, the member for Peterborough and the member for Burlington, who are all here this evening. They do a phenomenal job as members of the finance committee and they deserve credit for the work that they do.

[The Economy, May 15th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have been doing some thinking about the economy and the impact the Liberals' irresponsible spending plan of over $60 billion will have on our country.

The problem is how the leader of the Liberal Party thinks he can pay for this largesse. I figured it out. He is going to take this country's national credit card and max it out.

He is considering a massive tax on gasoline, a massive tax on home heating fuels and a massive tax on electricity bills. Believe it or not, the tax hikes do not end there. He is also going to raise the GST.

Canadians want to know why the tax and spend Liberal leader wants to punish hard-working Canadian families.

This government has taken a different approach. We have cut taxes by almost $200 billion. We have paid down our debt. Over three-quarters of a million jobs have been created since we formed government.

We are getting the job done for hard-working people in Ontario and this country.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 6th, 2008]

With regard to the tax reductions and child care support introduced by the government since the beginning of 2006, how much would a two income employed couple earning $35,000 and $52,000 (for a combined total of $87,000) living in Ontario, with two children under 18, including one under 6: (a) save in taxes as the result of (i) the reduction of the goods and services tax, (ii) the reduction of personal income tax rates, (iii) the increase of the basic personal amount, (iv) the introduction of the child tax credit, (v) the introduction of the employment tax credit, (vi) the introduction of the children's fitness tax credit, (vii) the introduction of the transit tax credit, assuming the cost of the monthly pass is $566 a year; and (b) receive from the Universal Child Care Benefit?

[Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, May 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as our government continues to focus on a strong economy I thought it was time to review what the Liberal leader would do if he were in charge.

Here are his top five expenditures.

Number five, would be to spend $1 billion on project green, a program that would do nothing for national objectives, but it would cost a fortune.

Number four, would be to spend $5 billion on a wasteful daycare program, not on child care spaces, but on a bloated bureaucracy and interest groups.

Number three, would be to spend $5 billion on implementing the Kyoto accord. That is how much it would cost today because they did not get it done 13 years ago.

Number two, would be to increase the GST from 5% to 7%, over $12 billion in new taxes.

Number one, would be a new gas tax, billions of new taxes at the pumps so each and every one of us will have to pay 60% more than we are paying now.

These billions equal one thing, a Liberal deficit. One person wants to bring our country and our economy to its knees. Who is that? The person who is about to stand up.

[Equalization Payments, April 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal opposition members talk about supporting Ontario, but when it comes to my home province, we have nothing to learn from them. The Liberal Party, when in power, denied Ontario's request for more transfer support. It even sent the member for Markham—Unionville to suggest that its provincial cousins were supporting separatists for even raising the issue in 2005.

Talk about a kick in the teeth. They are the party of the member for Toronto Centre who, as premier, ruined Ontario's finances and plunged it into a massive deficit.

Can the Minister of Finance tell this House what we are doing to support Ontario through our transfer payments?

[Competition Act, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill and to welcome all members back after a long, hard, working week in the ridings. I enjoyed the opportunity to spend the week in St. Catharines and I worked pretty hard on making a couple of announcements with respect to the environment.

Today I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-454, An Act to amend the Competition Act. I listened closely to my colleague about the positions with respect to the non-competition act, which is a pretty complicated bill. It has a number of aspects to it and I will address a couple of them in my remarks today.

First, Bill C-454 contains a provision that would allow consumers to seek restitution for harm they may have suffered as a result of deceptive marketing practices.

Second, the bill would alter the administrative monetary penalty, or the AMP. It is a scheme for deceptive marketing practices. This would be done by increasing the maximum amount of financial penalty that the Competition Tribunal may impose for deceptive marketing practices and by providing for an additional penalty to remove any profits for that activity.

I will begin with the issue of restitution.

Bill C-454 proposes to allow the Competition Tribunal to order a company that has promoted a product through false or misleading advertising to pay restitution to the consumers who purchased that product.

However, the Bloc bill actually gives very little guidance as to how this process would work. In fact, the only direction that the Bloc thought to provide was to instruct the Competition Tribunal to appoint an administrator to manage the restitution fund and process consumer claims. In fact, the proposed wording is extremely broad and vague and could actually cause more harm than good. The language in the bill says that the amount of the restitution is to be distributed “in any manner and on any terms that the court considers appropriate”.

The problem with the Bloc's “throw the ball in the air and maybe we'll get it into the net” approach is that it severely lacks the precision necessary for legislation that actually underpins Canadian business and international competitiveness. I would hope that, in the course of this debate and at committee stage, we will obtain more clarity as to how exactly this proposed restitution scheme would actually function.

For the moment, there are a number of questions that stand out for me.

For example, the issue of unclaimed funds needs to be addressed. There would almost certainly be unclaimed funds every time restitution would be ordered. Not every affected consumer would be aware of a judgment in his or her favour nor would every affected consumer be able to prove that he or she actually bought the product in question. Then there is a good chance that some consumers would simply not bother to pursue their claim, in part, if it is only for the small amount of, say, a few bucks. However, even a few dollars multiplied by thousands or tens of thousands of people, or perhaps more depending on the product, could quickly, as we see, become a great deal of money.

What will become of these funds if they are not claimed? Obviously, such money could not simply be returned to the offending business because that would actually counter what the bill is trying to accomplish. Hopefully, the Bloc has thought through its political rhetoric on this and will be able to answer this important question because I assume that everyone would want to fully understand the answers to these questions.

The second matter that I will address today concerns a provision within Bill C-454 that would allow for increased penalties for individuals and businesses engaging in deceptive marketing.

From a justice perspective, we on this side of the House are in full agreement. When there are serious crimes that require minimum sentencing, we will always be in support.

The current maximum penalty for individuals is $50,000 for a first order and a maximum of $100,000 for each subsequent order. Bill C-454 proposes to raise these amounts to a maximum of $750,000 for the first order and a maximum of $1 million for each subsequent order.

For corporations, the current penalty is a maximum of $100,000 for the first violation and a maximum of $200,000 for each subsequent order. The provisions contained in Bill C-454 would actually replace these amounts with a maximum of up to $10 million for the first violation and a maximum of up to $15 million for each subsequent order.

Bill C-454 also proposes to give the Competition Tribunal the ability to order a second penalty in addition to the one described above. This second penalty appears to be intended to take away profits generated by the deceptive marketing practices.

The nature of these provisions with two separate penalties raises a few questions. First, I would find it useful to get some explanation as to how and why it was decided to propose two types of administrative monetary penalties. What are the reasons for adding this extra layer? Why is a single penalty not adequate? It is not clear to me why they would both be needed.

It would also be very helpful to hear exactly how these two penalties relate to each other. For example, could the Competition Tribunal order the second penalty only after there had been an order for the first one? If the second penalty could be levied on its own, could the tribunal do this in all cases or only in some cases? Has the Bloc actually thought through these issues?

Finally, there is also the issue of how or even whether the restitution scheme I described earlier relates to these penalties. Is it the intention of this bill to have all these provisions apply at the same time? Again, there are a number of questions that do not seem to have any answers within the context of this very complicated bill.

There may be answers to these questions but the Bloc did not answer these essential questions within its legislation. Putting forward half-thought through policy for the sake of some weak political rhetoric is not the right way to go about this. It is my hope that we will get the answers to these very important questions as deliberations on Bill C-454 continue.

The Competition Act is a very complicated piece of legislation. Likewise, Bill C-454 is lengthy and complex. A number of substantive policy questions arising from this legislation, such as implementing “price gouging” or “price regulation”, are provincial matters. I find it interesting that the Bloc raises time after time the issues it faces from a provincial perspective and yet, within the context of this bill, actually surrenders some of that provincial responsibility.

These provisions could be potentially damaging to supply management and should make members wonder whether this is just political wrangling rather than sound legislation as is required for the amendments to the Competition Act.

I trust that during committee stage there will be a complete and thorough review of this bill and that the federalist parties will actually protect the jurisdiction of the provinces because it seems that in portions of this bill the Bloc is not prepared to defend provincial jurisdiction on portions.

[Petitions, April 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on behalf of a number of constituents in the St. Catharines and Niagara community in regard to Bill C-484. The member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park also introduced a petition, and I would like to do the same.