Ted Menzies

[October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House in response to the question by the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

On October 10 the Prime Minister and Premier Danny MacDonald announced an agreement which resolves Nova Scotia's concerns related to recent changes to the equalization program by ensuring that the province will receive at least the full benefits it expected to receive from its accord at the time it was signed in 2005. Formal letters have been exchanged between the federal finance minister and the Nova Scotia finance minister outlining the details regarding our recent agreement on the accord.

The October 10 announcement builds on measures introduced in budget 2007 which set out a new equalization program that applies equally to all provinces, while respecting existing agreements with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have consistently said there was room for flexibility in smoothing the transition to the new principles based equalization program. The federal government is providing Nova Scotia a cumulative best of guarantee to ease its transition to the new equalization system by guaranteeing that the province will do at least as well on a cumulative basis as it would have done under the formula in place at the time of the 2005 accord. With this guarantee, Nova Scotia no longer has to be concerned about the risk of opting into the new equalization formula too early and forgoing any potential benefits of the previous formula.

How much Nova Scotia may stand to gain from this agreement will clearly depend on a variety of factors, such as economic growth, tax revenues, population, and revenues from natural resources, including oil and gas.

We can, however, guarantee that under this agreement Nova Scotia will receive all the benefits it expected to receive at the time it signed the 2005 accord, and possibly more under the new equalization formula. In fact, for the 2007-08 year alone, the new formula is giving $95 million more in equalization and offshore offsets to Nova Scotia, which the province can use to invest in its priorities.

The equalization changes agreed to will require amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. We hope to introduce these changes as soon as possible as part of the Budget Implementation Act.

In addition, the agreement with Nova Scotia seeks to resolve long outstanding issues with respect to crown share adjustment payments by launching an independent panel to find an approach that is agreeable to both governments.

I am pleased that our discussions have come to a successful conclusion. This underlines the capacity of our respective governments to work together. To quote Premier Rodney MacDonald:

These two announcements...at last fulfill the long-standing federal commitment to enable Nova Scotia to become principal beneficiary of our offshore revenues.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member uses some very definitive numbers and let me quote some numbers that would reflect perhaps the opposite of what the hon. member is suggesting.

There is $3.7 billion to support low and modest income Canadians through the cut in the GST. Those are real numbers. Those are numbers that Canadians paid less in taxes; $11.7 billion for families with children through the universal child care benefit. Those are real numbers. More than $7.4 billion for Canada's low income seniors and $1.4 billion to provide basic social development programs for our first nations.

I fail to see the argument that the hon. member raises. These are real numbers that Canadians can vouch for because they have seen the savings.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I do need to remind the member and other hon. members here that we do not take lightly the fact that Canadians have lost jobs, but we do take seriously the fact that the unemployment rates in Canada are the lowest they have been in 33 years. As I said before, Canadians are very adaptive. They have gone out and found new jobs. There are job opportunities because of the strong economic growth in this country.

I realize this may not refer specifically to the hon. member's province, but in Quebec alone that province added 70,000 jobs this year. Those are not just part time jobs. Those are real, high paying jobs.

The hon. member asked how tax cuts help Canadians. We cut the GST from 7% to 6%. Every Canadian who spends money benefits from that tax cut. So for anyone to suggest that this tax cut did not help all Canadians is not reflective of the positive decision that was for this government to make. Positive enough with the feedback we have received, we are going to push forward on reducing it to 5% because we realize with this strong economy people are spending money. They want to receive the tax benefits and by reducing it to 5% there is going to be tax reductions for all Canadians.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Industry was on a roll and I almost want to hand the microphone back to him so he can continue. He was doing an amazing job of explaining why the Liberals cannot understand the wonderful things we are talking about in the Speech from the Throne, but we hope they will listen very closely to our responses to the throne speech. Maybe they will understand when we finish explaining it to them.

I very much appreciate this opportunity to add my remarks to those of the Minister of Industry as well as those of the Minister of Finance in support of the Speech from the Throne.

Let me say first how honoured I am to be the newly appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. This is an honour I share with all of my constituents in the riding of Macleod. I look forward to working with the minister and with Parliament on finance related policy issues and legislation.

Canadians sent us to Ottawa to get things done. They were tired of all the talk and little action. We promised Canadians that Canada's government would provide a long term vision toward a strong future for Canada. We promised to do it in a manner that was committed, focused and fiscally responsible. That is exactly what we did and that is what we will continue to do.

The Minister of Finance has spoken about the government's plan to build on the decisive action it has taken thus far in fulfilling its commitment to Canadians. This commitment is why Canadians sent us to Ottawa. We have a plan, a plan that is not just for the short term to win votes. Our plan shows that we are in it for the long haul. It is a long term economic plan called Advantage Canada.

Advantage Canada provides Canada with five key advantages so that we can compete effectively in the global economy and attract new growth and investment. Let me remind hon. members of just what those advantages are.

First, Advantage Canada provides a tax advantage. In short, our goal is to reduce taxes for all Canadians and establish the lowest tax rate in the G-7 on new business investment.

Second, Advantage Canada will create a fiscal advantage by eliminating Canada's total government net debt in less than a generation.

A third part of our long term plan is to create an entrepreneurial advantage for Canada by reducing unnecessary regulation and red tape and increasing competition in the Canadian marketplace.

Fourth, Advantage Canada will provide a knowledge advantage. This will create the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce so that Canada is ready to take on the world.

Finally, Advantage Canada will create an infrastructure advantage. In order to compete internationally, we need to build the modern bridges, roads and gateways necessary to link our nation and make our workers and businesses more efficient.

We have put our plan into action by building on previous initiatives to deliver on the government's vision for Canada. Today, I would like to remind hon. members of some of the initiatives the government has taken, initiatives that are important to Canada and to Canadians.

One of the first jobs to be done when we formed the government was to reduce taxes for Canadians. We did that in our inaugural budget of 2006. In fact, we delivered more tax relief than the previous four federal budgets combined, something to be proud of.

We did not stop there. Our first two budgets, combined with our tax fairness plan, have provided significant tax relief for Canadian individuals, families, students and seniors.

To start with, we reduced the GST from 7% to 6%, which was a tax cut for everyone.

We introduced the Canada employment credit to help offset the costs of working. This recognizes employees' work expenses for things such as home computers, uniforms and supplies.

We are providing a new child tax credit that recognizes the additional expenses involved in raising a child. About three million taxpayers will benefit from this initiative.

What is more, we are introducing a working income tax benefit to help low income Canadians over the so-called welfare wall.

We are increasing the lifetime capital gains exemptions for Canada's two million small business owners to $750,000 from the existing $500,000, and the first increase in that in 20 years.

In our tax fairness plan, we introduced income splitting for pensioners, a move that will provide targeted assistance to many seniors. The tax fairness plan also took action to level the playing field between corporations and income trusts, bringing Canada in line with other jurisdictions around the world.

In budget 2007, we are taking tax fairness a step further with our anti-tax haven initiative, an initiative that will help prevent tax avoidance.

This government also recognizes the importance of improving our ability to compete globally and we have done just that. The fact is that we have moved quickly to improve Canada's competitive environment.

Look at what we have done so far. We are reducing the general corporate income tax rate from 20.5% in 2008 as part of our commitment to 18.5% by 2011. We are eliminating the corporate surtax in 2008. We increased the threshold for small business income eligible for a reduced federal tax rate from $300,000 to $400,000 as of 2007.

We are reducing the 12% rate for eligible small business income to 11.5% in 2008 and 11% in 2009. We eliminated the federal capital tax in 2006 and we increased capital cost allowance rates for buildings used in manufacturing and processing and other assets.

We are also providing a major new accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturers until the end of 2008. This will allow them to write off their investments and equipment over two years, a much needed shot of adrenalin to help Canadian businesses encourage new economic investment and create jobs.

Of course, our plan for Canada is more than just reducing taxes. Advantage Canada's multi-faceted plan illustrates just that. Just look at budget 2007's historic investment of more than $16 billion over seven years for infrastructure. This brings federal support in this area to over $33 billion.

Moreover, we are reducing the federal paper burden for businesses by 20% and reducing the number of tax filings and remittances for more than 350,000 small businesses. This government set out a challenging agenda for Canada and it has risen to that challenge.

As I mentioned, we have reduced taxes significantly for individuals, families and businesses, total tax reductions over three years of approximately $41 billion. We have reduced the federal debt by $27 billion. Not only that, through our tax back guarantee we are passing on the interest saving on reducing the national debt to Canadians by reducing personal income taxes.

We are limiting the growth of spending in government, we are balancing the books, and we are taking on the environmental challenge with a plan that is both responsible and capable of being achieved in Canada.

Where are we today? I can say that we are in an enviable position internationally. Our economic fundamentals are rock solid. We are on the best financial fiscal footing of any country in the G-7.

Where do we go from here? We have a solid foundation firmly in place. The Speech from the Throne lays out the plan for the future that will build on that foundation. The government said in the Speech from the Throne that it will bring forward a long term plan of broad based tax relief for individuals, businesses and families. This follows through on our commitment to ensure economic security for Canadians as we look toward the future.

Now we need to work together as Canadians. By supporting the initiatives contained in the Speech from the Throne we can make this happen. The upcoming fall economic and fiscal update will detail progress on our plan, which is built on a foundation of sound fiscal management.

Together we have built a country that is prosperous and safe. Now, with strong leadership and a solid plan, we can build an even stronger Canada and offer an even better future for our children.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments in his speech today.

The hon. member and I sat on the international trade committee together in the last session. We had some very interesting discussions. We learned many interesting facts, some of which the hon. member maybe did not portray in the best light, regarding some of the reflections from witnesses who talked about what this new government has done to support the economy, to grow the economy and to encourage trade.

I take exception to some of the member's comments. Certainly some jobs have been lost in many of the sectors, and we empathize with those folks who have lost their jobs. However, we have to look at the overall numbers. Since this government took power, there have been 590,000 new jobs created and 80% of those new jobs are high paying jobs.

Canadians are very adaptable. They do not necessarily have to move to find these jobs. They have gone out and found these jobs. That is a positive. They think that this government is doing a great job of providing new economic growth for them. In the last year alone, 280,000 new jobs have been created.

I realize in the hon. member's region there have been some job losses. We have had this discussion. However, is there not a reflection in the jobs that have been created that they actually are compensating for some of the lost jobs?

[Securities, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that Canada is the only industrialized country in the world that does not have a common securities regulator.

It is all about competition, providing competitive advantages for people who are involved in our economy. We realize that the provinces need to be consulted on this, which is why the finance minister will establish a panel to look it over.

[Special Import Measures Act, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to comment on the private member's bill tabled by the member for Terrebonne—Blainville calling on the government to amend the Special Import Measures Act.

The bill proposes an amendment to section 20 of the Special Import Measures Act. The amendment would set out the conditions required for deeming whether domestic prices in a country are substantially determined by the government of that country and whether there is sufficient reason to believe that they are not substantially the same as they would be if they were determined in a competitive market.

The Special Import Measures Act, or SIMA, is Canada's principal legal instrument that governs the application of anti-dumping and countervailing duties to imports of dumped or subsidized goods that are found to cause injury to domestic producers.

Under SIMA, a Canadian industry is entitled to trade remedy protection if it is established through a formal investigation that the imports are being dumped or subsidized and that the dumping or subsidizing has caused or threatens to cause injury to that industry.

In such a case, definitive anti-dumping or countervailing duties are normally levied on all imported subject goods for a period of five years, with the possibility of an extension if Canada's administrating authorities, those being the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, determine that there is likely to be a continuation or a recurrence of dumping or subsidization and injury if the duties are removed.

SIMA implements Canada's rights and obligations under two WTO agreements: the anti-dumping agreement and an agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures.

Key provisions of these agreements include methods for determining the existence of dumping and countervailable subsidies, requirements for the initiation of investigations, obligations respecting procedural fairness, the duration of orders and the transparency in the decision making.

In addition, these agreements set out the economic factors to be considered in determining whether injury exists and whether or not such injury is caused by dumped or subsidized imports.

As originally drafted in 1984, SIMA represents a balance of interests between those parties requiring protection from injuriously dumped or subsidized imports and those requiring secure access to imports to ensure profitability for their economic activities.

The importance of this balance between imports and production concerns continues to be relevant as the dependence of Canadian manufacturers on imported inputs has increased substantially since 1984.

Today, imported inputs make up 34% of the content of goods manufactured in Canada.

When SIMA was reviewed by the subcommittees of the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade in 1996, the subcommittees' conclusion was that the basic circumstances that motivated Canada to establish SIMA continued to exist; that is to say, the law provides basic protection to Canadian producers while limiting unnecessary collateral damage to downstream users of the products in question.

During the 1996 review of SIMA, a large number of interested parties representing a wide cross-section of the Canadian economy appeared before the subcommittees to present their views. The witnesses commented on whether the legislation continued to adequately serve Canada's national economic interests, including industries that benefit from trade remedy protection and industry associations that must import goods as a normal course of business.

Following the completion of this review, Canadian industries also took advantage of the opportunity to make their views on these issues known to the government in the context of the Doha round of trade negotiations at the WTO.

As part of the extensive consultation process related to the WTO, the government received 23 submissions from industry and provincial governments that provided input for developing Canada's position on the negotiations, which aim to clarify and improve disciplines related to the WTO anti-dumping and subsidy agreements.

The government takes the consultation process very seriously an regularly updates industry on the status of negotiations. Extensive consultations are critical for developing and maintaining an effective multilateral negotiating position and are equally important in the consideration of unilateral changes to Canada's domestic trade laws.

In fact, the government has recently received recommendations from two parliamentary standing committees that call for the government to conduct a review of Canada's trade remedy system. The first recommendation came in the February 2007 report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology entitled “Manufacturing: Moving Forward--Rising to the Challenge”.

Two of the recommendations were trade policy related, one of which recommended that the government conduct an internal review of Canadian anti-dumping countervail and safeguard policies, practices and their applications to ensure that Canada's trade remedy laws and practices remain current and effective.

This review would also include comparisons with other WTO members such as the EU and the U.S. This recommendation was based on the standing committee's observation that the growing economies of countries such as China and India represent a challenge for Canadian producers to both their domestic and American export markets. As well, the standing committee noted the concern expressed by some industries regarding an apparent divergence between Canadian trade law and its application, and it believed more information was required. This led to the recommendation for a review of Canada's trade remedy system.

Following this report came an April 2007 report of the Standing Committee on International Trade entitled “Ten Steps to a Better Trade Policy”. Among the recommendations in the report was a call for the government to immediately review its trade remedy system to ensure that critically valued imports, needed as inputs by companies who subsequently export products out of the country, are not unnecessarily blocked.

The standing committee was told that Canada's trade remedy system needs a different mindset, that is not to assume that all imports from China are bad because for some manufacturers such imports are critical. In fact, one witness noted that, “it’s the only way they’re going to be in the game.”

The government intends to table responses to these recommendations shortly. It is interesting that these standing committees made identical recommendations within two months of each other, namely that the government conduct a review of Canada's trade remedy system. However, these recommendations were made for quite different reasons.

The industry committee recommends a review to ensure that Canada's trade remedy system remains effective to deal with dumped or subsidized imports. The international trade committee recommends a review to ensure that Canadian manufacturers have stable and predictable access to global supply chains.

Although these two standing committees had opposing views on the role and impact of Canada's trade remedy system on Canadian manufacturers, they made identical recommendations. Because they agree that the government must consider the trade remedy system as a whole and to take into account the view of all stakeholders before considering changes to the system, the government supports the view of the standing committees that all stakeholders must have an opportunity to put forth their views on the legislation as a whole.

SIMA has been amended several times to reflect changes in international agreements and to implement the recommendations of the 1996 parliamentary review. However, there has never been an amendment to a single provision of the legislation without broader consideration being taken into account.

Bill C-411 would have us take a piecemeal approach to the Special Import Measures Act that would be contrary to ensuring this law reflects a proper balance of interests.

[Riding of MacLeod, June 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to spending time in my beautiful riding of Macleod this summer. I have represented Canada around the world but nothing compares to the natural beauty of Macleod.

From the southern Alberta Summer Games being held this year in the Crowsnest Pass in July to Longview's Bar-U Ranch, a national historic site celebrating its 125th anniversary this year, Macleod is rich in history and activity.

Macleod's businesses and communities are at the forefront of local innovation and development, especially in the biofuels industry. In fact, Ag Energy Corporation in Vulcan and Western Biofuels in High River will benefit from the investments made by the federal government in biofuels.

This summer, farmers in my riding know that they will be able to market their barley outside of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Families and individuals will benefit from tax relief provided by the government's budget.

Business and industry will benefit from Canada's first free trade agreement in six years with the EFTA countries and the new FIPA with India.

I look forward to a great summer sharing these and all the other achievements of the government with my constituents in the beautiful riding of Macleod.

[International Trade, June 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to strengthening our relationship with India, and we have delivered. On Saturday, the Minister of International Trade announced that Canada has concluded a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with India, a key step toward increasing trade and investment flows.

This FIPA and the recent free trade agreement with the EFTA countries send a clear and unambiguous signal that after 13 years of Liberal neglect Canada is back in business.

[Softwood Lumber, June 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, that could not be further from the truth and, in fact, I believe it was the Liberals who saw the wisdom in this softwood lumber agreement and did indeed help it get through committee. I would correct the hon. member with that.

It is very unfortunate that the housing industry in the United States has softened and we are feeling the pressures from that but we are dealing with the Americans in a face-to-face discussion.