House of Commons Hansard #177 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agreements.

Topics

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague rightly pointed out, the U.S. has now signed an agreement with Panama, which is one of the reasons that we are focused on getting this agreement through the House. Canadian companies are finding themselves at a disadvantage on the Panamanian market as U.S. consumers and our competitors in that market have a distinct leg-up.

As we move forward, these kinds of agreements foster growth and regulations. They foster a positive change for countries that engage in these reciprocal trade agreements. I see this as an excellent opportunity for Panama to improve its position on the world stage and improve its relationship with Canada.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the fact that there have been a number of trade agreements that have gone through the House since Conservatives have taken the government reins in Canada, but one of the things we need to recognize is the trade surplus/deficit situation. When Conservatives came to government, they had a huge trade surplus in excess of $25 billion. It was a wonderful gift to have walked into a situation like that. Conservatives have turned that surplus into a trade deficit of $50 billion.

They have been successful at signing some trade agreements. We could give them a pat on the back to a certain degree for that, but can the member explain why it is that we have lost that trade surplus and under the current government we now have a huge trade deficit? Why is that?

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Ryan Leef Conservative Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member missed the global economic recession that the entire planet faced, but our government introduced an economic action plan that allowed Canadians to weather that storm and do better than G7 and G20 countries. We are now moving forward with trade agreements that are going to improve the deficit the member is highlighting. I could not help but notice he spent a good portion of time patting himself on the back for all the work he is trying to take credit for in years past.

We had an unprecedented recession and Canada weathered that storm quite well. With the 800,000 net new jobs that our government has created across all sectors, we are going to be able to take advantage of these kinds of trade agreements to move Canada even closer to being a global economic power.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to engage in the debate on Bill C-24 at third reading, as I did at second reading, because it is an important debate and an important bill. It is about how we trade with other nations in the world. I have said before and will say again that it is my contention, and that of the official opposition, that Canada should be much more engaged in promoting multilateral trade. We should be working with the international community in its entirety. That is the best way to work toward better deals and arrangements to lift the trade standards of all countries equally, rather than trying to do one-offs with countries to beat the U.S. or the European community. Otherwise, it is kind of hit and miss.

As has been stated here, the Conservative government has not been particularly successful in improving our trade circumstances. We have such a significant trade deficit in this country. Deals with countries like Panama, while being important to the people who are doing business with Panama, and I do not want to understate that importance whatsoever, pale in comparison to our trading relationship with the United States and with many of the other countries that we are trying to trade with.

My colleague, the member for Beauport—Limoilou, did an excellent job of talking about the reason that we should be concerned about Panama's status as a tax haven. He talked about why that was such a problem and why it is that the government should be paying more attention to the concerns that have been raised by the international community, the OECD and the United States Congress, which refused to sign on to a trade deal with Panama until an agreement on the exchange of tax information was completed.

I heard one member opposite say the fact that the U.S. has signed on to a trade deal with Panama is another reason that we must hurry up and that we are again being surpassed by the U.S. This trade deal was originally signed by the current government back in 2009. The government members have not shown any urgency whatsoever to get it done. Now that we finally get it into the House and start to look at it and debate it, the Conservatives should not try to scare me, as a member of this chamber, into cutting down on my questions and concerns simply because the government has been tardy and as a result the United States has beaten us in that relationship with Panama. However, it has also shown us a bit about negotiations and about ensuring it is protecting the interests of Americans, in that case, because their Congress insisted on getting an agreement on the exchange of tax information before signing on to the deal. That is something the Conservatives have not done.

In the past three years, since the deal was signed, what have the Minister of International Trade and his colleagues been doing? What has the parliamentary secretary been doing? They should have been ensuring that this additional agreement on the exchange of tax information was completed and signed. We could have debated it in the House and it would have gone some distance in helping to encourage members of the opposition benches that this was a deal that had some merit. However, they did not do that.

I sometimes get the feeling, from the way government members talk about what great free traders they are, that all they are concerned about is being able to say they have signed a deal on trade. When it comes to ensuring the deal is the best one we could get, not perfect but the best one we could get, that would be good. That would be a point well taken. Unfortunately, the government tends to say it has a deal and it has to be signed regardless of members' objections.

New Democrats introduced 13 very reasonable, modest, important and integral amendments at committee and not one of them was supported by the government. There was everything from ensuring the side deals on labour and the environment are included, to tax transparency, to the question of increasing sustainable investment, to harmonious and sustainable development. These are matters that are important to us and to the Panamanian people. Surely, members opposite do not want to benefit from the exploitation of others.

While we can agree that we want Canadian companies and businesses in this country to profit and benefit from any trade we do with other countries, surely we recognize that does not mean we are at all content with benefiting at the expense of others. If it is as a result of exploiting child labour or causing the degradation of the environment of another country or exploiting or penalizing workers, surely members opposite will agree that it is simply not worth it.

Frankly, that is why I say we should be going the way of Australia and establishing principles on which to make sure we conduct ourselves as we relate with the rest of the world. As we engage in economic relationships with other countries, we need to set standards, as Australia has done. The standards deal with the promotion of multilateral trade with other countries to ensure that we all benefit from economic activity in the global community. That should be in the best interests of this country and the members of the House.

I want to pick up on one thing that caused me some concern and that is the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The question of investor-state provisions was raised. He was asked a question about the fact that this agreement contains the same investor-state provisions as the free trade agreement with the United States. In that respect, it ensures that Canadian companies will be dealt with in that country on the basis of certain laws and rules, and so on. That is questionable when dealing with a country such as Panama that is developing its justice system. However, the Panamanian companies that are dealing with Canada can have access to those provisions and can sue our companies or our subnational governments, if they feel they are being wrongly dealt with economically.

I am concerned, in light of the fact that the government is engaging in the FIPA, the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with China, in complete secrecy by the way, that he does not understand an important part of the provision with Panama, let alone an important part of the FIPA with China.

Perhaps I will a get a chance to address this concern more fully when questions are asked.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Calgary Centre-North Alberta

Conservative

Michelle Rempel ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot this afternoon about balance of trade. The balance of trade definition, for those in this House who may not be aware of it, is the difference between a country's imports and exports. In order for us to increase our exports, we need to have more markets for them. That is the purpose of negotiating trade agreements; increasing our exports grows our economy.

To my colleague who just spent 10 minutes talking sort of superfluously about maybe getting more trade and growing the economy, how does the member feel about trade in general? Will his party finally support an agreement that promotes new markets for Canadian products?

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I am disappointed that the member found my intervention on this important piece of legislation superfluous, but then again we all have different standards of debate in this House.

Let me say that the official opposition has said, on numerous occasions, that we support free trade and that we support multilateral trade. We are a trading nation. I am from the trading province of Nova Scotia. We support and promote trade.

However, we want to make sure that the trade is in our interests and in the interests of the country we are trading with. Let us not be caught up in the fact that we simply want to be able to say, “Hey, we got another deal.” We want to be able to say, “Hey, we have a good deal for Canadians.”

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his speech related to comments on investor-state provisions.

I wonder if the member wants to share any reflections on the irony that our Prime Minister is currently in India, where the Indian Parliament has refused to ratify the investor-state agreement with Canada because of the very concerns that members of the opposition benches in this House have. India is apparently allowing their parliamentarians to vote; whereas in Canada we are not to see Parliament have a chance to speak to this issue before ratification. I am speaking of the Canada-China investment treaty.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised this issue earlier about the concerns around the investor-state provision, which I followed up on in my intervention.

The irony of the way the government deals with issues like foreign investment is truly incredible. We expect the government to get an agreement on tax information exchange transparency when it will not even be transparent on an important deal with China that is going to lock us in for 31 years.

As has been suggested in the question that was just asked, India has refused to sign on to the investor-state provision with Canada without having this matter come before their Parliament. I bet Canadians who are listening to this debate, and I am sure there are five or six, as well as the ones who will be reviewing Hansard later, will also recognize the huge irony in the position of the government.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Paulina Ayala NDP Honoré-Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his speech.

There is one thing that strikes me about free trade agreements. I find that, on our continent, Canada lacks vision and its agreements are not very ambitious. They focus solely on trade and the benefits to certain major companies. That is all.

There does not seem to be a regional vision for integrating the other countries. We would all do better if certain basic conditions were met.

I would like my colleague to talk a bit more about that.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

NDP

Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that question. That is what I was talking about in terms of establishing principles. It is promoting multilateral trade with principles whereby our country and the people of our country and the country we want to do business with are all lifted higher, and we make sure that their rights and our rights are equally protected.

The House resumed from November 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse), be read the third time and passed.

Protecting Canada's Seniors ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

It being six o'clock, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-36.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #491

Protecting Canada's Seniors ActGovernment Orders

6:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Citizenship ActPrivate Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

It being 6:40, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper.

The hon. member for Calgary Northeast is not present to move the order as announced in today's notice paper. Accordingly, the bill will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Persons with DisabilitiesAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, on June 8, I asked the minister where the follow-up report on the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was, why it was late, and if it was overdue because the government was dragging its feet. The government ratified the convention in 2010 and had two years to issue its follow-up report—

Persons with DisabilitiesAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Order, please. It is way too noisy. I cannot hear the speaker. Please vacate the chamber if you are not staying for the speech. If you are staying for the speech, please sit down and be quiet.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

Persons with DisabilitiesAdjournment Proceedings

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC

Canada ratified the convention in 2010 and had two years to issue its follow-up report, which was due in April 2012. This obligation is set out in article 35 of the convention. At the time, the government was over two months late issuing the report, and now it is over seven months late.

The purpose of this convention is to protect the rights and dignity of people with disabilities. The government has an obligation to promote, protect and ensure the full enjoyment of human rights by people with disabilities and to ensure that they enjoy full equality under the law.

I did not receive an answer to the question that I asked in June. No reason was given to justify the fact that this follow-up report was late and no indication was given of even an approximate date as to when the report would be issued. The minister did mention it, nor did she mention the process. Instead, she spoke about the programs that the government put in place for people with disabilities and her intention to implement new programs.

The government has indeed introduced various programs for people with disabilities, but that is not the issue. The issue is what progress has been made or what steps backward have been taken. Nothing could be less certain in this regard. A number of reports published over the past few months have suggested that there are still serious problems when it comes to education, accessibility and equality of opportunity and income for people with disabilities.

Let us talk about these programs, such as the disability tax credit, which is problematic in many respects. In order to be eligible for the tax credit, a person must have a severe and prolonged impairment in physical or mental functions for at least 12 months. This condition is difficult to fulfill for people suffering from chronic or recurrent conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, mental illness or hearing loss. These people are rarely eligible. Some impairments, such as those mentioned, are different. For example, people with multiple sclerosis may be able to carry out daily activities and even work for a certain amount of time. Then, suddenly, it becomes impossible for them to do anything.

Unfortunately, because of the cyclical nature of these diseases, these people are very vulnerable and rely on most of the programs for those with functional impairments, including the tax credit. In fact, the tax credit is based on the idea that the disability is permanent and does not change significantly. To give an idea to those who are watching, in Canada, 55,000 people have multiple sclerosis and 333,000 people have chronic fatigue syndrome.

Consider the most recent report by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This report, which came out this past summer, points out the significant gaps in equality of opportunity for persons with disabilities.

If the government does not implement adequate corrective measures, then there is cause for concern. However, again, we do not have all the necessary information to take action.

Canada has to report to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on the progress it has made in implementing the convention. This progress report is a requirement under the convention. The public wants to know what has been done to implement the convention and the impact that the legislation and the programs for persons with disabilities have had. People want to know in what tangible way the lives of persons with disabilities have changed, what shortcomings have been identified and what the government intends to do about them. A modicum of transparency would be welcome.

I will repeat my question: when does the government intend to table this report?

Persons with DisabilitiesAdjournment Proceedings

6:45 p.m.

Simcoe—Grey Ontario

Conservative

Kellie Leitch ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Montcalm on persons with disabilities.

Our government is investing in empowering Canadians with disabilities. We are helping to remove obstacles and are creating opportunities for these Canadians to fully participate in their communities and in the labour force.

Our goal is to create a truly inclusive society in which everyone can participate and contribute to their communities.

Let me mention some of the specific measures our government has undertaken to support people with disabilities.

We are helping individuals with disabilities and their families save for the future through the registered disability savings plan, the Canada disability savings grant and the Canada disability savings bond. We support students with disabilities by helping to finance their post-secondary education through special grants and loans. We have employment programs, such as the opportunities fund, which has helped over 60,000 Canadians with disabilities get into the job market. We continue to support the full participation of people with disabilities in their communities through the enabling accessibility fund, which contributes to projects that improve accessibility and that remove barriers to facilities, activities and services. Our government has provided accessibility funds to more than 835 projects throughout Canada.

The Office for Disability Issues in HRSDC is promoting coordination across the government on disability policy and is the federal focal point on matters relating to the convention.

Our government has a steadfast commitment to ensuring the full inclusion of people with disabilities in Canada and will continue to promote ongoing compliance with the convention moving forward.

Unfortunately, the NDP continue to vote against all of these efforts that we have put forward for persons with disabilities. It is exceptionally disappointing for an individual like me, who has spent time as a professional dealing with families and particularly children with disabilities, that the NDP continue to not support these initiatives.

Persons with DisabilitiesAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, let us get back to the issue and talk about Canada's commitments under the convention.

The government has a commitment to ensure that no Canadian lives in poverty simply because he or she is disabled. According to the recent HungerCount 2012 report, more than one out of every ten people assisted by food banks relies on disability benefits as a primary source of income.

Why does the government allow the disabled to live in poverty? These people are forced to turn to food banks just to have enough to eat. The convention recognizes that disabled persons have the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food. We need to know how the government is upholding its commitments to disabled persons. We need to know whether the government is following through on its commitment, whether the programs implemented are in line with the targeted objectives, the guiding principles and the obligations of the convention.

In less than a month it will be the International Day of Disabled Persons. Will the government present its long-awaited report by then, yes or no?

Persons with DisabilitiesAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, each year our government transfers significant funds to the provinces through federal-provincial training programs for persons with disabilities. These agreements support a broad range of services and programs to respond to the labour market participation and the needs of individuals with disabilities. This helps people with disabilities to get the training for the jobs they need. About 300,000 individuals are assisted each year through these programs.

Our government also supports the income security of people with disabilities through the registered disability savings plan, the Canada disability savings grant, the Canada disability savings bond and a range of tax measures, including the disability tax credit, the first time home buyers tax credit and the working income tax benefit disability supplement.

I hope that members of the House will join me in supporting our improved and focused strategy for data collection and in celebrating the progress we have made in society to include all individuals with disabilities so they can participate in their communities and in the job market.

Aboriginal AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

November 6th, 2012 / 6:50 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, when I last raised this question I asked the government what it was going to do about the nutrition north program, specifically whether it would commit to fixing the program given that it is not working for northerners.

I want to refer to the Feeding My Family Facebook group, which has been working hard to bring awareness of the fact that the high cost of food is preventing many northerners from living healthy, happy and productive lives. They have some suggestions for how to tackle this problem.

Their current objectives include encouraging northerners to empower themselves to create independence from within the people at the grass roots level; unifying people across the north to share one voice; encouraging government policy-makers and retailers to find better ways of lowering the cost of food, given that Nutrition North Canada is not doing enough; encouraging new food suppliers to operate in the north in order to increase competition and lower prices; encouraging improvements in food quality through better inventory control, such as removing inedible and rotting food from store shelves, proper food shipping and handling, and reducing transit time for perishable foods; encouraging the establishment of more food banks; and working with government and other NGOs to improve the overall quality of life for northerners.

I do not have time to go over all the statistics, but according to recent reports, residents spend an average of $14,815 per year on food, or 25% of their total expenditures. This compares to an average of $7,262 in Canada overall. One of the other problems is that the few food banks that are around the north have seen an 18% increase in use over the past year, according to Hunger Count.

Hunger Count also indicates that it has some solutions the government might want to look at. In its report it says:

It is clear that a new model for household food security in the North is necessary. Although there is much innovation and experimentation at the community level, a new model requires investment, which is sorely lacking in many northern communities.

It recommends:

The creation of a federal Northern Food Security Innovation Fund, to help jumpstart and sustain community-based, community-led food initiatives across the North;

The establishment and adequate funding of comprehensive school breakfast programs across the territories;

Significant investment in community-building infrastructure in northern communities, including the construction or rehabilitation of community-identified resources like community centres and community freezers.

Given the fact that the price of food in the north is still far beyond what Canadians in the south pay, will the government pay attention to what northerners are asking for and commit to working closely with them to invest in the programs and services that northerners are proposing would help address the high food prices?

Aboriginal AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Kenora Ontario

Conservative

Greg Rickford ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question from the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. I think after more than a couple of years on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, it is pretty safe to say that we both share a passion to improve the lives and fortunes of first nation communities. It is probably also safe to say that we do not necessarily agree about how to get there, but I think the focus here is on the outcome.

Let me assure the hon. member that our government is committed to providing northerners with greater access to healthy food choices at the point of purchase in their communities. That means at the cash register in the grocery store in the their communities. Nutrition North Canada is one of these programs. This is a program that improves access to perishable and healthy food in isolated northern communities without year-round surface transportation. Since the program's launch on April 1, 2011, Nutrition North Canada has provided retailers, suppliers and country-food processors with subsidies for a variety of perishable foods, including fruit, vegetables, milk, eggs, meat, cheese and bread.

Subsidies are also provided for country or traditional foods that are commercially processed in the north such as Arctic char, muskox and caribou. These are foods that people in these communities have been eating and have depended on for nutritional sustenance perhaps since time immemorial. As well, some other direct foods are subsidized.

With an advisory board uniquely made up of northerners to help guide the program, Nutrition North Canada currently benefits 103 remote northern communities in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Nutrition North Canada is helping bring healthy food to northern homes and providing northerners with healthy food choices. The program follows a new market-driven model, which is a sustainable, efficient, cost-effective and transparent means of helping northerners access nutritious perishable food at reduced cost in their communities.

After the first year of operation, we have seen prices decrease and consumption of healthy food increase across the north. We have seen these results with a similar level of funding as under the previous program. Prices have dropped, for example, by as much as 37% on some products, such as two litres of milk. The Nutrition North Canada program was designed to be flexible and adjustable, based on feedback from consumers, retailers and suppliers while working within the program's budget.

We continue to work in concert with northerners, retailers and suppliers through the Nutrition North Canada advisory board to address stakeholders' concerns and provide recommendations to our government as the Nutrition North Canada program develops and evolves. We are committed to providing a subsidy program that is focused on the most nutritious foods with greater accountability and transparency. We have an advisory board comprised of northerners to help us meet this commitment.

In my own riding, which has more isolated and remote communities than any other riding in this country, it might surprise some folks to know that at the point of purchase in their grocery stores, for the first time ever, my constituents are experiencing reduced prices. More first nation communities are getting on board with this program because they are seeing these results.

Aboriginal AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, that still does not deal with the fact that many northern communities are facing prices that are more than double what southerners pay.

In the statistics that came out from January 1 to March 31, country food was the least subsidized food. Only 192 kilograms of country food was distributed to communities at a total cost of $218. Yet country food is often talked about as being an important staple. In a question on the order paper I asked the government what it was doing about country food, and it indicated that Health Canada and the CFIA have said that there are no legal implications for applying a federal government subsidy to country food that is certified by a territorial or provincial regulatory authority, as long as the food remains within the same territory or province in which it was certified.

The government says that the program is prepared to consider subsidizing traditional country food, subject to these criteria. It has also indicated that the departments will continue to support access to country food with a view toward bringing together the relevant actors. What is the government doing to improve access to country foods?