Debates of June 11th, 2013

First Nations Elections Act

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course it is important to talk about economic development. However, with respect to aboriginal people, economic development cannot be achieved through tyranny, and especially not without real consultation.

In my speech, I mentioned the importance of conducting real consultations that take into account the solutions put forward by aboriginal people. Bill S-6 does the opposite.

That is why, in 2013, the government is still telling aboriginal people how they should see the world and everything around them. However, it is not up to the government to do so. It is up to aboriginal people to determine their own vision when it comes to economic development.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in their speeches on this bill, government members made references to freedom, respect and democracy for aboriginal people.

However, many groups representing aboriginal people have called for the government to remove paragraphs 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c), which give immeasurable discretionary power to the minister to subject certain aboriginal communities to the legislation. Instead of giving them the power to appoint a new chief, the government wants to subject these communities to rules governing that process. The parliamentary secretary must understand that there is a difference between the two.

I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that this measure, this discretionary power, is undemocratic and does not honour the intent of the law.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her very relevant question.

We once again have to deal with this government's undemocratic measures and solutions. We cannot stress this enough. It goes without saying that this is not the first time that we have seen a minister give himself discretionary power. There have been other examples of this. This minister is no exception.

He is not giving aboriginal people any freedom to make their own decisions. He is not letting them take charge of their own realities and their own future. The government is not consulting first nations, and when it does, it does not take into account the solutions they propose.

We are faced with a government that wants to control everything and that wants to advance its political agenda without taking into account aboriginal peoples or MPs. That is the direction that things are going in, and we are truly dealing with undemocratic positions and decisions.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That brings an end to the debate at this time.

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

International Trade

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise, I suppose I should say this morning. It is still June 11 on the calendar in front of the Speaker, but we know that it is June 12, at 12:16 a.m.

I am pursuing a question that I initially asked in question period on March 21. The question relates to the Canada-China investment treaty and its quite extraordinary measures which stand in quite sharp contrast, not only to other treaties in which Canada has become involved, but other investment treaties as well. On March 21, I contrasted some of the provisions of the treaty that had been tabled in the House in February with the small African nation of Benin. For this treaty, we have very low levels of trade compared to the $7 billion with the People's Republic of China.

I want to highlight one of the aspects of the Benin treaty versus the Canada-China investment treaty tonight. It is very difficult to get a proper debate on this issue. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have not have had a proper debate on the Canada-China investment treaty, although it stands poised for ratification by the cabinet alone.

I should pause to thank the Hupacasath First Nation, near Port Alberni on Vancouver Island, for having the courage to take the matter to court. For three days of the last week, they were in court in Vancouver. We all await the decision of the judge in that matter, adjudicating as to whether first nations' rights have been violated. No first nations across Canada, whether treaty nations or otherwise, were consulted before the treaty was signed between the current Prime Minister and President Hu of China.

The specific matter I want to concentrate on in the remaining two and a half minutes that I have is the question of exit provisions. The first investment treaty in which Canada became involved was NAFTA, chapter 11, which allows exit by Canada, the U.S. or Mexico on 6 months' notice. The provisions of the treaty with Benin, to which I referred on March 21, are certainly much longer than that. There is a one-year notice period, and after one year's notice, any existing investments between Canada and Benin are protected for a further 15 years under the terms of the treaty which Canada and Benin at that point would have exited.

The extraordinary thing about the treaty with the People's Republic of China is that there is not six months as under NAFTA, or 16 years as under the treaty with Benin, which is bad enough; under the treaty with the People's Republic of China, Canada is bound for the first 15 years before notice can be given, followed by one year's written notice and then a further 15 years in which any investments made by the People's Republic of China are protected.

In other words, once ratified, this treaty will bind any Canadian government in the future for 31 years from the point at which the treaty is ratified. It is quite extraordinary.

I want to comment on a common misconception. Because the current Prime Minister has seen fit to withdraw Canada from a number of treaties, namely the Kyoto protocol and the convention on drought desertification, it has created some sense in the land that a future prime minister can just rip up a treaty.

Let us be clear. The current Prime Minister executed withdrawal from Kyoto under the terms of the Kyoto protocol. One year's written notice was required. Canada exited the treaty on drought and desertification on the terms of that convention. A notice of 90 days was required.

The Canada-China investment treaty would bind any future prime minister and government for 31 years. There is no way out, and if Canada were to unilaterally leave the treaty, it would be subject to damages and damage claims in 100 countries around the world.

In other words, the only way to stop this convention is to prevent ratification.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, although I have tremendous respect for that member of Parliament and know she works hard and whatnot, I am quite surprised at the lack of knowledge the member has on some of the information regarding this exact treaty. Let me take a moment to refresh my colleague's memory about why Canada is involved in this specific treaty.

Our government understands the importance of trade to our economy. It represents one out of every five jobs in Canada and accounts for 62% of our country's GDP. That is why our government moves forward with ambitious pro-trade plans. They are really the most vigorous in our country's history.

Our plan is to open new markets for Canadian exporters. That includes in the fastest-growing Asia-Pacific region. The opportunities for Canadian exporters in the Asia-Pacific are absolutely phenomenal. Countries in the region include those with economic growth rates of two to three times the global average.

However, before I speak further about the opportunities for Canada in the Asia-Pacific, and particularly with Canada's second-largest export destination, China, I would like to comment on a reference the member opposite made in her original question to our FIPA with Benin.

The FIPA with Benin is just one example of our government's engagement in Africa. In fact, in addition to Benin, Canada has concluded FIPA negotiations with Cameroon, Zambia, Madagascar, Mali, Senegal and Tanzania. These investment treaties will strengthen economic ties between Canada and these partner countries and help Canadian companies invest with greater confidence in these markets. At the same time, facilitating two-way investment helps generate jobs, growth and long-term prosperity that we all hope for in Canada.

Our government is proud of the steps we have taken to strengthen ties with our partners in Africa, but we help Canadian exporters and investors capture new opportunities in other fast growing markets around the world, including in Asia.

An important part of our commercial relationship is ensuring that not only two-way trade occurs, but also investment between Canada and other countries can take place in a stable and secure manner. That is why Canada has over 24 foreign investment promotion and protection agreements with key trade and investment partners, including with China, the world's second largest economy and now Canada's second largest export destination. This is only second to the United States of America.

Canada's trade relationship with China continues to grow. In fact, Canadian goods exports to China rose 15% last year, to over $19 billion. Not only that, but Canada's exports to China have nearly doubled under our Conservative government.

This is a favourable agreement that lends to create the opportunities that Canadian exporters need. It also provides opportunities in China, so Canadians can be present on the ground. That will lead to growth, economic prosperity and job creation.

Along with this trade agreement, there are many other good things to come. I sincerely hope the member opposite will give a second look to the agreement, because there are some wonderful opportunities for Canadians. I hope she will side with us in allowing us to provide those opportunities as have been indicated.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me point out the gigantic fallacy in what the parliamentary secretary just offered us. Implicit in everything she said was the idea—and it is not just the one member, but all of those who speak in favour of the treaty—that we could not trade with China or expand our investments in China or expand Chinese investments in Canada without this treaty. That is simply false.

The country in the world with the largest volume of trade with the People's Republic of China is Australia. Australia has specifically decided never to enter in to an investor state agreement again, not with China, not with other countries. Australia did what Canada has not done. Australia studied the costs and benefits of the kind of treaty that would allow a foreign company, and in the case of the People's Republic of China, a foreign government, to bring arbitration suits for billions of dollars if they did not like domestic laws passed democratically.

If Australia can attract $60 billion worth of trade with China without an investor state agreement, why on earth are we offering ourselves up as a sacrifice to the People's Republic of China and potential arbitration suits that will cost us our sovereignty?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that member is absolutely wrong. It would not cost us our sovereignty at all.

What the member said about opportunities that exist in Canada for Chinese investors is, in fact, true. However, the problem is that we do not have the same opportunities and the same equality of opportunity for our investors in China. That is why the FIPA is so important. It is to level the playing field and provide equal opportunity in both countries.

When I hear members talk about not proceeding with trade and using examples of countries that have refused to proceed with trade, I am appalled, because we are an exporting country. We must have trade to succeed. We must have trade to have economic growth.

Therefore, I would really urge the member opposite to reconsider her position against all trade, because it is not very much in the interest of Canada or Canadians.

Taxation

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am noting that it is 12:25 a.m. It is late, but it is never too late to shine the spotlight on issues that are affecting small business in a negative way.

I am referring to a question I asked in the House regarding the increases in import tariffs that would leave Canadians paying hundreds of millions of dollars more for over 1,200 items. It would be a hidden tax on goods that will drive the customers of Canadian businesses to shop in the United States. It will be bad for consumers and bad for Canadian businesses.

The Conservatives talk a lot about their federal budget. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars advertising their economic plan. I would love to see them advertise some of these taxes that are hidden in the budget implementation bill, hidden taxes that would affect small businesses and the people who work in them.

Small business is the lifeblood of our communities, whether it is the small businesses I met with at the Kitsilano Chamber of Commerce, for example, at their AGM recently, who were networking to help each other be successful; the Young Professionals of Nanaimo, who work in the public interest to raise funds for local projects and support each other in their emerging businesses; or the clean tech businesses I met at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada's recent conference, who are investing in innovation so that Canada can have a clean technology export industry that thrives.

These businesses create half of all new jobs in Canada. They account for 40% of our GDP, employ about two-thirds of the workforce and account for 43% of the value of exports. They are very important community members. Their success is critical to Canada. However, they are being hit with increased taxes that are hidden in the budget.

Beyond these tariff increases, there is also a $2.3-billion increase in dividend taxes, to be paid over the next five years by small businesses. That is $2.3 billion they could be retaining to help with the investments they need to make. That comes on top of yet another year of hikes to the EI payroll taxes that collectively cost businesses $9 billion.

These budget items risk undermining our entrepreneurs. As well, it makes it more expensive to own and run these businesses. As a former small business owner myself, I know just how challenging it is to succeed and thrive, be innovative and grow a small business. I am not sure why the government wants to tie their hands behind their backs by increasing taxes.

It might be that this very kind of approach helps to explain the government's failure on the economy and the way they are failing Canadian families economically. It just does not seem to understand the realities of everyday Canadians and small businesses.

I have many statistics from organizations such as TD Economics, Trading Economics and so forth to confirm the assertion that unemployment is high under the current government. There are still 310,000 more people out of work today than there were in 2006. That is just one of many metrics on which the government has failed.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, let me correct the record right off the bat.

It is this country and it is this government that has put forward an environment that has led us to have the absolute best job creation in the G7 since the end of the recession in July 2009. There is no better. When a member of the Liberal Party talks about the economy and taxes, it is bewildering to me because this is the government that has led Canada to being a leader in job creation. It has led Canada to be recognized by other countries as one of the best places to invest and do business. Frankly, when we talk about taxes, it is this government that has lowered taxes in over 150 ways.

I need to also correct the record about the EI account. It is the Liberal Party when it was in power that took almost $60 billion of employers' and employees' EI funds to fund their own slush fund. The Liberals withdrew that money, put it into general revenues, and distributed it out in the form of contributions and whatnot. It was absolutely the wrong thing to do and employers and employees have been complaining about it ever since. For any Liberal to stand in this place and criticize this government for the wonderful economic record that we have, and to criticize us for EI changes to replace the $60 billion that they took from the account, is hypocritical.

Now let us address some of the taxes that I mentioned earlier, the 150 taxes that have been lowered, because in this budget there is no raising of taxes and there are no hidden changes to affect businesses. Businesses are very much in line with our low-tax plan, including the reduction of the GST that we saw go down from 7% to 6% to 5%, which the Liberals have indicated they will raise should they come to power. Small businesses agreed with our reduction of corporate taxes, which the Liberals have stated very clearly they will raise if they come to power. Businesses also agree with our plan to grow the economy without raising taxes on Canadians, without reducing transfers to provinces, and to do so in an environmentally friendly way.

We are the party that has led our environment portfolio to successes like a 35% reduction in GHG. Under the Liberal watch, it went up more than 30%. Not only that, our economy is growing while we are lowering GHG emissions. That party is saying as soon as it has the opportunity it will impose a carbon tax, which would further complicate measures for our small businesses.

This is a matter of tremendous importance not only to small businesses but to families alike. Through the decreases in taxes, through the elimination of many of those taxes that were really harming our families, now an average family of four keeps $3,200 in their pockets.

We have more to do, absolutely, but we will take no lessons from the Liberal Party that saw a decade of darkness for our military and increases in taxes to all Canadians because of its cuts to transfers to provinces. We will continue on our low-tax plan and do it with tremendous pride.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be great if this member would take a lesson from the Liberals because, in fact, the Liberals helped small businesses create almost 40,000 jobs in 2005, but by 2011, the statistics showed half of that. The GDP growth on average for 50 years has been 3.3%. Under this member's government, there has been an average of 1.2% economic growth. A flat economy, high youth and student unemployment rates, and on debt, it is hard to know where to begin.

Household debt is at record levels. Federal debt, which had gone down $22 billion in four years under the Liberals, has gone up $60 billion under the Conservatives by 2011. Our general government debt in Canada now ranks at 129 out of 144 countries.

This is a very mediocre performance by the Conservatives and it is partially because they do not get the importance of small business. The government's policies ignore and undermine the small business community time after time. Will the Conservatives please take a look at the Liberal record and correct their path?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to actually have to do this, but that member talked about 40,000 jobs in that period of time under the Liberal watch. We are talking about over a million jobs created under this government. There is no comparison.

This low-tax plan, this plan for job creation we have embarked upon, economic action plan after economic action plan, has proved fruitful. When we talk about youth, just last week, in the last report, we heard that 54,000 jobs had been created for youth. It is the highest recorded number of jobs created for youth in three decades. The member has no clue about what she speaks of.

We are regarded in the world as having, as I said before, one of the best economies and as the best place to do business. There are businesses coming to Canada because of the policies we have taken. We will continue with this plan. We will provide for Canadians, and we will do it with tremendous pride.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 12:37 a.m., pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until later this day, at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:37 a.m.)