Debates of June 4th, 2014

Report Stage

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with the government right now, moving a time allocation motion on this particular bill. This is an important bill that needs to be discussed in this House. When this bill was introduced, I was hoping, since it is 360-odd pages, that we could look at this bill and see some things that would help my community of Surrey North. As always, it is an honour to speak in this House on behalf of my constituents in Surrey North. When I looked at the bill, I was hoping that here be something there for jobs. Jobs are needed in my community, well-paying jobs. What did I find? There are no initiatives in this bill that would address that issue.

We have asked for a hiring tax credit for small businesses, because small businesses generate jobs in our communities across this country, hundreds and thousands of jobs. What do we find in this particular bill? Nothing to help the small businesses that actually generate well-paying jobs. I am very disappointed that this bill did not address any of the issues in regard to generating new jobs in my communities.

Let us take a look at another issue in my community. There are long wait times for surgery. What did I find in this bill? Nothing to help provinces bring down the wait times for surgeries. People have to wait for months and months before they are able to get the elective surgery that is much needed.

The member across the way is saying that it is a provincial issue. Yes, it is, but we can transfer money. Federal transfer payments do go to provinces. What has the government done? It has actually cut $36 billion of transfer payments for health care in the provinces.

There was an opportunity for government to help reduce the wait times for elective surgeries. What did it do? Nothing.

Another issue in my community is crime. Again, the House leader of the soon-to-be opposition is interrupting me.

I looked at the bill, and what is in there in regard to crime prevention initiatives? Nothing. There is nothing in there to increase the RCMP numbers in my communities so that we could have more RCMP patrol our streets. There is nothing that will address the crime issues in my communities.

There are other issues in my communities. Affordable housing. When I look at Bill C-31, there is nothing in there to help provide affordable housing in my communities.

I could go on. I looked at infrastructure. I have a bridge in my community that is 75 years old. The life of the Pattullo Bridge was supposed to be 50 years. It is supposed to be torn down. When I looked to see if the government was looking at increasing the infrastructure funding for our municipalities, there was nothing in there.

Summer is coming. When I go back home to Surrey and look at the gas prices, they are ballooning. Our wages are not going anywhere. There is nothing in this bill that will actually put money into people's pockets.

I could go on. There are seniors in my communities. Seniors could use an increase in CPP payments. There is nothing in this bill to help our seniors.

I could go on and on in regard to this. Here is something I said on October 29, 2013. I spoke on Bill C-4, another budget implementation bill, and here is what I said:

Bill C-4 is yet another omnibus bill proposed by the Conservatives. It comprises 300-odd pages and addresses over 70 different laws.

Here we go again. Bill C-31 is 360 pages long, amends 60 acts, and has almost 500 clauses. What is more, the bill includes a variety of measures that were never mentioned in the budget speech. As is typical of this government, the Conservatives are trying to force the bill through the House and the committee as fast as possible.

I know that the Conservatives have given notice of time allocation to cut down debate on the bill. I have seen that picture over and over on many different bills. I know I sound like a broken record, but no matter how many times this is talked about, the Conservatives just do not seem to get it. Time and time again, Conservatives demonstrate their inability to learn from their past mistakes. This will be their fifth straight omnibus bill. This is astounding to me. Canadians are not fooled by the government's tricks. They know the Conservatives are ramming through unfair legislation buried in hundreds of pages of this bill that is disguised as a budget.

How are we supposed to evaluate which bills MPs support or oppose, when the only choice they are given is to vote for this overarching legislation that contains all of them? There is nothing that ties these bills together. It makes absolutely no sense that they are lumped together, but here we are, being forced to vote on a mishmash of legislation. Not only that, but the speed at which the government is trying to push the bill through, and we saw the time allocation notice served today, means that entire sections of the bill have yet to be discussed in the House. They will not be discussed because of the time allocation that will be moved.

How are we supposed to present the views of our constituents when the Conservatives move time allocation and we cannot even speak? I am fortunate that I can speak, but many other colleagues in my caucus will not be able to speak to the bill, because the Conservatives are trying to shut down the debate on the bill.

It is crystal clear to me that the Conservatives remain committed to their omnibus bills and time allocation rather than to following due democratic process. However, it is not only the process that is being followed to ram the bill through the House that is objectionable. There are huge problems and omissions from the bill itself, as I have highlighted.

I talked about the needs in my community: the need for creating well-paying jobs, the need for reducing wait times and elective surgeries, the need for housing, and the need for crime prevention programs that would help make our communities safe. None of that stuff is here.

I could spend all night here talking about the issues with Bill C-31, but I want to start by talking about the economic situation in Canada right now. To be frank, the facts and figures do not paint a very cheery picture of Canada's economic situation. I am disappointed to say that the budget is not doing anything to address these problems.

The Canadian economy continues to underperform under this Conservative government. The Conservatives are offering no strategy to help unemployed Canadians. There are 1.3 million Canadians out of work, and there are 6.3 unemployed workers for every job available. I am not even sure if the jobs available are actually jobs that are available, because we know where the Conservatives get their facts. The Conservatives get their facts from Kijiji. We have seen that. They make up facts. If they cannot make up facts, they will go to Kijiji. Kijiji, for those people at home, is a website that one can buy a used tie on. One does not look for facts on jobs to validate what the Conservatives are saying.

Bill C-31 is basically inadequate. There are many flaws and omissions in it, and I have barely scraped the tip of the iceberg with my speech.

The Conservatives are again demonstrating that they are out of touch with the views of real Canadians. They are focusing their efforts instead on producing a do-nothing budget that ignores what Canadians need right now, and are in pursuit of a balanced budget during an election year. This is unacceptable. and Canadians deserve better.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for participating in the debate at this late hour. I would, however, take exception to many of his assertions, which are counter-factual.

One assertion in particular that I would like to rebut—and I know it is a popular and fun talking point that is always good for a chuckle—is the notion that the government's labour force information comes from one particular online job-posting service. That is ridiculous. In fact, the government primarily gets its labour market information from the labour force survey conducted by Statistics Canada.

I think the member was referring to a Conference Board of Canada study. It was conducted by that independent and highly regarded think tank and used 138 separate datasets, one of which was job postings on, yes, Kijiji. The Department of Finance then made reference to that Conference Board study. When it became clear to the Conference Board that some of the postings were double-posted on that one website, it removed the dataset from its study, so we are talking about one of 138 datasets in a Conference Board study to which the Department of Finance made reference.

While there is no general labour shortage in Canada, would the member not agree that we are facing gaps in some regions and industries and that we all need to work together to address those gaps?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Employment and Social Development. It is good to see him this late at night, and I know he is hard-working.

My question to the minister is this: is the temporary foreign worker program fixed?

We know that it is broken. We know there have been many issues with the program over the last number of months and years. We have actually been pointing that out to him, so my questions to the Minister of Employment and Social Development are these: is the program fixed? When is it going to be fixed? Canadians want the answers.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one part of the non-answer that we might have gotten is that within these 60 different pieces of legislation that would be changed by these 360 pages of the omnibus bill, there is something that deals with the temporary foreign worker program. I do not know if Conservatives actually know that.

The Conservatives went in and started to make amendments to the temporary foreign worker program, so there was an opportunity to make some of the changes that we hear small businesses and industries like the restaurant industry requesting, but they gave that opportunity up.

The Conservatives did not actually fix the temporary foreign worker program in this bill while the opportunity was there. Since they are moving an omnibus bill, one would have thought they would want to do something positive.

However, I have a very specific question for my friend.

One of the changes and amendments we have moved here tonight is with regard to the deal the Conservatives have signed with the U.S. government. This deal would deliver the personal banking information of up to a million Canadians. One of the provisions we have asked for, as a minimum, is that the banks be required to notify those Canadians when their personal private information is being relinquished to the IRS. This is one of the ideas we had at committee.

The Privacy Commissioner raised serious privacy concerns for Canadians whose personal information would be divulged to a foreign government. According to Statistics Canada, it would affect up to a million Canadians.

I wonder what my colleague thinks about that. Perhaps he can comment as well on the missed opportunity to actually fix the badly broken temporary foreign worker program.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, there was an opportunity to fix the temporary foreign worker program, and yes, the Minister of Employment and Social Development and the Conservative government have missed that opportunity. We have been asking for that for a number of years, trying to convince the government that there is a problem with the temporary foreign worker program. Unfortunately, they have not addressed it.

To answer the question on FATCA, yes, it is a huge issue in my community of Surrey North. There are many Canadian citizens who will be affected by it. This would affect their privacy, and I hope the government will take seriously some of the amendments we are offering in order to correct some of the problems with the bill.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to be here at this late hour on a Wednesday night. I congratulate all my colleagues from all sides of the House for still being here at 11:40 p.m. I will try to make it as lively as possible to keep them going.

I want to do a slight review of what we are doing here tonight. I know the viewing public at home is very interested. We are dealing with an implementation bill. There are two a year, one in the spring and one in the fall. The budget that gets passed is really a policy document, and then the implementation bills actually take that information and turn it into actions, and those are done through those two implementation bills. That is what we are doing here today.

I have been here all day and all evening for the discussion and I have listened to some of the discussion about an omnibus bill. My colleague across the aisle just mentioned that the bill is 360 pages long. I happen to have it here with me, and he is absolutely right; it is 360 pages, in English and in French. Really, it is 200 pages in English. Then when we look at how it is printed in Canada, how bills are printed, we see it is in columns and there are two columns on a page. The columns have maybe 10 words across. It is really not that thick. I am very confident that the members opposite are smart enough and good enough readers to be able to read a couple of hundred pages of a bill.

The other really great thing about the way the system works is that, just in case members are busy and they cannot read the whole thing, all couple of hundred pages—if members are able to read it in both languages, I congratulate them, because I do not have that skill, unfortunately—at the beginning of all legislation, there is a legislative summary. The legislative summary for the bill is four pages long. I have the four pages here in front of me. We can go through and see the sections. We may read a section and say to ourselves that it makes sense. If we are on the opposition bench, we may not agree with it or, as we have heard today, there are certain sections that the opposition actually agrees with. They would not have to read over that section any more or study it further; they could just do it.

The other thing that happened with this implementation bill, which has been a practice of this government—I am not sure if it was a practice of previous governments—is that, when the implementation bill passes second reading, it gets split up into different committees to study. It is not all at finance.

For example, there was some discussion about the trademark clauses. I believe they went to the industry committee. That is where they were discussed. Witnesses came before the committee and there was a discussion.

Tonight we are at report stage. Amendments have been moved. I do believe there were no government amendments; I believe they were all amendments from the opposition benches, which is fair. There were a couple of hundred of them, I believe. When you first took the chair earlier this evening, Mr. Speaker—it seems like a long time ago, but it was earlier this evening—they were grouped. I think there are approximately 19 or 20 votes based on the groupings of the amendments, so as a House, once we have finished the discussion, we will come to vote on those amendments that are put forward by the opposition. I think it is only fair to say that I will be voting against those amendments, and I think most members on this side of the House will be voting against those amendments.

This is a confidence vote. This is not something members of Parliament can take lightly, and we are not. From listening to the speeches tonight, I think people are taking this implementation bill seriously and looking at the different issues.

One thing I do find a little bit ironic is that members will say that this omnibus bill is way too long, has too much stuff in it, and would change too many things. Then in the question and answer period, when they are asking a question of another individual who was speaking, they say, “There is nothing in here for this individual, or this group, or this organization”. We could imagine how big the budget bill would be if we put everything they have asked for in it. It would be as tall as I am. I am not that tall, but it would be a big bill if it were as tall as I.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have some levity at 11:45 p.m.

There are a number of things in it that are important to me. The basic fact that with the budget implementation bill is that we have made a commitment to Canadians that we will have a balanced budget and balanced books. There is not a lot of new spending in the bill. There are some changes to HST.

An example that is close to my heart is this. I have Type II diabetes, but fortunately I can manage it through diet and exercise. That is not the case for many Canadians and diabetes has a tremendous effect on the health and well-being of many Canadians. We have recognized that issue and I have a motion on obesity that was unanimously supported by the House. We recognize there are some medical needs in terms of guide dogs and assistance dogs for those with diabetes. There are a number of small items in the bill.

The core piece to the bill is that we want to get back to balanced books. I am asked all the time what I am hearing the most about. I do not hear a whole lot about trademark. I do not hear a lot about a number of very specific issues. I go to at least five events a weekend in my riding. I am fortunate to live in an urban area where it is relatively simple to get from one event to another. I am asked over and over again, why do we have a deficit? What is causing the deficit?

We talked about the recession and the work we have done in terms of investing to make sure Canada gets back to work so we have growth and employment in this country. I cannot run my business by spending more than I take in. In a business, it can be done for a short term, but eventually it has to make more money than is being spent. People cannot continue to borrow and borrow and never pay it back. They would be bankrupt. This country cannot afford to be bankrupt. We have an opportunity to get people back to work, which we have done. We have an opportunity through these budget processes to get back to balanced budgets and balanced books so that we can invest in other infrastructure projects and social services.

When I look at the pages in the legislative summary of the bill and the small changes in the HST, these are small changes. I am not running out on the street saying we are going to make big changes in the budget implementation bill. The big change we are making is that we have made a commitment to Canadians to get back to a balance so that we can afford the services that Canadians are asking the federal government to provide.

I know there are a number of issues that people may ask me about. I am happy to answer, but it is time to get on with the work of this place, to finish this debate, to vote on it, and to move on to other issues. We have a number of legislative items the House needs to deal with that have very significant importance including the new prostitution laws that were introduced today by the Minister of Justice. There are a number of things to deal with. Let us get this budget implementation bill passed and move on to the next item.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great intent, and even some amusement. I appreciate that my friend brings some levity to something as scintillating as a budget implementation act today at 11:45 p.m.

I have a very specific and important question for him on what is in this bill, because it covers a lot. It goes across a whole spectrum of different issues that would affect 60 different laws.

As my Conservative colleagues used to believe when they were in opposition, it can at times be an abuse of power by a government to ram so much into a single vote and to then demand that members speak in just a 10-minute slot and then vote once. I have quote after quote from the Prime Minister and from various cabinet ministers, Conservatives all, who, when in opposition, decried this very same technique used by the Liberals.

Let me be specific about the effect on veterans from what exists in this bill. There has been much concern coming from us, as the official opposition, having listened to the families of veterans and the veterans themselves, particularly those who have suffered through some injury or another incurred while in the service of this country.

Whether those injuries were physical in nature or otherwise, such as PTSD, one of the grievous mistakes the government made was a clawback of veterans' benefits for those who had been injured. It is a very specific clawback that affected veterans like Sean Bruyea.

Veterans like Sean Bruyea, who very bravely came forward, even though his mental health records were scandalously exposed by the government, came before the committee and said that the clawback started in 2006, which it did. The government says that the clawback was wrong but has only turned the clock back three months for those veterans rather than all the way back to 2006, when the clawback actually started.

This is going to court again. The government spent $20 million going to court the first time. Why make veterans go to court again just to seek justice on the rewards they so justly deserve on behalf of the Canadian people?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been very proactive with the veterans groups in my riding. For example, prior to Christmas, I met with the legion management and the legionnaires to talk about the changes that were needed in the new veterans charter. They gave me some feedback, and I provided it to the committee.

First of all, I would like to congratulate all members of that committee on all sides of the House for bringing a unanimous report forward on recommendations for changes to the new veterans charter.

Recently I had a meeting with veterans in my riding with almost 100 veterans. It was not last weekend, when I ran a marathon in Calgary, but the weekend before that. Some of them were from the United States. We have some U.S. veterans in a legion in my riding. Not one veteran came to see me and said that the federal government is not doing the right thing by veterans. We got support for everything we were doing to continue to work on that.

I rely on my constituents to tell me what we are doing right and wrong, and that is the feedback I got from the veterans in my riding.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to bite on that last comment about veterans, because I want to carry on in the same spirit in which the member spoke.

I would like to ask him about JDRF and juvenile diabetes. Being a type 2 diabetic himself, he might be able to give us some information. This weekend we are all going on walks in support of JDRF in our communities. It is trying to do research on type 1 juvenile diabetes.

My question for the member is something that he may know about. What is the government going to do to help support research and development on juvenile diabetes in Canada?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been very honoured to be part of a juvenile diabetes caucus on the Hill. Part of that was to convince the minister and the government to provide money for research, which they did, for an artificial pancreas. We are getting very close in Canada to being able to develop that. We will be the first ones in the world to develop an artificial pancreas with help from research funding from the government to make that happen.

I am very proud of the government's support of juvenile diabetes and the research that needs to be done to make better lives for those who are suffering from that disease.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to add my voice to the budget debate this evening.

First, let me reflect upon the government touting how we are now coming out of deficit and running into surplus.

It was the Conservative government that was handed several surplus budgets in a row and for a Conservative government, it has run a number of deficits over the last number of years. Finally it is getting back to a balanced approach, and it is about time.

With respect to veterans, I have to disagree with the last member who spoke. One thing I hear more often about veterans and their issues is that they are getting very agitated with the treatment they receive. Usually a lot of our veterans have gone about their work over the years, asking for nothing in return but a pat on the back and a “Thank you for your service”.

However, in the last 10 months, there has been a noticeable difference in our veterans becoming more vocal because of the way they are treated.

I am glad to hear that the committee has come up with unanimous recommendations because there are veterans, even today, outside this building, protesting that the government does not care and that all things are not as rosy as the government wants us to believe.

I would like to focus some of my thoughts on my province of Newfoundland and Labrador and, in particular, the cuts to Marine Atlantic.

Over the last number of years, we have seen tens of millions of dollars cut from the Marine Atlantic budget and, thus, it has to increase its fees. Over the last number of years, the fees have increased almost 15% to the average user.

What has happened is that the ferry service between Nova Scotia and the island of Newfoundland has become more unaffordable for many people to travel across the gulf, and this is a direct result of the cuts to Marine Atlantic and the increase in fees.

This year, as we are getting ready for the summer travel season, Marine Atlantic has announced that it has increased its fees, its budget has been cut, and it will now cut crossings. It has cut a number of crossings just as people are starting to make their plans or have already made their plans to cross on Marine Atlantic over the course of the summer. Now the service is being cut back again.

It not only impacts our tourist industry, but businesses in general. I have had a few calls this week from individuals who have said that the cuts to Marine Atlantic are hurting their businesses and the economy. They have things on the other side of the gulf that they are trying to get, but the suppliers cannot get the products into the province so they can work.

It is an economic driver of the economy in Newfoundland. It is also our link to the rest of Canada, our link to many grocery products. People probably do not realize how fresh the produce or fruit is. A lot of the produce that comes into Newfoundland and Labrador comes through North Sydney. Many times it is trucked from Montreal to North Sydney and then waits there, on the dock. Cutting crossings will impact the ability for residents of the province to get fresh produce.

I have heard from many truckers. We need to have a look at Marine Atlantic and get back to the basis of what it is there to do, which is to provide a service to our province.

Getting into Bill C-31, we were talking a bit earlier about search and rescue. One of the things that keeps coming up is the volunteer tax credit for search and rescue.

It is a good and noble idea, but it did come with a few strings attached. If someone is a volunteer firefighter and a search and rescue volunteer, his or her tax credits are combined, instead of getting one for the work as a volunteer firefighter and one as a search and rescue volunteer. They should be two separate tax credits because they are two separate and distinct jobs, even though in some communities they are rolled into one. This should be made a refundable tax credit so that low-income volunteers can also benefit from this initiative. In a lot of these communities the volunteers in these organizations have low incomes. They do it to make their community a better place and for personal fulfillment, but they do not get any benefit from it, whereas the person who is working alongside them gets the benefit, so it is not equal for all.

Before I go on, the member for Saint John mentioned the three RCMP officers who were killed this evening. I would like to echo my sympathy to the families of those RCMP officers. All of us have friends who have been involved with or are members of the force. This is a sad time for them as well. I just remembered that and wanted to make that point.

Another favourite topic of ours in Newfoundland and Labrador is ACOA and what it is doing in our province. This budget makes vague references to the programs and improvements that will be made to ACOA, but what we have seen over the last number of years is that the ACOA budget has been slashed and cut by almost $30-odd million. When we look to the estimate programs we see that the Conservatives have cut budgets to ACOA but then it is not getting money out the door.

One of the most common complaints I hear from different community groups is that it is not easy to apply. The process through ACOA is a long one. Its first initial reaction is to say no to applicants and it takes a very long time to get money out the door with ACOA. It needs to go back to what it originally had done, which is to help regional development and get back to the basics of providing regional activities and regional benefits, and for smaller projects. If we look at a lot of our communities in rural Canada, where is the presence of the federal government? It is a product over the years that right now in Newfoundland the presence of the federal government is the post office, and we have seen what has happened to that. The other presence of the federal government is the small craft harbours program, which does great work, but that is it. Often people are looking for help to improve their communities. ACOA is a good agency to deliver that, but we are not seeing that. We need to get back to the basics when it comes to ACOA and regional development.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The member will have five minutes of questions and comments when we resume debate on Bill C-31.

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 tonight to pursue a question that I asked in the House last week, punctuated by two events. Tomorrow we experience the 25th anniversary of the devastating assault, the organized crackdown by the People's Republic of China Communist Party. I can remember watching on television as the Statue of Liberty was built in Tiananmen Square. We felt that perhaps the Communist government in China was on the verge of a Chinese version of what we had just seen sweep through the former USSR, glasnost and perestroika. There was a hope that China was on the verge of a breakthrough in democracy. Instead we witnessed one of the most brutal crackdowns and saw innocents slaughtered in Tiananmen Square.

It struck me with some irony that we were five days away, at the time of Tiananmen Square, from a really brave effort for democracy by a Vancouver Island first nation, the Hupacasath First Nation of 300 souls. They are located not far from Port Alberni, and they have chosen to go to the Court of Appeal to oppose a very dangerous—and I use the word “dangerous” advisedly—investment agreement with the People's Republic of China. It is a FIPA, a foreign investment protection agreement, that will give the People's Republic of China rights to challenge Canadian law superior to those rights held by Canadian domestic corporations.

The agreement will apply to the state-owned enterprises of the People's Republic of China, whether they be Sino-Paper or Sinopec or CNOOC or PetroChina or any other, and not just the oil and gas sector. Any investors from the People's Republic of China in Canada represent tentacles of the government in Beijing, with boards of directors appointed by the Communist Party and the Politburo of the People's Republic of China.

This is not merely a statement about the unique characteristics of the People's Republic of China. The Green Party is the only party that actually opposes the concept of investor state agreements. We do so because, for the first time, trade agreements are being used as a way of diminishing democracy. One of the best trade lawyers in Canada, Steve Schreibman, describes these agreements as “fundamentally corrosive of democracy” and says that they give foreign corporations the right to oppose and to seek arbitrations around any decision, whether at the municipal level, the provincial level, or the federal level, that is seen by these corporations as imperilling their expectation of profit.

In that sense, it is particularly egregious to allow an antidemocratic government to challenge the decisions of a democratic government. The Canada-China investment treaty is different in quality from, say, NAFTA's chapter 11 in that its enterprises are completely part and parcel of a much larger economy and a government that itself is antidemocratic.

The other very egregious thing about this agreement is that the lock-in, if it were ever ratified, would apply for 31 years, and no future government could get out of it without the permission of the People's Republic of China.

I ask my hon. colleague if it is not time to agree that this agreement should be scrapped.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, deepening Canada's trade and investment ties with the largest, most dynamic, and fastest growing markets in the world, such as China, is a central feature of the government's pro-trade plan for creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity.

By improving access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses, this government is supporting economic growth and creating new opportunities for Canadian companies and investors.

The Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement is a high-standard agreement and a tangible demonstration of our commitment to help Canadian businesses compete on a level playing field in markets abroad.

In terms of its commitments, this agreement includes reciprocal obligations related to non-discrimination, a minimum standard of treatment under international law, expropriation, free movement of capital, and performance requirements, among others.

This agreement with China is very similar to the 27 FIPAs Canada currently has in force.

This reciprocal agreement establishes a clear set of rules under which investments are made and under which investment disputes are resolved.

Here are some highlights of this agreement.

For Canadian businesses looking to set up in China, they cannot be treated less favourably than any other foreign company looking to do the same. Once an investment is made, a Canadian business cannot be treated less favourably than any other business, including Chinese businesses.

The agreement also protects investors against government expropriation except under strict conditions, and then only with fair compensation.

The foreign investment promotion and protection agreement also ensures that all investment disputes arising from breaches of the agreed rules are resolved under international arbitration, ensuring that adjudications are independent and fair.

Finally, ours is the first bilateral investment agreement that China has signed that expressly includes language on transparency of dispute settlement proceedings. It is Canada's long-standing policy that all dispute resolutions should be open to the public and that the submissions made by the parties be available to the public.

This agreement does not impair Canada's ability to regulate and legislate in areas such as the environment, culture, safety, health, and conservation.

Furthermore, restrictions in the agreement will preserve Canada's current ability to review foreign investments under the Investment Canada Act to ensure they provide a net benefit to Canadians and that our national security is not compromised.

It is also important to note that, under this treaty, Chinese investors in Canada must obey all of the laws and regulations of Canada, just as any Canadian must.

In short, the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement is similar to the 27 other investment treaties Canada has implemented with key trade and investment partners.

We join countries such as New Zealand, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Japan, who have all signed investment treaties with China on terms that are similar to and in some cases less favourable than the terms we have negotiated with China.

Furthermore, our government has brought greater transparency to the treaty review process. For example, in 2008, we introduced a formal tabling policy that requires international treaties to be tabled in the House before their ratification or coming into force.

The tabling period is 21 days, during which MPs and the public have an opportunity to review the treaty. In line with this policy, MPs had an opportunity to carefully review the treaty when the Canada-China FIPA was tabled in the House of Commons on September 26, 2012.

We have been very clear with the Chinese government that Canada wants to continue to expand its commercial relationship with China, but only in a way that produces clear benefits for both sides.

By establishing a clear set of investment rules that provide greater protection against discriminatory and arbitrary practices, this agreement will give Canadians greater confidence as they consider whether or not to invest in China.

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

Mr. Speaker, these are the pieces, in the short time I have, that I will pull out of her remarks.

It is really important that people understand the difference between being against investment with China, trade with China and opposition to this treaty.

It is very important to stress that the Government of Australia, for example, with a volume of trade with China more than 10 times that that Canada currently has, has made a deliberate decision not to enter into an investor-state agreement with the People's Republic of China. It is important to understand, therefore, that this kind of an agreement is not a sine qua non. The government cannot insist that we must have trade with China and therefore we need an investment treaty. That is not the case.

That is why it is critical that we say no to ratifying a treaty. We had 21 sitting days in this place, but we never had a single day of a committee hearing. We did not investigate it. We absolutely must not ratify it.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on October 18, 2012, the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade received a presentation from trade policy officials on the Canada-China FIPA. The FIPA was also discussed and voted on in Parliament during the proceedings of an opposition day motion of April 18, 2013.

The Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement will contribute to jobs and growth by facilitating investment flows between Canada and China, and by providing a more stable and secure environment for investors on both sides of the Pacific. The reciprocal rules that form the basis of these agreements establish a framework providing investors with a predictable rules-based investment climate and access to international arbitration provides an effective binding and impartial method for the resolution of investment disputes.

As is Canada's practice, the provisions and procedures for investor-to-state dispute settlement are clearly laid out and emphasize transparency through elements such as public access to hearings and documents.

This agreement with China, the world's second-largest economy, will provide a stronger protection for Canadians investing in China.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I just want to mention that Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing certainly is grieving with the families, friends, communities, and colleagues of the three RCMP officers who lost their lives tonight in Moncton, New Brunswick.

I rise today on a question I asked in the House with respect to the national child benefit reinvestment program.

Among the issues faced by first nations in Ontario, the most common challenges relate to employment, poverty, and appropriate social support systems to address them.

Despite that, the current government has focused on issues related to administrative responsibilities, while largely overlooking the need to assist communities overcome obstacles like poverty, unemployment, underemployment, and the social challenges that relate to those issues.

Despite the will to do the hard work themselves, first nations looking to put a dent in tough employment statistics and persistent poverty do require some assistance with social programs that are proven beneficial for that—programs like accessible and affordable daycare, which allows parents to hold down jobs, or even something as simple as a child nutrition program that helps send kids to school with a full belly. These can help turn around lives and change circumstances.

Unfortunately, for first nations in Ontario, the Conservative government has chosen to reduce the federal commitment to programs like those by cutting the national child benefit reinvestment by over 50%. I repeat, 50%.

First nations learned of the cut in a letter from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada in April of this year, leaving many to wonder how they will cover the gaps in their budgets that will result from this sudden and sharp drop in funding.

The cut is scheduled to take effect in the current cycle of 2014-15. The federal government is claiming that the “growing cost of elementary-secondary education, Ontario Works, and other supports” are the reason this benefit is being slashed.

While the government claims the programs and supports that will receive the redirected money are mandatory, it is unwilling to acknowledge that the real cost of cutting the NCBR will be in front-line services that supported the development and poverty reduction of young people in first nations, whether those are children receiving nourishment from food banks or young parents able to work thanks to daycare that receives help from the NCBR.

First nations indicate the tone of the letter informing them of the massive cuts suggests that they should be happy they are getting anything at all: “As poverty reduction remains an important goal..., the department continues to support First Nation NCBR projects to the extent regional budgetary resources permit”.

To be clear, the funding being cut supports programs in first nation communities that help first nation children living in poverty. School nutrition programs, daycare spaces, food banks, support for parents, and cultural enrichment programs will be affected.

How can the Conservative government say it is doing anything more than making poverty an even bigger obstacle for young people in first nations? Will the government realize its mistake and reverse the mean-hearted cut to the national child benefit reinvestment in Ontario?

As I said, this is about cutbacks to school nutrition programs, daycare spaces, food banks, support for parents, and cultural enrichment programs, which will be affected. I would hope that the government will see fit to revisit this and reinvest in this important program.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the question from the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, a pretty part of Ontario.

Our government remains committed to working with first nations, provincial governments, and other partners to help reduce child poverty and to improve the quality of life for children and families living on reserve. The national child benefit reinvestment initiative is not a statutory program, and this is not a cut of resources to first nations in Ontario. The initiative remains a contribution to reaching the goal of poverty reduction.

The national child benefit reinvestment program in Ontario is allocating $6 million to eligible first nations in the 2014-15 fiscal year to support low-income families and children living on reserve communities. Eligible first nations can apply for this funding through project proposals that address specific initiatives to alleviate child poverty. The community programs that qualify for funding will focus on child care, child nutrition, support for parents, home-to-work transition, and cultural enrichment.

The national child benefit reinvestment program is part of the larger national child benefit initiative, or NCB, and is one of many Government of Canada initiatives aimed at addressing the root causes of poverty. For example, direct income support is provided through the Canada child tax benefit, the national child benefit supplement, and the income assistance program. These are programs that are available to all eligible Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, and place resources and responsibilities in the hands of parents.

Over and above the national child benefit reinvestment program, the Government of Canada continues to invest in programs that address the health, welfare, and opportunities for first nations children and youth in Ontario, including more than $114 million annually to the Government of Ontario for child and family services programs on reserve, which include, first, culturally appropriate programs, such as aboriginal customary care and first-nations specific family support programs, to help families provide healthy environments to prevent children from needing care outside the parental home.

Second is more than $127 million annually to the Government of Ontario and first nations for the Ontario works program, which provides income and employment assistance to help low-income first nations families gain employment skills and become financially independent.

Third is more than $5.6 million to support family-violence-prevention program activities. Of this amount, approximately $4.3 million is allocated to support the operations of nine on-reserve women's shelters, and $1.3 million is for family-violence-prevention projects in first nations communities.

Fourth is more than $14.5 million annually for provincially licensed daycares in 52 first nations.

Finally, there is more than $1.1 million in 2014-2015 for the first nations jobs fund to provide employment opportunities for youth aged 18 to 24 on reserve who are also Ontario works recipients.

Reducing child poverty is critical to the future well-being and success of first nations children. Through the national child benefit reinvestment program and other initiatives, our government will continue to work with and for first nations children and families on reserve in Ontario and across Canada.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that the government works with first nations. What the current government has been doing is actually picking a fight with first nations. Whether it is the NCBR, whether it is education, whether it is housing, or whether it is water, certainly first nations are not getting the support from the government, which is really shirking its fiduciary responsibility. It is not respecting the commitment it made through the residential school apology.

What first nations children need is more help, not less, and the current government has been giving them less. Children on first nations in Ontario have a poverty rate of 40% compared to 15% for children in the rest of the population. Two out of five first nations children in Ontario are living in poverty, which is no rallying cry to cut services aimed specifically at doing something about that. The programs being cut do not cost a lot of money, but they make a real difference to the children they serve. School food programs, daycare programs, parenting programs, food banks and other supports are the last safety net for families with little to go on.

The drastic cut to the NCBR guarantees that some programs will not survive. Those that do will be severely scaled back. A direct line can be drawn from budget cuts to this outcome, since money is being moved to other programs with actual budget increases. The department has taken money away from poor children to pay those costs. In fact, we are paying for years of capped education costs that the Liberals enacted and that the Conservative government continued.

When will the government stand up for first nations children suffering under an unacceptable rate of poverty? Why not begin by reinstating full funding for the national child benefit reinvestment?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is actively working to improve the quality of life for first nations children on reserve. The economic development and improvement of first nations members on reserve requires increased investments in skills training and job readiness activities and that is what we are doing.

The employment assistance services that support first nations members to develop skills and access the labour market have been increased by 68% over the last five years.

Canada, first nations communities, leaders, and young adults all agree that first nations youth should have the same opportunities as all Canadians to find, keep, and enjoy the benefits of a good job.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra not being present to raise during the adjournment proceedings the matter for which notice has been given, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

Pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 27, 2014, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until later today at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:22 a.m.)