Annick Papillon

[Search and Rescue, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to an issue that is very important to me. I have been speaking out about this issue from the beginning. I have lost count of the number of press conferences I have attended, both in Quebec City and here in Ottawa, on the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre, the one and only officially bilingual rescue centre in Canada.

As everyone knows, I have asked over 50 questions in the House and I have grilled the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about the importance of keeping the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre open, the importance of not closing it and going back in time by 36 years, which is what this Conservative government would be doing if it closes the centre.

The Quebec City centre was created to meet two needs, the first of course being knowledge and fluency in the French language during distress calls. The second need has to do with geographic knowledge about the coastline of the St. Lawrence River and its islands, which are not all indicated on maps—basically knowing every nook and cranny. Unfortunately, every time I ask, the government ignores me. We have not heard anything about the need for this centre.

A report by the Commissioner of Official Languages was tabled. It set out very important criteria, such as an adequate bilingual presence when transferring the Quebec City centre to Trenton and Halifax. To date, all the problems persist, and it seems that there is not an adequate bilingual presence. We are waiting for the Commissioner of Official Languages' opinion, but no changes have been made since the first report was tabled last August.

The government did not want to hear this at the Standing Committee on Official Languages or at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Every time they kept sending the ball back and forth, and they absolutely did not want to hear what people had to say about it. The NDP therefore decided to create a parallel committee in Quebec City to discuss this problem. The message was loud and clear. People are worried about what we stand to lose with the closing of the Quebec City rescue centre, namely the French language, and the ability to work in French and to make a distress call that is coordinated in French. A family of boaters, on the river, close to the location of an incident, must be able to intervene. In coordinating the rescue, we need bilingual people who understand the people in distress in French as well as in English. We need more than just one per centre, in Halifax and in Trenton. That is important.

That is what this majority Conservative government, which is deaf to everything, needs to understand. It has to respond this time. There have been three postponements to date. The deadline has been extended. They could not close it in April or in the fall. They have not been able to do so once again.

Money is at stake. To the Conservatives, that is more important than the safety of francophones. Perhaps my proposal might interest them. Before it costs three times as much, does the government intend to give up on this and keep the Quebec City centre open?

[Taxation, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if they were able to admit their mistake regarding customs tariffs on hockey helmets, further to the great work accomplished by the hon. member for Sudbury, why are they not able to admit their mistake regarding all other consumer products?

The tariff hikes in their budget will increase the prices of many consumer products, including shampoo, deodorant, perfume and laundry detergent.

Will they apply the same exemptions to those products as they did to hockey helmets and cancel the tax hikes?

[Taxation, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are not only imposing new taxes, but they are also denying that there are any. That is pretty sad. The perfect example of the Conservatives' two-faced attitude is the tax on MP3 players. The Conservative ministers strutted about accusing the opposition of wanting to impose a tax on iPods. They were trying to outdo each other with their ranting and raving. Yet what do they do as soon as they have the chance? They impose a tariff on iPods.

Do the Conservatives realize how hypocritical they are being by imposing this new tax?

[Taxation, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if they were truly standing up for Canadians, they would not have created the conditions to allow Canadian workers to be fired and replaced by temporary foreign workers. Many people living in large Canadian cities are already deep in debt and can barely make ends meet. They will have to work even harder to pay for the Conservatives' tax hikes on all manner of everyday consumer goods such as bicycles, coffee makers, umbrellas and so forth.

The Conservatives promised not to raise taxes. Why did they break their promise?

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, public consultation is key to democracy. The message the government is sending by not holding consultations is that once elected, it no longer has to listen to a word Canadians have to say or to what experts think even though they know a lot more than we do.

Let us call a spade a spade. There are people in our country with a tremendous amount of expertise, and we are lucky to have them. The least we can do is listen to them when they have something to say, when they ask to be heard. They can contribute ideas about things we have not yet thought of or read about. They are ahead of the curve. They know precisely what the consequences of this will be in 10 or 50 years. They know where we will end up with this and the impact of including such and such a clause in a free trade agreement.

When the government does not consult or listen to experts, it is putting Canadian democracy in jeopardy. I can understand why Canadians are concerned.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond quickly.

I obviously agree with my colleague about the way things are done on the Standing Committee on International Trade. We are not listened to and we are not heard. All of the serious decisions are made in camera. I very much understand what my colleague just said.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

As Canadians now know, the NDP clearly supports the first nations and understands that their rights must be protected. It is very regrettable that we are the only ones.

We think it is clear that an agreement can only happen with the involvement of all levels of government and the first nations. Once again, with this agreement, the government has not listened to people and has not listened to the first nations. That is shameful.

The Conservative government should be ashamed of its attitude. It makes no sense not to listen to anyone when negotiating free trade agreements.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Surrey North.

As a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, it is my duty to rise here today to debate an agreement that could have a significant impact on Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

On several occasions—at meetings of the Standing Committee on International Trade, here in the House as well as outside the House—the NDP asked the Conservative government to be transparent and hold a public debate before signing the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, or FIPA, between Canada and China.

As per usual, however, the Conservative government preferred to do things in secret, under the radar, behind closed doors. The agreement itself has never been debated or examined by a committee. It has never even been voted on. China and Ottawa surreptitiously negotiated this FIPA, an agreement that gives Chinese state-owned enterprises unprecedented rights that are not even offered to Canadian enterprises, an agreement that undermines Canadian sovereignty and the constitutional authority of the provinces. To add insult to injury, the agreement will have a 31-year term and cannot be revoked.

The Canada-China FIPA is the biggest trade agreement since NAFTA. It gives Chinese state-owned enterprises the right to sue Canada for damages when decisions are made at the municipal, provincial or federal level that harm their investments.

Usually, Canada signs FIPAs with countries whose investors do not own major assets in Canada. However, that is not the case with China, and the growing weight of Chinese investments in Canada now has a political price. As a result of the Canada-China foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, Canadian taxpayers will now have to shoulder disproportionate obligations with regard to Chinese companies in exchange for protecting Canadian companies in China.

According to Gus Van Harten, a law professor at York University, the rights that this treaty grants to Chinese state-owned enterprises will affect provincial authority over natural resources, taxation and property rights.

By signing this treaty, Canada is abdicating part of its sovereignty to China and its enterprises, without really getting anything in return for Canadian companies in China. Why? The reason is that the treaty also consolidates the inequality that currently exists with regard to Canadian companies' ability to access the Chinese market. Under the Investment Canada Act, Canada is currently a relatively open and transparent market. However, the existing framework in China, particularly in strategic sectors, lacks transparency, is closed and is described in a very vague manner in the treaty. China will therefore benefit from a favourable environment for its investments in Canada, but the reverse is certainly not guaranteed. That is why we, on this side of the House, are concerned.

The $15 billion takeover of the Canadian oil and gas company Nexen by Chinese energy giant CNOOC confirms the imbalance with regard to the two countries' respective investments. The consequences of the treaty go well beyond the oil sands. Chinese state-owned enterprises are also active in the mining sector, and they are looking at making investments in Quebec's Plan Nord. A Chinese company has already acquired a nickel mine in northern Quebec, and it will be protected by the treaty, as will all future investments.

Like all Canadian provinces, Quebec's ability to control its natural resources would be limited from this point on; and, yet again, it would happen without consultations between the province and the Conservative government.

We cannot accept the fact that a valid provincial policy—one that addresses a crucial environmental challenge and that is widely supported by the people—is being directly attacked with no real possibility of recourse.

The treaty does not prevent various levels of government from continuing to regulate environmental protection, health and public safety. However, if these regulations are detrimental to Chinese businesses, the companies can sue the governments and receive significant financial compensation—potentially in the billions of dollars.

In that context, it is probable that the provinces, municipalities and the federal government will be more reluctant to pass new regulations because they will want to avoid exposing themselves to costly lawsuits. This treaty will make passing new regulations less palatable.

For example, we do not see how Canada would be able to regulate greenhouse gas emissions or strengthen oil sand regulations without affecting Chinese investments and possibly subjecting the country to lawsuits.

Setting aside the issue of jurisdiction for the moment, it would be completely fiscally irresponsible of the federal government to negotiate an agreement that requires it to take responsibility for measures taken by a provincial government.

A number of countries have faced catastrophic fines because of these treaties. The amount of money at stake has reached tens of billions of dollars—hundreds of billions, even—to the point where certain countries, such as Australia, have decided to take another look at whether investment protection agreements, which is what this is, are a good idea.

Finally, judging from the experience of other countries, the trade agreement between China and Canada may well undermine the development of Canada's clean energy technology sector.

It is inconceivable for a treaty that could have such a devastating effect on Canadian sovereignty, provincial jurisdictions and public rights to be passed with absolutely no democratic debate in Parliament and across the country. That is why we must stand firm against it. Canadians have not given this government a mandate to sell our sovereignty to China or to the highest bidder.

The NDP believes in the importance of our commitment to China and other emerging markets. We want clear rules that support investor confidence and that protect and promote Canada's interests. We want a trade policy that creates new business opportunities for Canadian companies and that promotes value-added industries, as well as high-quality jobs, while respecting labour law and environmental law.

Unfortunately, on a number of occasions, this government signed agreements based on nothing more than a radical right-wing ideology and a hands-off approach that simply does not work.

We in the NDP feel that Canada should have a robust trade policy, with good partners, in order to reflect Canada's commitment to responsible and environmentally sound economic development that respects all stakeholders.

Let us be clear. We are in favour of trade, but trade that is fair, effective and beneficial for both sides. That is the key.

This is not about signing free trade agreements with anyone, at any time, under any circumstances, time and time again, the way things are being done right now. No, this is about paying attention, taking these agreements very seriously and taking the time to listen to every voice across the country in order to have a clear vision, to think about all the things that could go wrong and to really be predictable. Now, that would be a responsible approach.

To conclude, the Conservatives must be clear with the Government of China and with all Canadians by stating that they will not ratify the agreement being negotiated right now. Canada's trade and investment relationship with China is far too important to make mistakes.

[Taxation, April 16th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it really seems that the parliamentary secretary is going to vote in favour of his budget without even reading it. Yet all the tax hikes are written in black and white on pages 331 and 332. We are talking about hidden tax increases and money that the Conservatives will take directly out of people's pockets. The Conservatives wash their hands of this every day in the House and deny that there are new taxes like the tax on iPods, even though credible business leaders, from Sony Canada among other companies, confirm that they have already started to pay those taxes.

Why are they trying to stick Canadian families with the bill for their bad decisions?

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will just take a few seconds to congratulate the Rouyn-Noranda Huskies, who won the game against my Quebec Remparts. I must wear their colours proudly.

In the last election, the Conservatives made a commitment not to increase the tax burden on Canadians. In the weeks prior to the tabling of budget 2013, the Minister of Finance reaffirmed this commitment, promising Canadians that no new tax increases would be announced in the budget.

The truth is that Canadian consumers will pay roughly $8 billion more over the next five years. Budget 2013 is full of new tax increases on virtually everything, from hospital parking to credit unions and labour-sponsored investment funds. The most significant increases come from a change to import duties. The tariff hikes will increase the prices of some 1,290 types of products. As a result, Canadian consumers will have to pay more for a whole range of products.

According to the Retail Council of Canada, the changes in the classification of emerging countries for customs tariffs will increase the prices of some products by up to 18% and will far outweigh any lower prices that Canadians may pay because of the elimination of taxes on sporting goods and baby items.

Eliminating customs fees on children's clothing and sports equipment will deprive the government of $76 million. This was supposed to be a savings for Canadians, but it is not. Through this increase on products imported from these 72 countries, the government will receive $333 million a year. As such, the Conservative government has chosen to tax Canadian families to the tune of $257 million and that is just in this year's budget. It is therefore not $76 million in savings.

To name a few examples, tariffs on bicycles, strollers, coffee makers, school supplies and even iPods will go up. By increasing tariffs on over 80% of every type of import from more than 70 countries, the government is taking money directly out of Canadian consumers' wallets.

Sony Canada has warned consumers that they can expect an increase of 5% to 6% in the cost of MP3 players and iPods. This new 5% tax on iPods clearly illustrates the Conservatives' hypocrisy when it comes to tax increases.

This is what the Conservative member for Parry Sound—Muskoka said on December 14, 2010: “During this fragile economic recovery, the last thing Canadian families and consumers need is a massive new tax on iPods.”

It seems that the Conservatives changed their minds again, that they are bad managers or compulsive liars. It is very hard to tell which, but there is no doubt that the iPod tariff will go up. In the end, Canadians will have to pay more for MP3 players and many other consumer products.

For a government that has been saying for years how important it is to simplify the tax code, these changes are beyond comprehension and illustrate that the Conservatives are making things up as they go along. What the Conservatives are saying to consumers is that if a child has the opportunity to play hockey, then his parents might get to save some money. However, if his parents buy him a bicycle, then they are out of luck and they will have to pay more. It is illogical and outrageous.

Douglas Porter, chief economist at the Bank of Montreal and an expert on price disparity between Canada and the United States, indicated that these changes could further increase the price differences between the two countries. This situation could further damage Canadian businesses, which will find it even more difficult to compete with their American counterparts. Meanwhile, this cross-border price gap continues to widen. The government should be supporting Canadian retailers instead of giving consumers yet another reason to buy abroad.

A study conducted by the Bank of Montreal last year found that retail prices in Canada are still approximately 14% higher than those in the United States. Instead of giving Canadian families a break, the government is piling it on and increasing tariffs.

However, the economic situation of Canadian families is far from perfect. At the end of 2012, Canadian household consumer debt was nearly 6% higher than the previous year, according to a report released in February 2013. According to Statistics Canada's latest calculations—