Charlie Angus

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, being from a border community, my hon. colleague knows how important it is that we get this right. So much of our economy is tied to trade with the United States. The Prime Minister gets it into his head to announce, “Hey we would love to renegotiate NAFTA; come look at us.” That was not very bright.

Then it was, “We don't really know how to do this so we will hire Brian Mulroney to do it for us.” That is when we already know that beef is being put on the table; when we know softwood lumber is being put on the table. Brian Mulroney goes public and says, “Hey, we will have to put supply management, the dairy sector, on the table too.” Gee, Donald Trump thanks him a lot.

I ask the Liberals whether this is how they do trade negotiations. They bring in Brian Mulroney and let him do some air brushes in the sky about what else he thinks we should put on the table. Or, is he acting on behalf of the government that has already undermined supply management in the CETA negotiations, and it is just planning to continue it in negotiations with Trump?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my poor colleague. Not only did the Liberals have to take all of the economic notebooks from the Conservatives, they had to take their talking points from them too. They do not have an original idea in their heads.

When they want to change the subject, they have to use those two important words about the middle class: how they are fighting for the middle class, and about how we should have confidence in the middle class. When the Prime Minister set up his exclusive cash-for-access deals with Chinese billionaires and he got caught, he said he was doing it for the middle class. When they are selling arms to the House of Saud and are asked how they can morally stand by that, they say they are doing it for the middle class.

The Liberals have to stop hiding behind the middle class when they have undermined them. Their trade policies are undermining them. They have not stood up for one job in this country. They have never stood up. At least we got straight answers from the Conservatives once in a while. They have to do a little better.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House to speak to the bill that would implement CETA and to speak about the ideology of trade that is being promoted by the Liberal government, not the facts of trade but an ideology of trade.

The Prime Minister has become the world's great last free trader. He pumps the idea that if we keep opening the ability of corporations to move wherever they want then we will all benefit with CETA. He is already putting up trial balloons of what is going to be on the table with the Trump government over NAFTA and the government of course is looking toward the TPP.

Let us look at this in terms of simple economics. Economics should be like an ecosystem. In a healthy ecosystem, there are broad and defined levels of support and abilities, whether it is a small manufacturer or an individual business up the food chain. Our Prime Minister believes that if we look after those at the top of the food chain somehow everyone will benefit. He is the last and the ultimate promoter of the trickle-down economics theory, which is why I want to talk about his ideology of trade.

Earlier today we were told by a Liberal that this is about allowing little farmers in Nova Scotia to sell blueberries in Europe, which is a ridiculous side issue, but it is not nearly as ridiculous as the member for University—Rosedale, who said on CBC that this is about mukluks. She gave indigenous mukluks from Winnipeg to the European Commissioner for Trade because this is about allowing little mukluk manufacturers to trade internationally. That would be really ridiculous if it not for the Liberal government, which believes everyone is as dumb as a selfie photo message. That is not what trade agreements are about.

If trade agreements were to allow for the development of small businesses and allow them to grow larger then that would be good trade, but we are seeing trade agreements that the government does not want to talk about that are protecting those at the top of the food chain. That is where trade agreements have to be discussed and challenged. For example, under the Liberal government we see once again complete support for the investor-state provisions. We have seen investor-state provisions being used time and time again to limit the tools of local and regional governments to respond to economic issues.

We were told when free trade first came in that it would make us citizens of the world, that we would all be able to travel and do things and we would not be bound by our local economies. Many of our regions have become orphaned economies because trade agreements have taken away their ability to respond in times of crisis. That is when government needs to get involved in the economy. Let me give the House an example involving the provincial Liberals, the Kathleen Wynne government, the same forces that are behind the Prime Minister. For anyone who is not in Ontario, be warned. This is not going to end well.

In 2013, the Wynne government decided to show that it was ready for free trade by opening up local rural school bus contracts to international investors. My region is a large rural area and it had little mom-and-pop operations that had maybe two or three buses that serviced rural schools in both the francophone school board and the anglophone school board. Suddenly these little operations had to compete against a large European consortium that underbid every single one of them and put them all out of business. Some people were rehired as bus drivers for this large European consortium. We were told those sacrifices were important because trade is important. As G.K. Chesterton talked about the horrible mysticism of money, the false mysticism of trade, we had to sacrifice all of these small school bus operations for the bigger vision of trade. How would that benefit us? It would not.

The investor-state provisions maintain those on the fact that we are giving up on the pharmaceuticals. That is supposed to help us so we can sell mukluks. It will cost us. Up to $2.8 billion a year will be downloaded to individual consumers on the cost of pharmaceuticals. That is all-important because it is for the ideology of trade.

The attack on the dairy sector is a crucial issue because we are talking about family farms. We are talking about regional farming economies that have a proven pattern of success that are giving up market share.

At least the Harper government was willing to compensate for the impacts because it knew those impacts would be great. However, what we get from the present government instead of actual money on the table is the Bobby McFerrin school of economics, which says, “Don't worry. Be happy. We have a prime minister who will do push-ups for you in Brooklyn and your farm sector will somehow compete.” We know that is not true.

The Liberals are more than willing to sacrifice individual jobs. We see zero words from the Prime Minister over the Chinese steel dumping that shut down Sault Ste. Marie and is crushing Hamilton.

Why are they not speaking up? Because, in the interest of trade with China, it is okay that it destroys our steel sector.

The Prime Minister, after holding his private billion-dollar fundraisers with Chinese billionaires, decided to open up for review a project about allowing the Chinese government to buy a Canadian tech company that even the Harper government opposed. Why would we sell out our tech sector? It is for the greater vision of trade. It will benefit us all.

We see that as soon as Donald Trump came into power, he started talking about opening up NAFTA. He had not even noticed Canada existed. The Prime Minister said, “Brilliant. We'll come to the negotiating table and reopen the negotiations with you.”

If we are going to negotiate a deal, we do not hold up our ace cards and show where they are in our hand; but, no, they have already started to talk about bringing in Brian Mulroney to give the Prime Minister advice. God help us. What does Brian Mulroney say? Brian Mulroney says, “Hey, we've got to get rid of supply management.”

If we are not going to send a message that this is going to be on the table, who are they representing? They are not representing us.

We are going to have the Prime Minister bring Brian Mulroney in, and he is already posting bubbles about what we are going to give up.

When it comes to international trade, the Prime Minister is like a rube at a country fair. He thinks he knows where those dollars are going to land in the little shells, but he is setting us up for failure.

We have seen him say nothing about softwood. We have lost so many forestry jobs because of softwood. We have seen him say nothing about the fact that if the United States is going to stand up for its interests, we have to stand up for ours. Yet the Prime Minister has already opened the door to putting these on the table.

Why is that? It is because his notion of economics that he studied at school is that as long as we keep allowing trade to move back and forth, we will all benefit. However, we are seeing now where 60% in urban areas are in short-term contracts.

Where is this middle class the Liberals keep talking about? We hear them all the time, and it is very insidious language they use. They talk about the middle class and those wanting to join it as though they are offering a long-term vision of development when they are not, because they continually favour those at the top of the food chain.

What do I mean by that? Look at their tax break for the middle class and working people. If people make $23 an hour or less, they get zero; but if they make 50 or 100 bucks an hour, they get full bang. I guess the Prime Minister grew up in a different middle class than I did. Most of the middle-class people I know, who are just trying to get into the middle class and 23 bucks an hour, could use a break, rather than the ministers of cabinet and bankers.

This is the false ideology of their economics. Yet they have the nerve and the gall to say they are doing it to sell blueberries, that they are here for the mukluks, that they are there for the little Joe on the street, with his mom-and-pop corner operation, that is why we are signing these international agreements, and that is false.

If we are going to talk trade, then let us talk about trade that is in Canada's interest, about ensuring that our pharmaceutical costs are not going to go through the roof to sell that out, about investor-state provisions that are based on a clear, coherent rule of law and not just a backroom deal that undermines the ability of local and regional governments and provincial governments to make the decisions that they have a right to make. This is about what trade needs to be.

Unfortunately with the trickle-down Prime Minister, we know what is happening to the people on the bottom, and we are seeing it again, and again, and again.

I will finally conclude by saying that the one honest statement by the Liberals made today is they thanked the Conservatives for leading the way because they really appreciated the road map that was laid out by the Conservative policies and they are just trying to faithfully follow it.

I do not agree with the Conservatives much, but what I do like about them is that at least they give it to us straight in the face. They tell us where they stand. They do not try to hug us and act like Teletubbies when they are delivering what they are delivering.

At least the Liberals had the decency to thank the Conservatives for this economic travesty that they continue to perpetrate on the Canadian—

[Middle Class, February 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the middle class. Every time the Prime Minister has to defend a cynical decision, he brings up the middle class.

He sets up billionaires' special access clubs for the middle class. He supports a Saudi arms deal for the middle class. He gives tax cuts to bankers and cabinet ministers for the middle class.

Is the Prime Minister oblivious to what is happening to the middle class? Where is the plan to deal with higher student debt, the lack of affordable housing, or the decline in the number of permanent jobs? Those are the real needs of the middle class.

The middle class is being had by this government's economic policies. We are going to provide the middle class and the working class with a real alternative.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great fascination to my colleague. He is an enjoyable man, who is telling Canadians that the reason the government signed this free trade agreement is to get Nova Scotia blueberries over to Europe. That is one of the more ridiculous examples I have heard, except possibly for the reason given by the member for University—Rosedale, who said that we had to sign it so we could sell mukluks from little stores in Winnipeg to Europe. Do they think we are some kind of political knobs?

I want to thank my colleague for at least wrapping up his speech by thanking Stephen Harper and his policies for laying out the path that the Liberal government is following. At least we heard a bit of honesty from him. His government is following the same trickle-down economic plans of the Stephen Harper government and they are thankful for it. I want to thank him for his honesty. It was a breath of fresh air compared to all the other stuff.

I did not hear him talk at all about the fact that the Liberal government is selling out the dairy sector. At least Stephen Harper put the money on the table, because he knew this was going to be a serious multi-billion dollar hit to our farm families. The Liberal government has not put a dime on the table.

I would like my colleague to move away from blueberries for a minute and tell us what is going to be on the table for our farmers who will be giving up serious market share to the Europeans.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague, because it is clear that the Prime Minister is the foremost proponent of trickle-down economics in the world today. He believes in this ideology of trade, that if we trade away Canadian steel jobs, we will get something better with the Chinese, or that if we allow the Chinese government to take over Canadian tech companies, it will somehow benefit the middle class. Liberals always invoke the middle class whenever they make a cynical decision.

The government refused to stand up for the farm sector in the CETA negotiations and walked away on compensation, when it knows that dairy farm families are going to take a serious hit. Yet the man they are looking to deal with Donald Trump, Brian Mulroney, is floating the trial balloon that to keep the Americans happy, we have to get rid of the supply-managed sector in this country. This is who the Liberal government seems to be taking its advice from.

I would ask my hon. colleague why he thinks it is that the Liberals put the ideology of these trade deals ahead of our steel sector, our farm sector, and our tech sector every single time to get any kind of deal it can get with anybody.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 30th, 2017]

With regard to policing and surveillance activities related to journalists and Indigenous activists since October 31 2015: (a) which security agencies or other government bodies have been involved in tracking Indigenous protest activities relating to (i) Idle No More, (ii) the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls or other Aboriginal public order events, (iii) the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, (iv) the Northern Gateway Pipeline, (v) the Energy East and Eastern Mainline Projects, (vi) the Site C dam, (vii) the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project, (viii) Line 9B Reversal and Line 9 Capacity Expansion Project, (ix) other industrial or resource development projects; (b) how many Indigenous individuals have been identified by security agencies as potential threats to public safety or security, broken down by agency and province; (c) which indigenous organizations, and activist groups have been the subject of monitoring by Canadian security services, broken down by agency and province; (d) how many events involving Indigenous activists were noted in Government Operations Centre situation reports, broken down by province and month; (e) have any Canadian government agencies including Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) been involved in tracking Canadians travelling to Standing Rock Indian Reservation (North and South Dakota, United States of America); (f) has there been any request by the Canadian government or any of its agencies to the United States government or any of its agencies to share information on the tracking of Canadians citizens engaging in demonstrations at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation; (g) what are the titles and dates of any inter-departmental or inter-agency reports related to indigenous protest activities; (h) how many times have government agencies shared information on indigenous protest activities with private sector companies, and for each instance, which companies received such information, and on what dates; (i) how many meetings have taken place between representatives of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion Project and (i) RCMP personnel, (ii) CSIS personnel; and (j) what are the answers for (a) through (i) for journalists, instead of for Indigenous individuals or organizations, and only if applicable?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 30th, 2017]

With regard to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Independent Assessment Process (IAP): (a) how much of the Common Experience Payment (CEP) fund was paid to survivors and how much was paid to others through education credits; (b) what is the total amount paid to survivors under the IAP to date; (c) what is the total amount paid to survivors’ lawyers under the IAP to date; (d) what is the total amount that was paid to survivors’ lawyers under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA) separately from claims under the IAP process; (e) what has been the total amount spent for the IAP administration, including payments to Justice Canada lawyers, arbitrators and other contractors; (f) what was the total amount spent by Justice Canada in defending residential school civil action claims and under the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, before the IRSSA; (g) what has been the total amount spent to date by Health Canada for health supports under the IRSSA; (h) what has been the total amount spent to date by Library and Archives Canada in relation to residential school claims, including under (i) civil court cases, (ii) the ADR process, (iii) the IRSSA; (i) what is the government’s best approximation of the amount spent by Canadian taxpayers for all aspects of the IRSSA; (j) what is the government’s best approximation of the amount spent by Canadian taxpayers for all aspects of residential schools, including all costs associated with defending such claims and operating the ADR process before the IRSSA took effect; (k) what is the total amount that each church was required to pay according to the terms of the IRSSA; (l) what is the total amount that each church agreed to pay according to the terms of its liability-sharing agreement with Canada before the IRSSA, in particular, (i) Anglican agreements, (ii) Presbyterian agreements, (iii) agreements with the United Church, (iv) agreements with the Catholic church and orders; (m) what is the total amount that the churches each paid directly to Canada to help pay the costs in (l), broken down by denomination; (n) what are the details of the agreement between Justice Canada and the TRC detailing exactly which documents the Department of Justice agreed in 2015 to provide to the TRC or the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation; (o) how many separate documents are in the IAP system; (p) how many IAP compensation claims were denied on the basis that (i) Canada was not responsible for the residential school at the time of the incident, (ii) the residential school child was abused “off premises”, (iii) the claimant was an “employee”, (iv) the touching was not done for a sexual purpose, (v) the school had ceased being a residential school, or that Canada was not jointly responsible for the residential school, or that the school in question was not a “residential” school; (q) what number and percentage of IAP claims fell into the different categories of (i) acts proven that are set out in Schedule D of the IRSSA, (ii) harm that are part of the IAP process and listed in Schedule D of the IRSSA; (r) what was the average IAP payment within each category of (i) acts proven, (ii) level of harm; (s) what number and percentage of IAP claims were made by (i) male claimants, (ii) female claimants; (t) what number and percentage of IAP claims were attributable to (i) each Indian Residential School, (ii) each of the churches that administered residential schools, broken down by denomination; (u) what number and percentage of IAP claims occurred (i) from age 0 to 18, broken down by age, (ii) from 1800 to 1990, broken down by year; (v) what number and percentage of IAP claims were (i) student-on-student abuse, (ii) staff-on-student abuse; (w) how many unique individuals were alleged to have committed abuse; (x) what was the number of IAP claims alleged against each of the alleged perpetrators; (y) what number and percentage of IAP claims were for (i) physical abuse only, (ii) both physical and sexual abuse, (iii) sexual abuse only; (z) what categories of negative impacts were reported in IAP claims and what percentage of IAP claims reported each of those categories, including (i) addiction, (ii) imprisonment, (iii) incomplete education, (iv) damages to loss of earnings, (v) apprehension of children by child welfare authorities; (aa) what amount did the IAP pay to lawyers representing IAP claimants, including (i) through the IAP program, (ii) through the ADR program, (iii) within the Settlement Agreement itself; (bb) how many claims resulted in legal fee reviews and how many of the legal fee reviews resulted in fees being reduced; (cc) how many lawyers had their fees reduced on ten or more occasions; (dd) what are the names of the lawyers who had their fees reduced; (ee) how many claimants were financially abused or negligently treated by their own IAP lawyers; (ff) is the IAP planning to publish the results of its investigations, findings and directives on claims resulting in legal reviews; (gg) is the IAP planning to publish a complete list of court and law society rulings on claims resulting in legal reviews; (hh) how many claimants died before their IAP decision was made or before their compensation was received; and (ii) how many different individuals, including (i) Government of Canada staff, (ii) IAP staff and contractors, (iii) survivors’ lawyers, had access to (i) the IAP decisions database, (ii) the master persons of interest list, (iii) Canada’s admissions of knowledge of student-on-student abuse, (iv) Canada’s school narratives?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 30th, 2017]

With regard to the budget of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, broken down by program and sub-program area: (a) from 2011-2012 to 2016-2017, what was the budget amount allocated, divided by base spending and program spending; (b) from 2011-2012 to 2016-2017, what was the budget amount actually spent, divided by base spending and program spending; (c) from 2016-2017 to 2020-2021, what is the amount that is projected to be allocated, divided by base spending and program spending; and (d) what are the amounts in (a), (b) and (c) that will be taken from the lump-sum dollar figure that is set out under the two per cent cap?

[Tax Convention and Arrangement Implementation Act, 2016, December 8th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. The issue of fixing our tax regimes with other jurisdictions that people move back and forth between is something that we need to do. Here we are doing it with Taiwan and Israel.

I am a little confused about this bill being described as an act to prevent fiscal evasion. I do not see efforts within the bill to deal with fiscal evasion. It is a serious problem internationally, and a larger vision for Canada would be to make sure that we are getting a fair deal for Canadian citizens by dealing with the offshore financial arrangements that put us at a disadvantage, for example, the Canada–Barbados treaty agreement. It certainly was a substandard agreement for Canada that has allowed a lot of money to flow offshore that should have been taxed here.

In terms of whether or not to support this legislation, it is necessary, as it would clean things up and make them more equitable for dealmaking between Taiwan and Canada, and Israel and Canada. But I would like to hear my hon. colleague speak to the larger question of the vision of the current government for dealing with international tax evasion and tax havens.