Garnett Genuis

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 2nd, 2017]

In Asia.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 2nd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, Canadians want to see investments in infrastructure here in Canada. I think they do want to see us engaged internationally, but in a way that reflects our values and interests. They do not want us to write blank cheques to institutions that we do not control and that reflect neither our values nor our strategic interests.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 2nd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will note for the benefit of the member that the U.S. is not a member of the bank and that the Obama administration raised concerns about transparency and human rights. This highlights a fundamental difference in the foreign policy approach taken by the government and the official opposition.

The question they want us to ask is, what is everyone else doing, so we can do it too. The question we want to ask is, what is right in terms of our values, and what reflects our national, strategic, and economic interests? On both of these scores it is very clear that this proposal fails.

The parliamentary secretary spoke about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the World Bank in the same breath, but we have to take a critical approach and look at the differences between these vehicles. One is transparent and seeks to have human rights protections in place, and one transparently does not. It is simply not enough for the government to try to create some kind of equivalence between the values advanced by a PRC-controlled institution and those advanced by a western institution. We should not buy into a false moral equivalency between the kinds of systems that exist or are propagated by these strategic vehicles.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 2nd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, my friend across the way is upset that I did not mention all of the different issues in the budget implementation act. I certainly would take issue with the government's policy with respect to families and I disagree with the member's statement about their impact. However, of course I cannot discuss all of the measures in the budget implementation act. It is very long, if the member has not noticed.

I focused my attention on the particular issue of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. I am sure the member would not want to talk about this in his riding, because if he asked constituents in his riding and other ridings here in Ottawa, I am sure they would not be very keen on seeing hundreds of millions of their tax dollars going to building infrastructure, not here in Canada and not toward advancing Canadian strategic interests, but in Asia as part of a PRC-controlled development bank that does not have the kind of transparency and human rights protections that we need. If the member thinks this is a great idea, I would like to hear him talk about it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 2nd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address what is indeed a very large piece of legislation, the government's budget implementation act. I hope to have the opportunity later on in my remarks to talk about the general budgetary policy of the government.

However, as deputy shadow minister for foreign affairs, I want to talk about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in particular, and contextualize that a bit with respect to what we in the official opposition think is a better basis for a relationship with countries in Asia and with China.

Before I do that, I will be splitting my time with the excellent member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Those following along at home can find, on page 239, of their copies of the budget implementation bill the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank agreement act. Although the bill is long, this section of the bill is relatively short. I would draw it to the attention of members and those who are interested in this. This is the part of the legislation that has the Government of Canada acceding to or joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is a China-based and China-controlled investment vehicle that builds infrastructure throughout Asia, but does so in a way that is aligned with the strategic interests of the People's Republic of China.

A lot of Canadians would wonder why Canada would be getting into this bank, spending a whole bunch of Canadian taxpayer dollars to become part of an investment bank that is designed to advance the strategic interests of another country. As I talk about this, I want to be very clear about what I think our relationship should be with China.

In the official opposition, we support strategic engagement with China that reflects our interests and our values. That does not mean trying to have the best possible relationship, or trying to be part of every club or trying to make the other side feel as good as it possibly can about us. Rather, it is about continually looking for opportunities in the context of that relationship which advance our interests and values. We believe that is the approach we ought to take with respect to our relationship with the People's Republic of China.

This section of the budget implementation act would have Canada joining this investment bank. It would provide for Canada's getting about 1% of the shares. China has over 30% of the shares. We would have very little influence or control in the direction.

Paragraph 5 of the division of the bill dealing with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank says, “The Governor in Council may, by order, amend the schedule to take into account amendments to the Agreement that are consistent with the purpose and functions of the Bank.” Therefore, this act would provide substantial control to the minister to exercise outside of statutory changes.

Paragraph 7 says:

The Minister of Finance may make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Bank in respect of Canada's initial subscription of shares in an aggregate amount not more than US$ 375,000,000, or any greater amount that is specified in an appropriation Act.

Therefore, this would authorize, as I had said in questions and comments, close to $400 million. I should have specified we are talking about U.S. dollars in that context. We would be spending a lot of taxpayer money to buy shares in this bank that makes investments in Asia in infrastructure and is fundamentally controlled by the People's Republic of China.

There are a lot of problems with that. One problem is simply a basic question of value for taxpayer money. Why would we not be spending that money at home and/or in ways that advance our strategic interests? Why is it somehow necessary for us to have such a good relationship with China that we effectively give it so much money for it to control?

However, this is also a problem because we have major concerns about the transparency of this investment bank and the lack of human rights protections in its activities. These are precisely the concerns that have led our partners, including the United States under the Obama administration, to choose not to participate in this investment bank. Again, this is because they question the value for taxpayer money, and, in particular, they have concerns about transparency and human rights, things that the government talks a great deal about but we do not see much action on.

In that context, I would like to draw the attention of members to this infrastructure bank's engagement in Burma specifically. There has been a great deal of discussion in the House about the human rights abuses happening right now against the Rohingya people, as well as other minorities in Burma. However, Canadian investments in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will be used in projects over which we have no direct control, in environments with significant human rights problems, and without the kind of transparency about those projects or protections in place that we would expect. How do we know how Canadian tax dollars will be used in Burma as a result of our membership of this investment bank? We do not have any kind of transparency or protections around how that money would be used.

There are, of course, alternatives. There are international investment vehicles that build infrastructure and encourage economic development that have the kinds of protections we would expect and that are more aligned with the kinds of strategic objectives Canadians would identify with. We are already participating in those kinds of vehicles. However, for us to choose to spend close to $400 million U.S. on chasing the approval of a foreign power using that money to build infrastructure in Asia, very clearly, is not something that Canadians want.

I challenge members of the government, if they think this is a great idea, to take this particular section of the budget implementation act, buried on page 239, to their constituents, put it in their local papers and ask people in their ridings what they think of it. I suspect that even in very traditional Liberal ridings in this country, members of the government would find that voters do not want close to $400 million, and perhaps more in the future, going toward this particular approach. We should be working to create jobs here in Canada and advancing Canada's strategic objectives and values, but this proposal is fundamentally at odds with our strategic objectives to advance our values vis-à-vis human rights, as I have spoken about, and shows a lack of respect for human rights.

Of course, there are many other things in this budget implementation act that I could speak about, such as the continuing failure of the government to live up to its commitments. Yes, it promised deficits, three years of $10-billion deficits followed by a balanced budget. It has more than doubled its deficit projections for each of the first three years and has no plan to ever return to a balanced budget.

This budget implementation act does not let up on the government's attack on small business. Liberals continue to say, for example, that they will make changes with respect to income sprinkling and passive income that will have a negative impact on small business. I want to be very clear on this issue of income sprinkling. Before the election, there was a structure in place that allowed all Canadians to split their income. It was transparently fair and equal. Couples could share their income with each other for tax purposes, however they earned that income. That reflects the reality that couples share their money. The government did away with income splitting and then tried to use the fact that wage-earners cannot split their income as a justification for not allowing people in small businesses to do it. Why do we not just allow income splitting for everyone?

In particular, for the reasons I spoke about in regard to the infrastructure bank, and also more broadly, in regard to the problems with the government's fiscal agenda, Conservatives oppose this legislation.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 2nd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I have a follow-up to the member's comments earlier with respect to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

The member talked about the importance of engaging around the world and of building Canada's brand in Asia. I certainly believe it is important for Canada to seek partnerships with like-minded countries in Asia and to seek partnerships that advance our strategic interests.

However, the government is proposing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on an entity that is fully controlled by China and exists to advance its strategic objectives. That is not building Canada's brand; that is building China's brand in Asia.

Could the member justify that kind of spending, close to $400 million of Government of Canada spending, when people at home would rather see investments that actually benefit them?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, November 2nd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, in my speech, I will address the issue of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which is part of this omnibus legislation, but I want to give a member of the government the opportunity to comment on this.

This budget implementation bill authorizes the spending of close to $400 million on Canada getting into the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, where we would own less than 1% of the shares. It would be controlled by China as an agent of its foreign policy objectives, ultimately building infrastructure in Asia to advance Chinese strategic objectives.

Does the member feel that it is in the interests of people in St. Catharines to spend close to $400 million for 1% of the shares in a bank that will build infrastructure in Asia as a way of advancing China's strategic objectives?

[Petitions, November 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today that deals with the process for firearms reclassification. This is a firearms issue but is also a rule of law issue.

Firearms owners are concerned when reclassification decisions are made by the RCMP, sometimes without proper communication, in which reclassification takes place and property that they are able to possess one day, without any change in the law, they are suddenly no longer able to possess. This petition raises in particular the issue of the 10-round plus magazine reclassification changes.

The petitioners call on Parliament to remove the power of the RCMP to arbitrarily make classification decisions on firearms.

[Cannabis Act, November 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have have substantive differences with the member's assessment of the risks, and I think the medical evidence clearly bears out the significant associations between marijuana use and mental health challenges, which we want to avoid.

I want to ask the member about her comments with respect to the Standing Orders. I do not go out of my way to agree with the government, but the way the Standing Orders work in combination with the motions passed by committees, and the way that most, if not all, committees work now, is that every member has an opportunity to bring forward substantive amendments at committee. Thus, they cannot bring amendments at report stage that they could have brought forward at committee.

The member in question wants to have the right to bring forward substantive report stage amendments, I understand that. However, as a member of a major recognized party, I am not able to bring forward substantive amendments at report stage either, except in certain very particular circumstances, which would apply to the member as well, where the Speaker judges the measure to be of great importance and makes an exception in its case.

Can the member clarify if, in this case, what she is asking for is actually a right that other members do not have? No one can bring forward substantive amendments at report stage if those could have been brought forward at committee.

[Petitions, November 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very timely petition, in light of the discussion about the potential unfairness, allegedly, of income splitting. I have constituents who believe that income splitting that was taken away by the government should be restored for all Canadians. They write that the government's elimination of the family tax credit has stripped thousands of families of a much-needed tax break and that it is imperative that the family tax credit, or a similar effective vehicle for income splitting, be reinstated so that Canadians, not the government, can decide how to spend their hard-earned money.

The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to act quickly to reinstate income splitting for all Canadians.