House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 24% of the vote.
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act November 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that question. That is what I was talking about in terms of establishing principles. It is about promoting multilateral trade with principles whereby our country and the people of our country and the country we want to do business with are all lifted higher, and we make sure that their rights and our rights are equally protected.
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act November 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised this issue earlier about the concerns around the investor-state provision, which I followed up on in my intervention.
The irony of the way the government deals with issues like foreign investment is truly incredible. We expect the government to get an agreement on tax information exchange transparency when it will not even be transparent on an important deal with China that is going to lock us in for 31 years.
As has been suggested in the question that was just asked, India has refused to sign on to the investor-state provision with Canada without having this matter come before their Parliament. I bet Canadians who are listening to this debate, and I am sure there are five or six, as well as the ones who will be reviewing Hansard later, will also recognize the huge irony in the position of the government.
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act November 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I am disappointed that the member found my intervention on this important piece of legislation superfluous, but then again we all have different standards of debate in this House.
Let me say that the official opposition has said, on numerous occasions, that we support free trade and that we support multilateral trade. We are a trading nation. I am from the trading province of Nova Scotia. We support and promote trade.
However, we want to make sure that the trade is in our interests and in the interests of the country we are trading with. Let us not be caught up in the fact that we simply want to be able to say, “Hey, we got another deal.” We want to be able to say, “Hey, we have a good deal for Canadians.”
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act November 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to engage in the debate on Bill C-24 at third reading, as I did at second reading, because it is an important debate and an important bill. It is about how we trade with other nations in the world. I have said before and will say again that it is my contention, and that of the official opposition, that Canada should be much more engaged in promoting multilateral trade. We should be working with the international community in its entirety. That is the best way to work toward better deals and arrangements to lift the trade standards of all countries equally, rather than trying to do one-offs with countries to beat the U.S. or the European community. Otherwise, it is kind of hit and miss.
As has been stated here, the Conservative government has not been particularly successful in improving our trade circumstances. We have such a significant trade deficit in this country. Deals with countries like Panama, while being important to the people who are doing business with Panama, and I do not want to understate that importance whatsoever, pale in comparison to our trading relationship with the United States and with many of the other countries that we are trying to trade with.
My colleague, the member for Beauport—Limoilou, did an excellent job of talking about the reason that we should be concerned about Panama's status as a tax haven. He talked about why that was such a problem and why it is that the government should be paying more attention to the concerns that have been raised by the international community, the OECD and the United States Congress, which refused to sign on to a trade deal with Panama until an agreement on the exchange of tax information was completed.
I heard one member opposite say the fact that the U.S. has signed on to a trade deal with Panama is another reason that we must hurry up and that we are again being surpassed by the U.S. This trade deal was originally signed by the current government back in 2009. The government members have not shown any urgency whatsoever to get it done. Now that we finally get it into the House and start to look at it and debate it, the Conservatives should not try to scare me, as a member of this chamber, into cutting down on my questions and concerns simply because the government has been tardy and as a result the United States has beaten us in that relationship with Panama. However, it has also shown us a bit about negotiations and about ensuring it is protecting the interests of Americans, in that case, because their Congress insisted on getting an agreement on the exchange of tax information before signing on to the deal. That is something the Conservatives have not done.
In the past three years, since the deal was signed, what have the Minister of International Trade and his colleagues been doing? What has the parliamentary secretary been doing? They should have been ensuring that this additional agreement on the exchange of tax information was completed and signed. We could have debated it in the House and it would have gone some distance in helping to encourage members of the opposition benches that this was a deal that had some merit. However, they did not do that.
I sometimes get the feeling, from the way government members talk about what great free traders they are, that all they are concerned about is being able to say they have signed a deal on trade. When it comes to ensuring the deal is the best one we could get, not perfect but the best one we could get, that would be good. That would be a point well taken. Unfortunately, the government tends to say it has a deal and it has to be signed regardless of members' objections.
New Democrats introduced 13 very reasonable, modest, important and integral amendments at committee and not one of them was supported by the government. There was everything from ensuring the side deals on labour and the environment are included, to tax transparency, to the question of increasing sustainable investment, to harmonious and sustainable development. These are matters that are important to us and to the Panamanian people. Surely, members opposite do not want to benefit from the exploitation of others.
While we can agree that we want Canadian companies and businesses in this country to profit and benefit from any trade we do with other countries, surely we recognize that does not mean we are at all content with benefiting at the expense of others. If it is as a result of exploiting child labour or causing the degradation of the environment of another country or exploiting or penalizing workers, surely members opposite will agree that it is simply not worth it.
Frankly, that is why I say we should be going the way of Australia and establishing principles on which to make sure we conduct ourselves as we relate with the rest of the world. As we engage in economic relationships with other countries, we need to set standards, as Australia has done. The standards deal with the promotion of multilateral trade with other countries to ensure that we all benefit from economic activity in the global community. That should be in the best interests of this country and the members of the House.
I want to pick up on one thing that caused me some concern and that is the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The question of investor-state provisions was raised. He was asked a question about the fact that this agreement contains the same investor-state provisions as the free trade agreement with the United States. In that respect, it ensures that Canadian companies will be dealt with in that country on the basis of certain laws and rules, and so on. That is questionable when dealing with a country such as Panama that is developing its justice system. However, the Panamanian companies that are dealing with Canada can have access to those provisions and can sue our companies or our subnational governments, if they feel they are being wrongly dealt with economically.
I am concerned, in light of the fact that the government is engaging in the FIPA, the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with China, in complete secrecy by the way, that he does not understand an important part of the provision with Panama, let alone an important part of the FIPA with China.
Perhaps I will a get a chance to address this concern more fully when questions are asked.
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act November 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, we have talked on this side at some length about our concerns regarding transparency of tax matters, the fact that international concerns have been raised about Panama's status as a tax haven. The Conservatives said that the OECD took Panama off the grey list and that removes all concerns. However, the member will undoubtedly recognize the fact that the OECD still has very significant reservations and other countries, including the U.S., would not sign onto an agreement with Panama until an agreement on tax information exchange was completed.
Does the member agree that we should ensure that the agreement on tax information exchange is made available before we sign on to this agreement?
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act November 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs acknowledged the fact that there were reasons for those of us on this side to be concerned, such as the lack of tax transparency with Panama.
He acknowledged that other countries, including the United States, entered into an agreement with Panama on tax information exchange before they signed off on their trade agreements. The member said that Canada was negotiating such an agreement with Panama and the government has acknowledged there is a need for such an agreement.
If that is in fact the case, why will the member not show some respect to Parliament and bring that signed agreement to the House before he asks us to vote on this final agreement?
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act November 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque said that the government has a tendency to oversell these trade agreements. In fact, Conservatives talk about how they have signed all these trade agreements, but they do not want to talk about the details of the agreements. They do not want to have them examined in the House. They do not want to subject them to analysis and evaluation after the fact.
Would the member have agreed to support an amendment to subject the agreement to various reviews after it was signed so that we could test the over-promotion by the government?
Intergovernmental Affairs November 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I guess eight senior policy advisors and sixteen ministerial staff are just not enough to help the minister get up and answer questions in QP.
His job is to provide policy advice and strategic planning; liaise and advise on relations with provinces and territories; and assist with communications and parliamentary affairs. The minister is also responsible for coordinating interprovincial meetings.
I wonder if the minister could give us a report on some of the positive outcomes in the last few interprovincial meetings that he has attended.
Fisheries and Oceans November 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that ignoring science puts our ecosystems and our very way of life at risk. Canadians do not need to look very far to find that evidence.
Justice Cohen pointed to a serious lack of scientific capacity at Fisheries and Oceans Canada as a factor in putting wild salmon at risk. Fish stocks are down across the country and the Conservative plan is to further gut environmental protections.
Will the minister implement the recommendations of the Cohen report before it is too late?
Fisheries and Oceans November 1st, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the final report of the Cohen commission should be a wake-up call for the government. It reveals the staggering scope of the Conservatives' mismanagement of the fisheries, including the drastic changes in budget 2012, such as gutting laws on habitat protection, slashing fisheries science capacity and cutting $75 million from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Will the minister finally agree that the government is heading in the wrong direction, end the cuts in budget 2012 and enact the recommendations of Justice Cohen?