Shelly Glover

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments with regard to the case involving Tim McClean. Tim McClean's family is one that I am quite close to, and Carol de Delley will be very pleased to hear that the NDP member is supportive of this bill.

I want to assist my NDP colleague and friend by adding to the answer he just provided to our colleague from the Green Party. I remind her that the term "brutal nature" has in fact been interpreted to mean "conduct which is coarse, savage and cruel and which is capable of inflicting severe psychological damage on the victim...". That is from R. v. Langevin in the Ontario court of appeal.

I wanted to help my learned friend across the way from the NDP in answering that question and once again thank him for his comments with regard to protecting victims and supporting this bill.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, economic action plan 2013 announced the elimination of tariffs on babies’ clothing and certain sports and athletic equipment, providing $79 million annually in tariff relief. This measure comes with the expectation that wholesalers, distributors and retailers will fully pass these tariff savings on to Canadian consumers in the form of lower retail prices on the products covered by the measure. The government will be monitoring the impact of tariff reductions on the retail prices for these items over the coming months and is working with the Retail Council of Canada, consumer groups and other independent sources. This initiative will allow the government to assess whether tariff elimination can help narrow the price gap for consumers.

With respect to the general preferential tariff, the changes announced in economic action plan 2013 will be effective January 1, 2015. The modernized GPT will continue to promote economic growth and export diversification in the countries most in need of this type of assistance by providing tariff-based incentives for Canadian importers to source their goods from the remaining 103 eligible countries. GPT changes announced in economic action plan 2013 will accomplish the goal of better aligning the program to the current global economic reality.

The government’s monitoring of revenue is ongoing and will continue.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the tariff items listed in (a)(i), (a)(ii) and (a)(iv) and (b)(i), (b)(ii) and (b)(iv) are broad tariff categories that encompass several different types of products. These categories do not distinguish music players from the other goods covered, and it is impossible to distinguish the total value of imported music devices from other products in the category with data that can be made public. However, music devices, irrespective of their origin, are eligible for duty-free treatment under the long-standing tariff exemption 9948.00.00.

The tariff item listed in (a)(iii) and (b)(iii) is not a valid tariff item in the Customs Tariff--i.e., this item number does not exist.

[Taxation, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to actually have to do this, but that member talked about 40,000 jobs in that period of time under the Liberal watch. We are talking about over a million jobs created under this government. There is no comparison.

This low-tax plan, this plan for job creation we have embarked upon, economic action plan after economic action plan, has proved fruitful. When we talk about youth, just last week, in the last report, we heard that 54,000 jobs had been created for youth. It is the highest recorded number of jobs created for youth in three decades. The member has no clue about what she speaks of.

We are regarded in the world as having, as I said before, one of the best economies and as the best place to do business. There are businesses coming to Canada because of the policies we have taken. We will continue with this plan. We will provide for Canadians, and we will do it with tremendous pride.

[Taxation, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let me correct the record right off the bat.

It is this country and it is this government that has put forward an environment that has led us to have the absolute best job creation in the G7 since the end of the recession in July 2009. There is no better. When a member of the Liberal Party talks about the economy and taxes, it is bewildering to me because this is the government that has led Canada to being a leader in job creation. It has led Canada to be recognized by other countries as one of the best places to invest and do business. Frankly, when we talk about taxes, it is this government that has lowered taxes in over 150 ways.

I need to also correct the record about the EI account. It is the Liberal Party when it was in power that took almost $60 billion of employers' and employees' EI funds to fund their own slush fund. The Liberals withdrew that money, put it into general revenues, and distributed it out in the form of contributions and whatnot. It was absolutely the wrong thing to do and employers and employees have been complaining about it ever since. For any Liberal to stand in this place and criticize this government for the wonderful economic record that we have, and to criticize us for EI changes to replace the $60 billion that they took from the account, is hypocritical.

Now let us address some of the taxes that I mentioned earlier, the 150 taxes that have been lowered, because in this budget there is no raising of taxes and there are no hidden changes to affect businesses. Businesses are very much in line with our low-tax plan, including the reduction of the GST that we saw go down from 7% to 6% to 5%, which the Liberals have indicated they will raise should they come to power. Small businesses agreed with our reduction of corporate taxes, which the Liberals have stated very clearly they will raise if they come to power. Businesses also agree with our plan to grow the economy without raising taxes on Canadians, without reducing transfers to provinces, and to do so in an environmentally friendly way.

We are the party that has led our environment portfolio to successes like a 35% reduction in GHG. Under the Liberal watch, it went up more than 30%. Not only that, our economy is growing while we are lowering GHG emissions. That party is saying as soon as it has the opportunity it will impose a carbon tax, which would further complicate measures for our small businesses.

This is a matter of tremendous importance not only to small businesses but to families alike. Through the decreases in taxes, through the elimination of many of those taxes that were really harming our families, now an average family of four keeps $3,200 in their pockets.

We have more to do, absolutely, but we will take no lessons from the Liberal Party that saw a decade of darkness for our military and increases in taxes to all Canadians because of its cuts to transfers to provinces. We will continue on our low-tax plan and do it with tremendous pride.

[International Trade, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that member is absolutely wrong. It would not cost us our sovereignty at all.

What the member said about opportunities that exist in Canada for Chinese investors is, in fact, true. However, the problem is that we do not have the same opportunities and the same equality of opportunity for our investors in China. That is why the FIPA is so important. It is to level the playing field and provide equal opportunity in both countries.

When I hear members talk about not proceeding with trade and using examples of countries that have refused to proceed with trade, I am appalled, because we are an exporting country. We must have trade to succeed. We must have trade to have economic growth.

Therefore, I would really urge the member opposite to reconsider her position against all trade, because it is not very much in the interest of Canada or Canadians.

[International Trade, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, although I have tremendous respect for that member of Parliament and know she works hard and whatnot, I am quite surprised at the lack of knowledge the member has on some of the information regarding this exact treaty. Let me take a moment to refresh my colleague's memory about why Canada is involved in this specific treaty.

Our government understands the importance of trade to our economy. It represents one out of every five jobs in Canada and accounts for 62% of our country's GDP. That is why our government moves forward with ambitious pro-trade plans. They are really the most vigorous in our country's history.

Our plan is to open new markets for Canadian exporters. That includes in the fastest-growing Asia-Pacific region. The opportunities for Canadian exporters in the Asia-Pacific are absolutely phenomenal. Countries in the region include those with economic growth rates of two to three times the global average.

However, before I speak further about the opportunities for Canada in the Asia-Pacific, and particularly with Canada's second-largest export destination, China, I would like to comment on a reference the member opposite made in her original question to our FIPA with Benin.

The FIPA with Benin is just one example of our government's engagement in Africa. In fact, in addition to Benin, Canada has concluded FIPA negotiations with Cameroon, Zambia, Madagascar, Mali, Senegal and Tanzania. These investment treaties will strengthen economic ties between Canada and these partner countries and help Canadian companies invest with greater confidence in these markets. At the same time, facilitating two-way investment helps generate jobs, growth and long-term prosperity that we all hope for in Canada.

Our government is proud of the steps we have taken to strengthen ties with our partners in Africa, but we help Canadian exporters and investors capture new opportunities in other fast growing markets around the world, including in Asia.

An important part of our commercial relationship is ensuring that not only two-way trade occurs, but also investment between Canada and other countries can take place in a stable and secure manner. That is why Canada has over 24 foreign investment promotion and protection agreements with key trade and investment partners, including with China, the world's second largest economy and now Canada's second largest export destination. This is only second to the United States of America.

Canada's trade relationship with China continues to grow. In fact, Canadian goods exports to China rose 15% last year, to over $19 billion. Not only that, but Canada's exports to China have nearly doubled under our Conservative government.

This is a favourable agreement that lends to create the opportunities that Canadian exporters need. It also provides opportunities in China, so Canadians can be present on the ground. That will lead to growth, economic prosperity and job creation.

Along with this trade agreement, there are many other good things to come. I sincerely hope the member opposite will give a second look to the agreement, because there are some wonderful opportunities for Canadians. I hope she will side with us in allowing us to provide those opportunities as have been indicated.

[First Nations Elections Act, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague across the way for her comments, although I am a little confused about some of the things she said.

I am going to ask a couple of simple questions, and hopefully she can give me some simple answers.

First and foremost, the member talked about the importance of providing aboriginal people with some opportunities.

The opportunity that this act provides for aboriginal people is the opportunity for economic development, because when we are talking about economic development, ensuring that aboriginal people can come together and produce ideas that lead to job creation, which leads to economic growth for them, is important.

Only through elections that allow for them to work together for longer periods of time is that possible. That is why Manitoba chiefs came together and asked that there be a change.

The member went on and on about Manitoba, and how Manitoba chiefs did not want this measure. I would like the member to name at least three chiefs she has consulted with in Manitoba. I was the aboriginal affairs parliamentary secretary when this all started with the Manitoba chiefs, and I have met with dozens of them who agree that this is in fact a step forward that they would like to see.

I would like the member to name just three Manitoba chiefs she has consulted with.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is about contraband tobacco. It is something that I know, in my 19 years as a police officer, was quite substantially a problem in Manitoba where I am from.

I am quite disturbed by the question put forward just a moment ago by the member from the NDP with regard to aboriginal people. Contraband tobacco actually does harm aboriginal people, particularly in Manitoba.

When that member says that this government has not taken action on things like the apology to the residential school survivors, she has misspoken. That member has unequivocally been dishonest about that. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has worked very hard. This government has provided funding to ensure that the victims of that terrible tragedy have had the benefit of being able to move forward. Of course we did that because it was the right thing to do. I want to correct the record for those at home who care intimately about this issue, as I do.

I want to ask the member opposite, who is supposed to be speaking about tobacco, how the tobacco that is coming to our communities as contraband negatively impacts our communities, especially, for example, our convenience store owners; that includes aboriginal convenience store owners.

[Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do respect what the member opposite is suggesting, but there is just a long a list of people who testified, for example, like the executive director of the National Association of Friendship Centres and many others, the Young Women's Christian Association. We had aboriginal woman, after aboriginal woman and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. They said that this was needed. The Supreme Court ruled 25 years ago that there was a legislative gap.

I would suggest for the member to please look at the facts. The facts are that the NDP at this point wants to support people who want catch-all legislation that would solve world poverty, that would end world hunger, that would solve every housing crisis we have ever known. It is not possible. Yes, I would love to come up with a legislative piece that would solve all of that, but in the interim it does not exist. Let us take a step forward and protect the most vulnerable.

The NDP members will have blood on their hands if they sit there and do nothing. I will not stand for it. I cannot stand for it.