Dany Morin

[World Autism Awareness Day Act, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech, I would like to thank my NDP colleague from Chambly—Borduas for sharing with us this very touching story, this very heartbreaking story, about people living in this kind of situation. As a member of the Standing Committee on Health, I would like to tell them that the New Democratic team is working hard on the committee to ensure that the government provides greater assistance to informal caregivers through a tax credit or a tax benefit that will help low-income families and lower middle class families. We have to help families that are taking care of their loved ones, the members of their family.

Clearly, the government can do something. The government must demonstrate leadership in this area. I do not see any leadership by the Conservatives today. However, I am optimistic that they will increase the assistance available to families who are taking care of their loved ones.

To begin my speech officially, I would like to mention the fact that Bill S-206 will officially designate April 2 as world autism awareness day. This awareness day will increase awareness among Canadians of the challenges faced by autistic individuals and the importance of improving their opportunities and the treatments for autism.

Organizations such as the Autism Society Canada and the United Nations already mark this very special day.

For those who may perhaps be less familiar with autism, I will provide a summary of it. Autism is the most common neurological disorder among children. Many people do not know this, but it truly is the most frequently occurring neurological disorder affecting children. It affects millions of Canadian families, because one child in 110 is affected by some type of autism. There are many different types of autism that I will not describe in detail. I do not think this would be relevant to the type of discussion we want to have today concerning world autism awareness day.

Autism disturbs the brain's operation. Consequently, it is characterized by abnormal social interaction and communication, as well as by restricted and repetitive behaviours.

Autism is also referred to as autism spectrum disorder. I just want to clarify that these terms are used interchangeably. This disorder affects all aspects of childhood development and the symptoms usually appear during the first three years of life. It can manifest itself a little later than that, but usually it is within the first three years. It is the parents, who spend most of their time with their children, who notice that their child may be a little different than the others developmentally speaking. Just because a child is different does not necessarily mean that he or she has autism spectrum disorder, but it is a good indicator for parents. They must pay special attention to the situation and to the development of their child because he or she could be autistic.

As I mentioned, the symptoms usually appear in the first three years. The seriousness of the disorder, the number and type of symptoms, the age at which the disorder manifests itself, the level of functionality and the challenges posed by social interaction vary greatly from one person to the next. Science has not yet determined an exact cause of autism. It is still a grey area. Research is placing a particular emphasis on genetic, biological and environmental factors, but that is still a lot of ground to cover.

It is also important for all levels of government to support research to determine the real causes of autism spectrum disorder. It would be great news for families and their children if we were eventually able to prevent the disease in one way or another as a result of medical advances. If we cannot prevent the disease, we must at least help these families to live with the disorder. I think that would be very much appreciated by our society.

There are approximately 35 million autistic people worldwide. In Canada, although epidemiological details are rare, approximately 48,000 children and 144,000 adults live with one form or another of the disease.

It is quite possible that people in your neighbourhood, or in your surrounding area, are living with an autism spectrum disorder and so are their family members. This demonstrates to what extent it is prevalent in our society and why we must act.

These figures do not take into account the millions of parents, family members, health care providers, employers, teachers, researchers, and other people who have to manage this kind of situation and help these people.

The NDP is in favour of having a day dedicated to recognizing autism and its impact on Canadian families. However, the NDP is calling for concrete measures to be taken. NDP members have introduced bills in an effort to move forward. I am referring to my colleagues from Sudbury and Vancouver Kingsway.

The NDP will support World Autism Awareness Day, but I hope that the government will move forward in the future, and will do more to support families and people living with autism spectrum disorder.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 19th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, my New Democrat colleague specifically mentioned the amendments that my New Democrat colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster wanted to make to the bill, which were intended to protect workers. The Conservatives voted against them. That does not surprise me from our lovely Conservative government.

We are talking about the same Conservative government that intervened in the labour disputes at Air Canada, Canada Post and Canadian Pacific. Time is passing so quickly and there has been so much interference in labour disputes by this Conservative government. In all the labour disputes the Conservative government has intervened in, in the last year, and in all of the interference it has engaged in, we see an extremely clear line. The government sides with management, and as a result does not respond to the demands of the unions that were engaged in disputes with the employers, whether about wages, pensions or job security. I find it very disturbing, but I do not find it surprising to see this government doing business with a country like Panama that—

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 19th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am going to deal with the Conservative member's first question. He said that the NDP should have supported free trade agreements in the past. I have brought this up with the hon. member previously and I am going to bring it up again. Following the logic of the hon. member opposite, the NDP should have supported the most recent softwood lumber agreement that has ruined the forestry industry in my region.

The NDP has analyzed the bill before us. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster introduced 11 amendments that could have protected the rights of workers and the environment and other rights not covered by this bill. In fact, my Conservative colleague mentioned a number of rights.

But it is important to have those understandings written into the bill. Otherwise, in a country like Panama, where there is a lack of transparency in tax matters and in other respects, there is the danger of things going off the rails and of some things not being considered. My simple reply is that things must be put in writing. The amendments should have been accepted; they would have improved the bill.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 19th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, today, I have the honour of debating the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Obviously, I have a lot to say about this, and I have some serious criticisms of the government and the Republic of Panama, which we all know is a tax haven.

First, I would like to give some background for those watching at home who would like to understand what is happening a little better and who want to know why Canada wants to conclude a free trade agreement with Panama and how it all works.

On August 11, 2009, the Conservative government concluded negotiations for a comprehensive free trade agreement with the Republic of Panama. The agreement includes side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment. Bills were introduced, but they died on the order paper as a result of the election. Recently, these bills were re-introduced by the Conservative government.

I would like to say that the members of the Conservative government have been playing politics by saying that the NDP is opposed to trade agreements with other countries. That is completely untrue. The NDP is in favour of economic agreements with other countries. However, these agreements must respect the environment and workers' rights. In short, these agreements must be win-win and not support the exploitation of one country by another, as is the case in this free trade agreement between Canada and Panama.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster proposed a number of amendments in committee. These amendments were reasonable and would have improved this bill. I will refer to some of them. However, the people at home need to know that the Conservatives voted against these amendments. They were not incorporated into the last iteration of the bill on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

So, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster proposed some changes in order to include the concept of sustainable development, which is very important in trade. I do not need to explain what sustainable development means since Quebeckers have been familiar with this concept for many years now. It is important to have good economic development while respecting the environment and workers' rights.

It is also important to ensure that Canada's trade agreements with other countries include the concept of responsible investment, but the Conservatives voted against that. Apparently, they want more irresponsible investment, which does not surprise me given their ridiculous expenses these days. My NDP colleague also called for mandatory fiscal transparency, which I will say more about later.

Right now, Panama is hiding behind a smokescreen. We have no idea what is going on in terms of finances, and there is no accountability. One of the reasons Panama is known as a tax haven is that anyone doing business with Panama can do things on the quiet and launder money. Money from Latin American drug cartels flows through Panama and comes out clean. Apparently, the Conservative government has no problem with that. It thinks Canada should dismantle its tariff and economic barriers and do more business with that country.

My NDP colleague also proposed adding protection for workers' rights, including the right to collective bargaining, a concept that Canadians are very familiar with. The right to collective bargaining is important to NDP MPs. Whenever there is a dispute between the employer and the union—the workers—there has to be a middle ground. The employer, which has greater financial resources and more political influence, should not bulldoze, threaten or blackmail workers. The workers' rights situation in Latin America and South America can be disturbing. Personally, as an MP, I am very aware of that. The Conservatives decided to vote against our proposal, and I find that utterly deplorable.

I mentioned that Panama is a tax haven, but we also know that it has a poor record when it comes to workers' rights. So I am very worried about this bill.

How can the Government of Canada, in good conscience, decide to sign such a free trade agreement?

A free trade agreement or simply a trade agreement between two countries is the highest form of trust that we can show. We are saying that we will not place barriers between the two countries, that we will work together and will allow free trade in goods, so that the economies of the two countries can develop and move forward.

So I feel a bit uneasy as a Canadian. How can Canada sign a free trade agreement with Panama, when that country is a tax haven that violates workers' rights and compromises their safety?

I have some serious concerns. What is the Conservative government's motivation for signing a free trade agreement with Panama?

Here is an interesting statistic. Do members know that bilateral trade between our two countries reached only $149 million in 2008, or less than 1% of our trade?

Out of all of our trading partners, why choose Panama, when our bilateral trade with that country represents less than 1% of our trade? Was it simply because the Conservative government likes the fact that it is a tax haven?

I cannot help but wonder about these serious issues, especially when Canadians, Quebeckers and the people of my region are being asked to tighten their belts and being told not to work under the table, to declare all of their earnings—a notion that I support. Why would we do business with a country that has different standards?

For various reasons, it does not seem to bother people that illegal financial transactions take place there. In Canada, people have to be responsible and declare all of their earnings, but in a country like Panama, people do not have to do so.

If we do business with Panama, Canadian capital will go south to Panama and more of it will leave our country. This means less money for our domestic economy. Knowing that we are running a deficit for yet another consecutive year, we could say we there is not enough money in Canada, and services to the public have to be cut as a result.

Some political decisions are stupid—for example, laying off 100 employees responsible for processing employment insurance claims at the Service Canada office just before Christmas. The effects of that decision were felt in my region, and especially in my riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. People had to wait several months before receiving their first employment insurance cheque. That is worrisome.

Why do business with a country that is a tax haven if that will lead to the flight of capital from Canada? In our country, we do not place enough importance on managing our finances well.

I do not wish to question the lawfulness of the agreement that the members opposite wish to enter into with Panama, but I do have many questions about it.

I would like to go back to working conditions in Panama and other countries we do business with. In the past, the NDP opposed free trade agreements. As I mentioned, it is important to the NDP to maintain good economic relations with other countries. We are 100% convinced that tariff barriers between our two countries can be eliminated in order to grow both our economies. However, there must be a relationship of equals, even though the Conservative government has been trying to violate workers' rights since coming to power in 2006.

This tendency is also evident in the changes to employment insurance that would force workers to accept wages that are 70% of their previous wages. This will put downward pressure on wages.

The NDP is committed to Canada as a country where workers are paid well and treated well.

That is why we like doing business with countries that do the same thing. That is my opinion on the matter.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 19th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I find that quite unbelievable. The Conservative member opposite is saying that the agreement between Panama and Canada will be good for the Quebec economy and that we need to trust the Conservative government. What I would like to ask that hon. member is whether he is trying to make me laugh.

The Conservative government negotiated a free trade agreement on softwood lumber with the United States, and regions like mine—Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean—have still not recovered from that forestry crisis. The wonderful forestry resources of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean are being exported for peanuts, which is killing the regional economy when it comes to secondary and tertiary processing.

Government MPs were the ones who voted in favour of the softwood lumber free trade agreement with the United States. Now, the government wants us to trust it on the agreement with Panama. The government thinks that Quebec will come out the big winner, as will the Maritimes, Alberta, British Columbia and all Canadian provinces. Are you trying to make me laugh? Does the Conservative government think Canadians just fell off the turnip truck?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 19th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for his remarks. I am glad to know that he, too, cares about the economic agreements that Canada enters into with other countries. He mentioned that it was very important to him that these agreements be sustainable and equitable.

It worries me that Canada may end up exploiting workers who live in Panama under this agreement.

Is my colleague also concerned about the potential exploitation of workers under this free trade agreement?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 19th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my Conservative colleague why the members of his party voted against the amendment moved by my NDP colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, who was trying to include the concept of sustainable development in the free trade agreement with Panama.

The NDP believes that economic development can go hand in hand with environmental protection and workers' right to live in safety and have well-paid jobs. That is partly what sustainable development is about.

Why did my Conservative colleagues vote against this very reasonable amendment moved by my NDP colleague?

[Blood Donation, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last week was very important, because Canadians were encouraged to generously donate blood. I made my first donation when I was 18, but the cruel and discriminatory rules set by Canadian Blood Services and Héma-Québec against gay and bisexual men prohibited me from continuing to donate.

In 2012, because of biomedical technological advances to detect HIV in blood, there is no need for this discrimination. In fact, a team of researchers with the Canadian Medical Association Journal recommended that gay couples who have been in a stable, monogamous relationship for one year be able to donate blood.

These researchers suggested that, with such a measure, the risk of receiving HIV-infected blood would be only 1 in 11,000,000. Since we do not have a stable supply of blood from year to year, we are not in a position to refuse the generous donations from these gay couples, whose sexual practices are just as safe as those of heterosexual couples.

I am calling on the Minister of Health today to put an end to this discrimination against gay men. It is an insult to assume that our blood is not clean enough for you.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 15th, 2012]

With respect to cuts to the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission outlined in Budget 2012: (a) what is the breakdown of expected savings for each department, agency and organization for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017; (b) what programs and services are expected to be cut; and (c) how many jobs will be lost?

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 13th, 2012]

With respect to cuts to the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program for First Nations and Inuit outlined in Budget 2012: (a) what is the breakdown of expected savings for each department, agency and organization for fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017; (b) what programs and services are expected to be cut; and (c) how many jobs will be lost?