Don Davies

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, they may not be clapping when they hear the conclusion. It cost the federal government coffers an estimated further $20 billion. What the Conservatives did was put Canada into a structural deficit. If there had been no recession whatsoever, with no requirement for special stimulus spending whatsoever, their poor policy-making and poor economic planning put the Canadian federal budget into structural deficit, which required what the government has done, which is slash services.

How has the government responded? What has it done? It has closed Coast Guard stations. It has closed Service Canada offices. It has closed veterans services and offices. It has sold foreign embassies and properties. It has slashed funding to the CBC. It has sold off Canada's coin collection. It has eliminated the small business job creation tax credit, the engine of Canada's economy that creates eight to nine out of every ten jobs in this country. It has eliminated support for small business in this country. It has obliterated environmental impact assessments. It has closed the Experimental Lakes program. It has cut scientists and public servants of all kinds. It has even allowed the sale of the theme song to Hockey Night in Canada.

That is what the government has done to make up for its poor economic planning and the fact that it cannot manage the federal budget and has put us in a structural deficit. What it has done is basically slash services to Canadians.

What has the government done here? It has come back with another 360-page omnibus bill that has 500 clauses that would amend 60 acts, because it knows that if it put the discrete portions of this act before this House for scrutiny, Canadians would not tolerate many of the changes that exist in this bill. That is why the government does not have the courage to have each part of this act exposed to democratic scrutiny and the Canadian public. However, the Canadian public knows what is going on.

Do members know what? The biggest myth that is going around the House, and what always precedes the fall of a government, is the hubris with which they think everything is going well.

In Vancouver Kingsway, I can tell members that if we ask Canadians if they are better off today than they were in 2006, they would say no. If we talked to young people who are 22 or 24 years old and asked them if they are able to find the kind of job they dreamed of, start their career, and get a well-paid, family-sustaining job, they would say no. If we asked couples in their 30s in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland if they are able to buy a house, start their family, or find affordable housing, they would say no. If we asked single parents or retirees how comfortable they are, they would say that they are very worried. The Conservative government has increased the retirement age to receive old age security benefits from 65 to 67. It has made Canadians less secure.

In 2015, when we ask Canadians what their economic experience is under the Conservative government and whether these budgets have made their lives better, I do not think the Conservatives will be laughing then as loudly as they are tonight.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

We are talking about Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures. We have heard a lot of talk by all members of the House today about Canada's economy and our fiscal performance over the years.

It is appropriate to start my speech by going over some metrics, some actual numbers that tell Canadians what the performance of the government has been since Conservatives took office in 2006 until the end of 2013, which is where we have our most recent numbers.

The amount spent by the Conservative government on advertising since 2009, touting its economic action plans, is $113 million. The national unemployment rate in Canada in 2006, just before the government took office, was 6.6%. Today it is 7.2%. The national unemployment rate of youth in 2006 at the time the Conservatives took office was 12.2%. Today it is over 14%.

Among 34 OECD nations in employment creation in the 2006-13 time period, Canada ranks 20th. The number of annual consecutive deficits filed by the government is six. The number of budget deficit targets hit by Conservative finance ministers since 2006 is zero.

The amount added to Canada's national federal debt since the Conservative government came to power in 2006 is $123.5 billion. The portion of total federal debt that we have in Canada today, accumulated just since the government came to power in 2006, is one-fifth.

The per cent increase in the real average hourly wage of Canadians in 2006-13 is zero. The percentage drop in productivity, that is the GDP per employee in our country from 2006-13, is negative 1.9%.

In terms of trade, which is the area of my responsibility to watch and critique the government on, when the government came to power in 2006, Canada had a current account surplus of $20.4 billion. That is the total of all goods, services and investments going in and out of the country. At the end of 2013, we had a deficit of $60.4 billion. That is an $80 billion swing to the negative in the last seven years, over $10 billion of lost goods, services and investment in our country for each and every year that the government has been in power.

The merchandise trade deficit that exists in Canada today is a staggering $110.4 billion. That means that we import $110.4 billion more of manufactured items, the kind of items that characterize modern industrial economies, than we export. That is not surprising because under the current government, since 2006, the percentage of Canada's exports that are raw resources has gone up by 50%.

Quantitatively and qualitatively the trade performance of the government has been a disaster, no less a figure than former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney said that the single biggest drag on the Canadian economy had been the government's underperformance in trade.

My hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who is our finance critic now, talked about 2008 and what the real state of affairs was then. I happen to be fortunate enough to be sent here by the good people of Vancouver Kingsway at that time, so I was in the House in October 2008 as well, and I campaigned in that election.

I remember the Prime Minister, who was touted as an economist, during the campaign in September 2008 when asked if there was a recession coming, said that a recession was a “ridiculous hypothetical”.

I was in the House with many other members in October 2008, when the finance minister tabled an economic update that projected a surplus for the next year and projected an austerity budget, only to be hit within a matter of weeks with the biggest recession to hit this country since the Great Depression. Neither the Prime Minister, through his economics training, nor the finance minister, with the full resources of the Department of Finance, with all of the tools at their disposal, could forecast that Canada was headed for a massive recession.

I want to talk about the deficit position of this country. When the Conservatives came to power in 2006, they inherited seven consecutive budget surpluses that averaged $12 billion. From 2006 to 2008, the government cut the GST by two percentage points. With each percentage point cut, federal government revenue was reduced by $6 billion. With that one move alone, the government had essentially eliminated the budgetary surplus, and it would have put Canada at balanced budget with just that one move.

However, the Conservatives did more. They made a policy decision to carry on with the Liberals' orgy of corporate tax cuts to go from 27% down to 21%. The Conservative government took corporate tax rates from 21% down to 15%—

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, here are some numbers that are actually factual about the government's term since 2006. When it came into office, Canada's national debt was about $480 billion. Today it is $620 billion. One-fifth of the total debt of Canada was accumulated in the last seven years under the Conservative government. We know that the unemployment figures are high. We know that there have been seven successive deficit budgets, and we know that there has been a massive slash of services to Canadians.

I want to focus on the comments by my hon. colleague from Vancouver. He talked about a tax credit for search and rescue. This is the place where the government closed the Kitsilano Coast Guard station. In Vancouver and on the B.C. coast, people's lives and health are now in danger because the government cannot even see fit to fund search and rescue operations.

However, my question is about FATCA. We have a million Canadians in this country who have to now report their own personal financial information, which will go to the U.S. government, and they are subject to fines and penalties because they now have to file taxes there. These are people who have lived in Canada for 50 or 60 years, and they just happen to have American citizenship by birth.

Can the member tell the million Canadians with dual citizenship that they will not be subject to fines and penalties for not complying with filing U.S. tax returns when they did not feel that they had to do that?

[Federal Framework on Lyme Disease Act, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians need a national strategy on Lyme disease to ensure that testing and treatment options in Canada are improved.

The New Democratic Party of Canada supports Bill C-442 and congratulates the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on her initiative.

This legislation lays out a concise plan for educating Canadians about disease risks and most important, provides a better quality of life for Lyme disease sufferers.

Lyme disease is caused by contact with the bacterium spread by tick bites. Ticks are small parasites that feed on the blood of animals and humans, and they pass on Lyme disease when they feed on mice, squirrels, birds, or other animals that carry the bacterium, and then bite humans. Ticks are more common during the warmer months from spring through to late autumn. Canadians who live in areas with mild winter temperatures and minimal snowfall have an increased risk of coming into contact with ticks.

Climate change is one of the factors causing more regions to be at risk, with warmer weather increasing tick distribution across many parts of Canada.

Bill C-442 is especially important to British Columbian coastal communities, as Lyme disease is currently more of a concern on Canada's west coast due to its mild temperatures.

Lyme disease symptoms can include a circular rash around the bite, fatigue, fever, headache, weakness, abnormal heartbeat, muscle and joint pain, and central and peripheral nervous system disorders. Symptoms get progressively worse if the disease is left untreated, which it is for many Canadians. Chronic Lyme can develop if the disease is left untreated and can have lasting effects for months or years afterwards, and according to Health Canada, can result in recurring arthritis and neurological problems.

In 2008, NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis urged the health minister to implement a national strategy to diagnose, treat, and create better surveillance of Lyme disease. I am proud of the member for Vancouver East, our official opposition health critic, who has continued to call for a national Lyme disease strategy since that time and seconded Bill C-442 when it was introduced by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

This strategy is long overdue. Canadians deserve to get adequate testing and treatment for this disease. The federal government is responsible for improving the surveillance of Lyme disease as well as establishing best practices so that the provinces can understand the disease and adopt evidence-based measures that improve outcomes.

The bottom line is that receiving early and appropriate treatment would improve the quality of life for thousands of Canadians and their families. Early treatment of Lyme disease reduces the severity and duration of illness. More accurate testing and earlier treatment of Lyme disease would reduce the health care costs associated with a lengthy illness and more severe side effects, particularly for women who suffer long-lasting side effects when their Lyme disease goes untreated.

The New Democrats have been working with Canadians in support of a national strategy on Lyme disease for years now. Now is the time for the federal government to adopt such a strategy to protect the health and safety of Canadians in the face of this rapidly spreading disease.

I urge all members to support the bill.

[International Trade, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada-China FIPA was rammed through Parliament a year and a half ago, and at that time, the Conservatives made a big deal out of a bad deal. But mysteriously, the Conservatives have never ratified the treaty, and the minister will not explain why. This secrecy and confusion is damaging Canada-China relations.

Have the Conservatives failed to ratify the deal because a) it was sloppily negotiated; b) they failed to consult first nations; c) they are getting sued; or d) all of the above?

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's reputation on the world stage depends on our adherence to international norms and our consistency in respecting them. When we sign a trade agreement with a country that every country in the world knows is not conforming to those standards, as Honduras is not, it sends a mixed message and it causes other countries to have less confidence in Canada. It causes them to question what our foreign policy is.

If we are to stand on the world stage and talk about freedom, democracy, and human rights, then we have to walk the walk. We have to be consistent. The Conservatives and Liberals are not being consistent in this regard on this file, and they should be.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it is lost on the other side or if it is just disingenuously portrayed by the other side, because it is quite obvious. Canada trades with all sorts of nations. We have goods coming to our country right now from China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Honduras. The only question about trade policy is whether we want to encourage economic relations with those countries. Trade policy is a tool that is used economically, but it is also a political tool.

Again, if that is recognized in the House, the government has imposed trade sanctions on Iran. We are not facilitating trade with Iran; we are actually stopping trade relations with Iran.

I want to pick up the thread of my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party and quote Mr. Ricardo Grinspun, who is a York University professor from the Centre for Research on Latin American and Caribbean Studies. He said:

I have argued that the idea that the FTA will bring jobs and assure prosperity to Honduras is not a substantiated claim. Indeed, the idea that Canadians can help the most needy people in Honduras through this FTA is a public relations message, nothing more. Moreover, an FTA would provide international legitimacy to a political regime and economic model that is oligarchic, oppressive, and unjust. There are other more effective ways in which Canada could contribute to poverty alleviation, human security, and environmental sustainability in that part of the world, which we could discuss.

I go back to my hon. colleague's question. Those are the kinds of measures that we should be sending to Honduras. We should be saying to Honduras that we will work with it to improve its standards, if there is that willingness there in Honduras. However, surely we would require that country to demonstrate the commitment to international norms and standards first of at least a floor model before we start to extend benefits to it.

The government talks about the trade agreements it has signed. It has signed about six and it has all been with countries that are small or insignificant, such as Colombia, Peru, Honduras, Panama, Jordan, and the infamous Liechtenstein.

Whoever we choose to negotiate with and whoever we choose to extend preferential terms with, we on the New Democrat side believe it should mirror Canadian values. Canadian values mean we should be trading with countries that at least have a commitment to basic concepts like respecting people's right to assemble in the street, people's right to vote in elections, people's right to run in elections, having peaceful, democratic transition of power, having a functioning judicial system where crime is investigated, prosecuted and punished, where journalists can write with freedom of expression so the public can actually have a vibrant, democratic dialogue. These are basic norms.

It is surprising to me that in 2014, I have to stand in the House and defend those. I would have thought every member of the House would agree at once that these are basic concepts that Canadians demand should be in place before Canada decides to reward that place.

Again, the New Democratic Party will be the only party that will stand up for those principles, and I hope Canadians are watching.

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member and I take his questions at face value.

The Liberal Party has its own contradictory past. I think Liberals campaigned against the free trade agreement in 1988. In 1993, they had a little red book that said they were going to renegotiate NAFTA. They never did that. That is par for the Liberal Party, which says one thing at election time and does another when it is elected. What is the Liberal Party's record on trade? I am not sure.

The hon. member is a little disingenuous. He knows for a fact that the New Democrats supported the trade deal with Jordan. Whether there was a standing vote or whether it was passed by division, the member, as a member of this House, knows it is irrelevant.

The question of who we should be engaging is a straw man argument. This Conservative argument—and I am surprised to hear a Liberal making it—is that if it is a really terrible country, we should engage with it. If that is the case, we should be signing a free trade agreement with Iran or North Korea. They have terrible human rights abuses. If engaging with those countries is the way to improve human rights, why not engage them? I do not hear anybody in those two parties suggesting that we sign a free trade agreement with those two countries.

It is because of this: when countries are so far outside of the international norm, when they are not conforming to even the basic standards of international behaviour, we should not be rewarding those countries.

When South Africa had apartheid, we did not sign a trade agreement with them to facilitate that regime. We brought in sanctions and boycotts. The government, and I will give it credit for it, has done that in Iran, when the country just refused to comply with basic norms of conduct.

I will just finish with this. This is what we heard in committee from a professor from York:

Trade and investment create economic benefits, but who ends up with those benefits? In Honduras the answer seems clear. It is now the country with the most unequal distribution of income in Latin America, and 43% of the labour force is working full time without receiving even the minimum wage. A study by the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington found that in the two years after the 2009 coup, over 100% of all real income gains went to the wealthiest 10% of Hondurans...

I will stop by saying:

The de facto regime soon embarked on policies that included using the army and police in actions against citizens exercising their right to protest. Numerous suspensions of the right to assembly and protest were put in place, all of them out of compliance with the requirements of Honduran law and its constitution. Protestors were shot, beaten, and some died in open conflict with the military or police.

That is the country that—

[Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a pleasure to speak to this subject, but given the horrific record of facts that I am about to share with the House, I cannot say that is the case.

I have heard some members of the Conservative Party catcall across, asking why we do not like Hondurans. This has nothing with that. I would ask the government why it does not like democracy. Why does the government not like human rights? Why does the government not like freedom of the press? Why does the government not like keeping our society free of drugs?

Honduras is a country that had a military coup in 2009, when the military removed a democratically elected government at gunpoint and replaced it with a government that had no democratic mandate.

Honduras has widespread human rights abuses and massive corruption in both the government and the police. There is no functioning court system in Honduras. It is a narco-trafficking centre. It is considered by the U.S. State Department to be one of the most violent places on earth. It is the murder capital of the world. It is the most dangerous place on earth for journalists. Honduras has repressed the media to such an extent that PEN International has ranked it below Ukraine under Yanukovych and below Egypt today.

It is the cocaine trafficking centre of Central America, where the U.S. State Department estimates that 79% of all cocaine shipments emanating from South America land in Honduras.

It is one of the poorest nations in the western hemisphere. It has no strategic value for Canada, since the net total of all exports that Canada made to Honduras last year was $38 million. It has extremely low environmental standards, if they exist at all. It has extremely low labour standards, in that some 40% of the population of Honduras make under the minimum wage of Honduras. It has serious mining issues.

It is very interesting that both the Conservatives and Liberals have joined together to support the bill at second reading. We heard witnesses at committee who buttressed everything I just said, and there was no contradiction by a single witness who came before committee. In other words, Honduras is one of the most repressive, undemocratic, corrupt, and dangerous places on earth, and the government wants to extend preferential trade relations to that government and the Liberals want to assist it.

I understand why the Conservatives would do that. I have a bit more difficulty, given the propaganda and rhetoric coming from them, why the Liberals would.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood has been championing a bill that is supposed to raise the standards of Canadian mining companies around the world. The Liberal Party is concerned about mining standards and it wants mining standards in third world and second world countries to be raised, including environmental standards, the rights of indigenous people, and corporate social responsibility standards, yet the Liberal Party supports a trade bill with Honduras, which probably has the most lax mining standards on the planet. I do not understand that.

I have heard the Liberals talk about human rights. They appear to be concerned about them. I will say it for the Canadian public and defend it to anybody who wants to look at the record and the facts: Honduras is one of the worst human rights violators on the planet.

I will go through the figures. Honduras is ranked 85th out of 167 on the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index, and that is a slide from 74th in 2008. Honduras is classified as a “hybrid regime” rather than as its previous designation as a “flawed democracy”. It is getting worse. So much for rewarding a country for getting better.

The government has continued to negotiate with signing a trade agreement, giving preferential economic terms to a country that is actually sliding away from democracy.

Transparency International ranks Honduras as the most corrupt country in Central America, and it has the worst income inequality in the region. I have commented about the U.S. State Department estimating the cocaine shipments originating in South America and landing in Honduras, drugs moved from South America through countries like Honduras and other Central American states into Mexico, the United States, and Canada.

Independent observers have noted the increasing levels of violence as well as organized criminal gang activity associated with trade in illegal narcotics.

It is a country that is awash in drugs and drug money, which raises the question of why any Canadian government would want to liberalize investment rules to make the flow of capital easier between the two countries. In other words, we would have more drug money coming into Canada because of this trade deal with Honduras.

According to The Economist, “...the countries known as 'the northern triangle' of the Central American isthmus [that includes Honduras] form what is now the most violent region on earth”. Let us stop for a moment and think about that. We have Syria. We have the Democratic Republic of Congo. We have Rwanda. We have Uganda. There are places on earth right now where the most horrific crimes against humanity are being committed, and Honduras is the most violent place on earth, and the Conservative government wants Canadians to extend preferential trade terms to that government.

In 2012 Honduras became the murder capital of the world, reaching a record high of 7,172 homicides, or 81 per 100,000 people. Since the 2009 coup d'état, violence and repression in the country have gone up and have reached an all-time high. To put that in context, Honduras has about one-fifth the population of Canada. That would be the equivalent of Canada experiencing 35,000 homicides. Can members imagine in this country if we had 35,000 homicides? That would be the equivalent per capita homicide rate in this country. That is the country the Conservatives want us to be trading more with.

In 2013, just last year, lest anyone think this is an old problem, there were on average 10 massacres per month. A massacre is defined as an instance where three or more people are murdered at one time. In the previous four years, fewer than 20% of all homicides in Honduras were even investigated, let alone prosecuted. We hear a lot of talk by the Conservatives about the rule of law. The rule of law means we have an independent police force and an independent judiciary. I have heard the Conservatives, for six years, talk about getting tough on crime, and they have signed a trade agreement with a country that does not even investigate murders. It is the most murderous country on earth. The police do not investigate and the judges do not even hear cases, and the Conservatives think we should be trading more with that country. Is that tough on crime? That is absurd.

I want to talk about journalists, because journalists in Canada should be writing about this. Freedom of the press and having an independent media is part of being a democracy. Today journalists in Honduras suffer threats, attacks, and killings. Six months ago, TV news anchor Anibal Barrow was abducted while driving in Honduras, and his dismembered remains were found weeks later. While several suspects have been charged with kidnapping, none have even been brought to trial.

Thirty-five journalists have been murdered in Honduras over the last five years. To put that in perspective, in per capita terms, that would be more than 150 journalists in Canada killed over the last five years. Can members imagine if in this country 150 journalists who were doing their jobs, holding the government to account, doing investigative work, covering politics, and covering the activities of the corporate sector were murdered, and we were finding their bodies in ditches? That is what is happening in Honduras.

This is not rhetoric. These are the facts in Honduras, backed up by every source there is. At committee we called witness after witness to testify to this, and there was not a single rebuttal. All we heard was silence, and the Conservatives and Liberals turn a blind eye to this.

Canadians want trade. We want to be trading with countries, but Canadians do not want us trading with butchering, murderous regimes. That is why Canadians would not accept a trade agreement with Yanukovych in Ukraine, but I noticed that the Liberal trade critic stood up and waxed eloquent in this House about how offended she was by the human rights situation in Ukraine and how we should stand up for human rights in Ukraine. That is the same Liberal trade critic who stood up and said that we should support a trade agreement with Honduras. I will say right now that Honduras has a far worse record on human rights than Ukraine did under Yanukovych. This is inexplicable.

In June 2013, 24 U.S. senators signed a letter expressing concern about the human rights situation in Honduras. Ninety-four members of Congress have called on the U.S. State Department to halt all military aid to Honduras in light of its violent repression of political activity. The Conservatives are signing a trade agreement with a country that has violent repression of political activity.

I could go on about the violence against indigenous people and the violence against the LGBTQ community, but instead I will read some of the quotes we heard at committee, which the Liberals and the Conservatives just want to pass over.

This is Ms. Karen Spring, from Honduras Solidarity Network. She said:

Since 2009, the violence in Honduras has increased pretty dramatically, and coupled with a high impunity rate, this has been very troubling for the human rights situation in the country. Very few crimes are investigated, and even fewer are brought before a judge. The Honduran Supreme Court has estimated that the impunity rate is at about 98%, but depending on who you ask, I've heard the impunity rate can be between 80% and up to 98%. So, given the high impunity rate, it's really difficult for human rights concerns to be mediated, and there are really serious repercussions for human rights abuses related to Canadian investments in the region....

She goes on to talk about the communications director for the Federation of Agro-Industry Workers' Unions of Honduras:

[He is] a labour journalist who has a national radio program that's called Trade Unionist on Air, which he's had for 19 years, 5 days a week. He's recently been working on a union organizing drive and he makes frequent mention of a [local]...banana supplier.... Last June he started receiving death threats related to his work. Every time he went on the air and spoke about the...supplier he received death threats on his phone, and cars were circulating around his house and the radio station after his programs.

He has since gone into hiding, because his family was intimidated.

Ms. Spring went on to say that Hondurans have little faith in the institutions that are set up, that very few investigations are conducted, and that the fear people face is real. She also said:

...since 2009, 31 trade unionists have been murdered in Honduras and over 33 journalists as well.

This is what was said in committee about the 2013 elections, which the Conservative government said were fine:

The 2013 elections occurred in a really difficult human rights context, given the high impunity rate, given the high homicide rate. There was a report put out that looked at the political killings in Honduras a year and a half prior to the November 2013 elections, and it showed that there were 36 killings in total of candidates and pre-candidates who were set to participate in the November elections. There were 24 armed attacks against these candidates. The list shows that the majority of these killings were against the political opposition party, the Libre party. This list was published by Rights Action, and...a lot of the cases were actually published by the International Federation of Human Rights [and internationally respected body]...worried about the targeted assassinations of the political opposition in the lead-up to the elections.

Last year, in the Honduran elections, 36 candidates were murdered in the 18 months prior to them. Does that sound like a democracy? Does that sound like a country Canadians would want their government extending preferential trade terms to?

We heard from PEN, the internationally respected independent organization for journalists. Here is what its representative said to the committee:

Our report finds that journalists are targeted for their work, and that they are especially vulnerable members of the population... [F]reedom of expression in Honduras has suffered serious restrictions since the ouster of President Zelaya in June 2009. These past five years have seen a dramatic erosion in protections for expressive life in Honduras. Journalists are threatened, they're harassed, attacked, and murdered with near impunity, and sometimes in circumstances that strongly suggest the involvement of state agents.

I have heard from some of the people on the other side who would say that it is drug involvement. It is not. The evidence is that the state is involved in some of these killings.

The representative from PEN went on to say:

This has had a devastating impact on the general state of human rights and the rule of law in the country, since violence against journalists often silences coverage of topics such as corruption, organized crime, drug trafficking, and political reportage. Fearing for their personal safety, many journalists [in Honduras] either self-censor or flee the country altogether.

I have heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs in this House stand up on the international stage and rant and rave about the situation in Ukraine and how Canada and the Prime Minister stand up for human rights and democracy on the world stage. These things are a matter of principle, and they will take that position. It does not matter what the costs are. They turn around and sign a trade agreement with Honduras, which has just about the worst human rights record in the western hemisphere.

I hear laughing on the other side of the House. How do we square that? Canada either has a principled position on human rights and democracy or it does not. In the case of Honduras, it is a contradiction of massive proportions. It is hypocritical. It is opportunistic politics by the Liberals of the highest order.

We have an election coming up in Ontario. Premier Wynne is trying to tell New Democrats that she is progressive. If the people of Ontario knew that the Liberals in the House of Commons were supporting a trade deal with one of the most murderous, anti-democratic, human rights-violating jurisdictions on the planet, I wonder if they would still view them that way, because they are not progressive.

I will go back to what PEN said:

The taint of corruption and the culture of impunity have undermined trust among state agencies and public confidence in key institutions. Public distrust of the police is so great that only about 20% of crime is reported, and of that, less than 4% gets investigated.

I have heard Conservatives in the House talk about the lack of reporting of crime in this country. They say that crime is under-reported, and they say it is a problem in this country. Eighty per cent of the crime in Honduras is not even reported, because people cannot even trust police officers who come to their doors, because they may be on the payroll or they may be involved in the killing. What kind of culture is that?

Serious problems are evident throughout the criminal justice system. Police will say an investigation is under way when there is none. The office of the special prosecutor for human rights does not have the jurisdiction to try those responsible for the murders of journalists, and lacks resources to conduct even the most basic of investigations into human rights abuses....

She also said:

As our report sets out, only two convictions have been secured in the 38 journalist killings between 2003 and 2013—an impunity rate of 95%.

This is what PEN concluded:

To be clear: under international law, when the state is unable or unwilling to prosecute crimes, this is state complicity in human rights violations. Honduras is facing a serious human rights crisis. This is not just a matter of working with Honduras to move beyond a troubled past. Violence against journalists, complete collapse of expressive life, and impunity for violent crimes and human rights abuses remain the norm there.

Are these international journalists radicals that we should not pay attention to?

We heard from yet other witnesses:

Honduras is far worse than any of Canada's current trading partners in the region. To give you an idea of the situation in relation to others, in the global press freedom rankings of 191 countries...Canada ranked 29; Chile ranked 64; Peru ranked 89; and even Colombia, also plagued by narco-trafficking, ranked 112. Where did Honduras rank? They ranked 140, tied with Egypt, which has imprisoned two Canadian media workers in the past eight months. Since the coup in 2009, 32 journalists have been murdered in Honduras.

I want to talk a bit about mining because the Liberals have tried to convince Canadians that they are concerned about mining standards abroad. Here is the testimony we heard at committee that was not rebutted. After 2009, when the Zalaya government was trying to put a moratorium in place on new mining concessions and to bring in some mining laws, the new regime, which was installed at gunpoint by the military, got rid of that, and now it leaves the door open to open pit mining.

Water sources, except those that have been declared and registered, which are in a minority, are not protected. Mining is not prohibited in populated areas, meaning that forced expropriation and displacement of entire communities can continue to take place.

Community consultation is a theoretical right only, only after the exploration concession has been granted. Honduras has almost no environmental standards. It has almost no ability to police or regulate its mining.

I expect the member from Scarborough, who I mentioned before, to stand up in the House and say that he is opposed to this deal. If he really cares about mining standards, as he claims he does, then he will stand in the House and say, “I can't support this deal with Honduras”, where we are going to see environmental degradation, violations of indigenous rights, pollution, and dangerous working conditions.

Trade deals are about extending preferential terms. The New Democrats believe that we should be extending preferential trade terms to democratic countries, modern democracies that respect human rights, environmental standards, and labour standards. We understand that many countries are not perfect, but we think Canadians want those countries to at least be on a positive trajectory in that regard.

Canadians want to see trade deals signed with countries of strategic value to our country. The testimony from economists before our committee said that Honduras has almost zero strategic importance to Canada. In fact, it already has virtually zero tariffs in Honduras, so it is going to make zero difference to the amount we export from Canada.

I hope every member of the House who believes in democracy, human rights, and the rule of law stands with New Democrats and votes against this flawed deal. It is a poor piece of legislation.

[Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand up as the deputy critic for citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism on behalf of the official opposition to speak to Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I would like to start by making a few introductory comments and observations about citizenship.

There are a lot of things we debate in this House that we can have varied opinions on whether they are a matter of policy and philosophy, but there are certain issues that I think are foundational. They go to the very fabric of who we are as a country. Our democratic system and electoral system is one. We saw a vigorous debate over the Conservative government's attempt to change the rules about our democratic elections in this House, and how they were forced to back down when Canadians saw the Conservatives trying to use politics to bend the rules of the system to benefit themselves. I think we are seeing a bit of the same thing with citizenship.

Citizenship is something that invokes a feeling of pride in Canadians. There are a number of values that Canadians want to see surrounding the concept of citizenship. One of those concepts is equality. Fundamentally, I think Canadians believe in the equality of all Canadians. It is something that is a benefit of citizenship, and something that once one becomes a citizen, whether it is by being born here or naturalized here, a person aspires to and receives an equality that ought not be taken away from them.

People want to see integrity in our citizenship process. They want to see fairness. Canadians are known around the world, and in our self image, we quite rightfully like to think of ourselves as being a people who believe in the fundamental concepts of fairness and due process. It is something that attracts people to this country. When I think of why people immigrate to Canada, some of what they are attracted to are the concepts of democracy, equality, and fairness.

Canadians also want due process. Fundamentally, we believe in the rule of law. I hear the phrase “rule of law” tossed around and used in this place a lot. I am not sure that we have a lot of discussion about what that means. Rule of law means that decisions that affect people's rights are not taken precipitously or capriciously. Rather, they are done by independent people in accordance with rules that are independent, objective, and impartial. They do not want politics injected.

Another reason that a lot of people like to come to Canada is because a lot of states around the world are marked by corruption. If people want to get their utilities, water or lights, hooked up, they have to know someone or to pay money to a government official. That is the most egregious example of the mixing of politics with the rule of law. That leads to the separation of politics and the judicial/quasi-judicial process.

I have heard successive Conservative ministers of immigration rise in this House repeatedly and say that it is inappropriate for them to rule on or decide individual cases. They will not even talk about them in the House. They talk about having arm's-length, independent, professional civil servants make the rulings on individual cases that deal with immigration or citizenship. The reason I bring this up is because I think this bill contains some things that are worthy of support, but it offends a fair number of the concepts I have just raised.

About eight months ago, I had a conversation with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. He decried the use of what he called dog-whistle politics. Dog-whistle politics are where we raise a political issue to send a message to people that is not really what we are saying, but it is the message it conveys. I hope it is not the case, but I fear that this bill has underneath it some dog-whistle politics. Messages are being sent to the Canadian public that sow fear, division, and distrust.

When we start introducing concepts that introduce two-tier citizenship, and when we are being invited to judge who is a real citizen and who is not, who has bona fides and who does not, who can be a Canadian citizen forever and who can lose it, these are fundamental questions that involve the fabric of our country.

This bill does a lot of things, some of which I will speak positively about, and some that I think are problematic.

On February 6, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tabled Bill C-24, which includes sweeping changes to Canada's citizenship laws. The minister stated that it represented the first comprehensive reforms to the Citizenship Act since 1977. He claimed that it “will protect the value of Canadian citizenship for those who have it while creating a faster and more efficient process for those applying to get it”.

First, it is news to me that we have not had valuation of Canadian citizenship. People in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway do now value Canadian citizenship and always have. This is a solution in search of a problem. I have never heard a Canadian in our country who has said that they do not value Canadian citizenship.

In terms of a faster and more efficient process for applying to get it, with respect, I see very little if anything in Bill C-24 that would speed up the process of citizenship, which, by the way, has been a problem under the current government and the previous Liberal government as well. Wait lists in our country across the board in the immigration system are unacceptably long, and they are getting longer.

Bill C-24 would do a number of things. It would put more power in the hands of the minister, including the authority to grant or revoke citizenship. It would provide no real solution to reduce the growing backlog and the citizenship application processing delays.

It would eliminate the use of time spent in Canada as a non-permanent resident to count toward the residency requirements before one could apply for citizenship. It includes an “intent to reside” in Canada provision whereby an official in government could make a determination of people's intentions to reside in Canada and strip them of their citizenship if they believed that the intent was not there.

It would prohibit the granting of citizenship to persons who had been charged outside of Canada with an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence. In other words, we can strip Canadians of their citizenship if they commit an act abroad that is an indictable offence if they have dual citizenship.

It would increase residency requirements from three out of four years to four out of six years, and it would clarify the requirement of physical residence in Canada prior to citizenship.

It includes stiffer penalties for fraud.

It would extend citizenship to lost Canadians.

It would expedite citizenship for permanent residents serving in the Canadian Forces.

It would also implement stricter rules for fraudulent immigration consultants.

It would require applicants aged 14 to 64 years old—previously 18 to 54 years old—to pass a test demonstrating an adequate knowledge of French or English.

Although it is not in Bill C-24 but concomitant with the bill, the Conservative government has tripled the application fees for citizenship.

Everyone agrees that Canadian citizenship is something of enormous value. I do not think anyone wants to see an approach that plays politics with this issue. It is something that we have seen all too frequently from the Conservative government.

With respect to the bill, it is high time that the issue of lost Canadians is addressed. This has been a very unfair situation that has gone on for far too long, and I am pleased to see it addressed in the bill.

However, other parts of the bill are, of course, increasingly and very seriously concerning. For example, the question of revoking citizenship in various scenarios has raised significant legal concerns. We are always concerned about and opposed to the concentration of more power in the hands of a minister of the crown, inherently a political figure.

We were hoping that the minister would commit to working with us to bring real improvements to our citizenship laws, but again, the government has opted to go with a bill that is, in many people's view, likely unconstitutional. The amendments that the official opposition brought to committee were, again, par for the course for the Conservative government, as every one of them was rejected out of hand.

Since March 2008, more than 25 major changes have been made to immigration methods, rules, legislation, and regulations by the government. More and more changes have been made since the Conservatives formed a majority government. These have included a moratorium on parental and grandparental sponsorships, reducing family reunification, punishing vulnerable refugees and increasing the number of temporary foreign workers to meet the requirements of the business sector in our country. However, the extensive changes to the Canadian immigration system have not made the system more effective or fair.

As an MP with a riding that is fundamentally made up of new Canadians, I say we should be making citizenship more valuable. We should be making it more streamlined and faster for those honest, hard-working people who seek it. The bill before us has been rightly described as a bill that makes citizenship harder to get and easier to lose.

People come to our country so they can get a passport, vote, and to participate fully in a democratic society. However, the bill would not do that. When we give the minister power to make decisions on a balance of probabilities that someone has obtained citizenship in a way that the minister does not like and we do not have a court process to check it, that is worrisome. It has no place in a country with the rule of law.