Ève Péclet

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when we negotiate a contract or a free trade agreement, we must ensure that the people with whom we are negotiating are on an equal footing. We want to help our industries, but not at any cost.

The government negotiated dozens of free trade agreements that contained provisions to encourage economies to respect workers' rights. The government signs the free trade agreement and then later ensures, for example, that the countries' values are in line with Canada's values.

Personally, I believe that when we negotiate a contract or a free trade agreement, we must ensure that the people with whom we negotiate are on an equal footing. This applies to any situation. I am not going to tell someone that I am going to sign his contract and that I will check later whether or not he complies with the terms of the contract. First, we must ensure that the person signing the free trade agreement will and already does respect Canadian values concerning the environment and workers' rights, for example. I believe that is the least we can do. That is a realistic approach. It is a balanced approach, and that is precisely why the NDP is calling on the government to take that kind of approach.

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising the point I wanted to make in the House.

The government failed to help the auto industry in Canada. We have continuously been disadvantaged through the government's inability to strengthen our industry.

The government should be adopting policies to help stimulate Canada's automotive sector and encourage other countries to invest in Canada.

The point I was trying to make was not about whether the free trade agreement was going to support the industry or not. I was talking about the government's constant lack of leadership when it comes to stimulating our own economy.

Signing a free trade agreement is not necessarily the equivalent of waving a magic wand and erasing everything the industry has gone through since the government refused to adopt policies that were appropriate for the situation.

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the House to support Bill C-41.

Considering that it has taken approximately 10 years to get to this point, the NDP is proud of this agreement, which is the first free trade agreement that Canada has signed with an Asian economic partner. The terms of the agreement are largely satisfactory, with the exception of a few concerns that I will address later on.

Negotiations for this agreement officially began in 2005. The agreement, as it now stands, was signed on March 11, 2014, and was presented in the House on March 12, 2014. It was about time, because it had been nearly 11 years.

I would like to tell my colleagues about the criteria that the NDP uses to evaluate free trade agreements. To begin, the proposed partner must share basic Canadian values, such as respect for democracy and human rights, and it must have adequate environmental and labour standards. That goes without saying. When we negotiate a free trade agreement, we want to be sure that the other party shares the same values and applies the same industry standards that Canada does.

Then, we look at the proposed partner's economic situation. It must be of significant or strategic value to Canada. Finally, the terms of the agreement must be satisfactory. We believe that South Korea meets our criteria. Consequently, the NDP is supporting the bill. We have some reservations, but I will come back to them.

I would like to talk a bit about South Korea. Since the dictatorship collapsed about 30 years ago, the international community has watched the country transition to a modern democracy with high standards with respect to human rights, labour rights and environmental protection.

It is the only country in Asia to have been ranked 15th on the human development index. That accomplishment is due in part to the numerous social programs implemented by the government, the prevalence of the rule of law, low levels of corruption and access to quality education.

South Korea also launched an ambitious green strategy to improve its energy efficiency. It is abundantly clear that the country has great respect for the environment and that the government is making serious commitments in that regard. South Korea is a candidate that shares Canadian values around human rights, democracy and the environment. That is an extremely important aspect of an intelligent and balanced approach to a free trade agreement.

In addition, South Korea is of significant strategic value to Canada, which has been at a disadvantage ever since the United States and the European Union both signed free trade agreements with South Korea. That created an economic imbalance and affected a number of industries in Canada.

Preliminary estimates show that the agreement would eliminate almost 98% of tariffs for both parties. Also, Canadian exports to South Korea are expected to rise by 32%, which is worth about $1.7 billion. Let us not forget that South Korea can serve as a gateway to other Asian markets because of its position in the Asian supply chain.

Complementary aspects of the two economies redefine the success of the agreement because Canada and South Korea will not necessarily be in direct competition in their shared markets.

However, Canada would do well to support our automotive industry and create programs to encourage the Korean automotive industry to come set up shop here. I will come back to this later.

The biggest winners among Canadian industries are the heavy industry, agriculture—our pork and beef farmers have suffered greatly from the lack of agreement for many years—the forestry industry, the aerospace industry and the fisheries. A number of associations have expressed support for this free trade agreement.

I will start with the agricultural sector, which is vital to our economy. It accounts for about 8% of Canada's overall economy and provides nearly 2.1 million jobs. The two agreements signed by the United States and the European Union unfortunately affected our economic balance in the agricultural sector. For example, the Canadian beef industry saw its exports to South Korea drop from $96 million in 2011 to just $8 million in 2013. The same was true for pork exports. These two industries suffered a lot because we did not have a free trade agreement. The ratification of the free trade agreement with South Korea is an opportunity to turn things around for these disadvantaged industries, by eliminating 86.8% of the tariffs on those industries.

In the aerospace, seafood, forestry and food sectors, the situation is very similar. These sectors will significantly benefit due to the abolishment of export tariffs and increased market share in South Korea and the Asia-Pacific region in general. Jayson Myers, president and CEO of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, says “Asia’s rich markets are the next frontier for Canada” in our desire to abolish all kinds of obstacles to ensure the expansion of trade investments.

While the agreement is superior to the one with China and the EU, we expressed a few concerns about this FTA. As I mentioned previously in my speech, there are some issues for the auto industry.

First of all, the NDP is calling on the government to do more to support the auto industry in Canada and is eager to propose solid, effective policy measures to strengthen the Canadian auto sector. The government can and should encourage Korean auto production in Canada and assist Canadian automakers to penetrate the Korean market.

The government continues to fail the auto sector, and I think it is time for it to take a more comprehensive approach. Our auto sector has suffered continuously from the lack of propositions by the government. The most positive features of the Korean FTA are the rules of origin provisions that favour Canadian-U.S. integrated products and the accelerated dispute resolution mechanism that allows for the monitoring of non-tariff barriers.

At the same time, our party has expressed some legitimate concerns about the Korea FTA regarding the Canadian auto sector. Unifor and Ford Canada's opposition is sensible as the FTA Korean imports will negatively affect domestic auto sales. As well, Canadian auto exports will suffer from Korean non-tariff barriers. Additionally, Korean producers seem to penetrate the domestic market through other NAFTA countries. For example, 50% of Korean auto products enter the Canadian market tariff free through the U.S.

In closing, I would like to talk about the many potential problems with the investor dispute settlement provisions. As we know, the German government said that it was not necessarily ready to ratify the Canada-European Union free trade agreement because Canada had insisted on including investor state dispute resolution provisions. We know what kind of adverse effect this type of mechanism can have on the sovereignty of governments and on their ability to adopt environmental or economic regulations that favour industry in Canada.

The NDP is asking that free trade agreements not include this type of mechanism. As I already said, this could have an adverse effect on the sovereignty of governments.

[International Trade, September 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister gave a group of European delegates the royal treatment after insisting that they join him at a reception in Toronto. They got to go back home on board an Airbus on the taxpayers' dime. The total cost of the operation was $300,000.

At a time of budgetary restrictions and cuts to public services, how can the Prime Minister justify giving the royal treatment to leaders who clearly do not need it?

[Corporate Social Responsibility of Extractive Corporations Outside Canada Act, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is always an honour for me to rise in the House to talk about corporate social responsibility. It is a topic that is very important to me.

Before I begin, I would like to thank all my colleagues in the House who took part in the debate. A special thanks goes to the organizations that have been working on corporate social responsibility for a very long time. They helped me in drafting my bill.

I have very little time for my response, five minutes, and I told myself that I would not respond to the Conservatives. Nonetheless, you know me, Mr. Speaker, and I would simply like to digress for a moment. My Conservative colleagues tell a good story, and I greatly appreciate their points of view. However, I have my own story to tell, the story of thousands of people around the world. They look at Canada with the hope that we will put an end to the abuse they are suffering once and for all and that we will help them to have better lives, safer lives in a healthy environment, but above all lives in which their fundamental rights are not violated.

I do not expect the government to acknowledge the facts—which have been acknowledged by this Parliament and the United Nations—but I can say that a number of reports recognize that abuses have been committed.

Some years ago, the problem of the social responsibility of Canadian mining companies in developing countries was not a hot topic, far from it. Despite the negative repercussions felt in many communities around the world, it has taken some time for the impact that these companies are having on human rights to come to light. I would like to give a little background on this.

In 2005, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade tabled a report in Parliament recognizing what a negative impact the activities of Canadian mining companies were having on local populations, especially vulnerable populations in developing countries. The report recommended that the Canadian government eliminate the voluntary approach, and called for stricter policies on corporate social responsibility.

In 2006, as soon as the Conservative government was elected, it said that in response to that report it would hold a series of national round tables on corporate social responsibility. NGOs, industry stakeholders and civil society took part in these consultations and adopted a report. It was that report that led to this bill. It recommended creating an ombudsman position.

What did the Conservatives decide to do? They decided to use voluntary measures, exactly what the report—which was adopted by Parliament—said not to do. Unfortunately, since the office of the ethics counsellor was created in 2006, not a single case brought before the office has been followed up on. Why? Because the companies have refused to take part in the dialogue. The Conservative members can talk about their approach involving mediation and dialogue all they want; it did not work. At this very moment, people, human beings, are being abused by companies that are violating their basic rights.

Self-regulation and voluntary measures do not work. Let us finally give a voice to these hundreds of thousands of people who unfortunately have none and are living in a nightmare. I beg the government to take action. After all, it did accept and adopt that report. It accepted the main recommendation, to create an ombudsman position. The Mining Association of Canada signed the report. Everyone agrees that an ombudsman position needs to be created. The hundreds of thousands of people who are in situations in which their basic rights are being abused and violated have this right.

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my question is related to investor state dispute settlements. I think my colleague mentioned that it would put both investors at the same level. A couple of states, even Germany, just talked about the Canada-EU trade deal, saying that these kinds of dispute settlements are not beneficial for the people and the state.

I am wondering what makes it so important in every single trade deal the government has negotiated to include dispute settlement in its basic principles. What is it that makes it so important for Canada to include a dispute settlement agreement in every single one of the trade deals it has negotiated?

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

It is great, because it seems that the Liberals finally decided to come up with a new plan. I think everyone here is familiar with the Liberal plan in recent years. The plan was basically to use the EI money to pay off their debts. My colleague's speech may have been filled with figures, but she forgot to mention one thing: what they are going to do with the $57 billion that the Liberal governments stole from workers.

Perhaps we would not need to adopt this sort of measure had the Liberal governments honoured their commitments and not stolen $57 billion from the EI fund.

My question is simple: will the Liberals finally decide to protect the EI fund by passing the NDP's Bill C-605, which specifically seeks to prevent the government from dipping into the EI fund?

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important. The main point of my speech was that right now, we are giving public officers powers that are not defined in the bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice spoke about customs officers and officials from Fisheries and Oceans Canada. There is no definition included in the bill. There are no guidelines for this type of power.

We are being told that if the official opposition really cares about helping victims of bullying, we should pass this bill quickly. All of the experts have clearly indicated that we must ensure that personal information is protected. However, we know that the government is not interested in protecting Canadians' personal information.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague's comments, I remember him asking questions about metadata. We had professionals and experts answer what that was. However, I clearly remember that my esteemed colleague, the parliamentary secretary, did not agree with the experts. I clearly said, and I have my statement here, that it was not up to the parliamentary secretary to choose which data was more important than others.

I said that if we wanted to discuss what metadata really was and what we could do to protect it, my esteemed colleague really should have brought more experts. I specifically said this to him. Maybe we should have had more experts on metadata and what powers this bill would create to lawfully access this metadata without a mandate.

It is not up to Parliament to decide which data is more important than others. It is up to the experts, but the parliamentary secretary never called any experts to contradict what other experts had said at committee.

[Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, September 22nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House for the second time to speak to Bill C-13, which addresses cyberbullying.

When the government announced Bill C-13 to combat cyberbullying, everyone thought it was a good idea. Perhaps the government had finally come up with a good idea. Everyone here knows that cyberbullying is taking a heavy toll on our youth. The people who work on the front lines—psychoeducators who work in high schools, street outreach workers and everyone else who works with youth—know how bullying can destroy lives, individuals and families. Some cases have made headlines, including the case of young Rehtaeh Parsons. Unfortunately, we know just how far cyberbullying can go. It can lead to suicide. No one in the House would say that we can remain indifferent about an issue as important as cyberbullying.

In the first speech I gave on Bill C-13, I emphasized the need to take action on the ground. I could even draw a parallel with the speech I just gave this morning on Bill C-36. The Conservatives often think they can use justice to solve all the problems inherent in a given situation. In the case of prostitution, for instance, inherent problems include poverty, exclusion and mental illness. The same is true when it comes to bullying. Some of the factors involved in bullying cannot be addressed through criminalization.

The provisions of Bill C-13, which makes it an offence to distribute intimate images, are a good start. In fact, the bill fits in with the bill introduced by my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, which aims to prevent the kinds of situations that unfortunately led to the suicides of several young Canadians over the past few years.

Upon closer examination of the bill, one can see that it refers to various subjects ranging from cyberbullying to terrorism, banking information, telemarketing and theft of a telecommunication service.

Most of the provisions have very little if anything to do with cyberbullying. This bill is similar to the Conservatives' previous Bill C-30, which allowed access to Canadians' personal information.

The parliamentary secretary said that it was debated extensively and thoroughly examined in committee. That is all wonderful, except that all the experts agree that the study should have been even more thorough when it comes to the provisions regarding access to information. That is why we asked that the bill be split. Unfortunately, because we ran out of time, the provisions on cyberbullying were not examined much, if at all. We focused on the access to information provisions.

This issue is very important for our young people, and I find it extremely unfortunate that the debate is centred around access to information. That has nothing to do with our young students or the young girl who is being bullied by her classmates or receiving hateful messages on Facebook.

Access to information will have no impact on this girl, or perhaps it will, unfortunately, if the government wants access to her private information, which would be too bad. This is not going to help young people who need their government to work for them and do something about this.

A number of experts said that Bill C-13, together with Bill S-4, might have extremely significant repercussions on access to our private information, including access without a warrant.

I also asked a number of questions about an oversight mechanism. I would like to point out that the Conservatives refused to adopt such a mechanism. My colleague from Gatineau proposed an amendment requiring the department to report to Parliament on the use of this type of power. I would like to note that section 184.4 of the Criminal Code has already been struck down by the Supreme Court, not because the mechanism allowed information obtained without a warrant to be shared, but because application of that section did not include any oversight mechanism or notification mechanism. According to the Supreme Court, the rights of people being wiretapped were intrinsically violated because they did not know they were being tapped. At the end of the day, without an oversight mechanism, we are giving the police and the government power without accountability. We can agree that we are giving nearly absolute power to the minister and police officers to access Canadians' information.

The Supreme Court was clear. I have not even touched on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Spencer, which reiterates that telecommunications companies do not have the right to turn Canadians' private information over without a warrant. It is a violation and it is unconstitutional because there is no oversight mechanism.

I made a comparison with section 188, which was not struck down by the Supreme Court. That section allows for warrantless wiretaps, but it includes an oversight mechanism. The department is therefore obliged to report to Parliament on warrantless wiretapping.

According to the Supreme Court, this is clearly unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Conservatives refused to adopt our amendments on creating such a reporting mechanism, which is too bad. We can already see that part of the bill will likely be challenged in court or even deemed unconstitutional.

Who will be the main victims of that challenge? My colleague from Gatineau told us several times. The main victims of the Conservatives' incompetence at drafting bills and studying issues thoroughly are the victims of bullying. The main victims will not be parliamentarians, lawyers or judges. No, the main victims will be victims of bullying, who unfortunately will have to wait for a legal challenge—which could take years and could go all the way to the Supreme Court—before justice is served.

I would like to underline the fact that when the Minister of Justice held his press conference, he said that Bill C-13 only legislated on a specific issue, namely cyberbullying. I know of several articles that quoted him as saying that this was not an omnibus bill and that its only purpose was to legislate on cyberbullying.

However, this bill contains a clause that gives not only peace officers, but also public officers access to these powers. Several experts wondered who would have access to these powers. Who would have access to Canadians' information? Would it be only the police, and only in specific situations, or would it be public officers from Revenue Canada in other situations?

This bill is so badly written that, unfortunately, the main victims who will be denied justice will be victims of bullying. Is that really what the Conservative government wants?