François Lapointe

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for his very valid comments, and I assure him that he has my support for this motion.

There have been some preposterous instances, such as when the members opposite recently combined laws dealing with young offenders and laws dealing with pedophiles. But the ultimate was when fathers such as myself were told that we were siding with pedophiles. There is no need to explain how furious I was when I heard that.

I would like to hear what my hon. colleague has to say. How does this kind of conduct undermine people's respect for the work we do in the House?

I am even going to take a little jab at him: his own party introduced omnibus bills in the past. Why the about-face?

[Small Business, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is not complicated. We are talking about access to credit for small businesses. That is what we are talking about. Can the members opposite talk about this?

According to Pierre Cléroux, the BDC's chief economist, very small businesses are the ones that have the most difficulty accessing credit. The recent Conservative announcements have not provided any reassurance. Industry Canada claims that the new plan will increase access to loans, but the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is of the opinion that the new regulations will decrease the number of loan applications.

Will the minister commit to implementing a program that will truly guarantee much-needed credit support for small businesses?

[Small Business, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this week we are celebrating Small Business Week.

Ironically, we have just learned that Industry Canada wants to make terrible changes to the small business loan program. Small businesses and taxpayers will once again be the biggest losers as a result of an ill-advised Conservative decision.

Over the next 10 years, taxpayers and borrowers can expect to face additional costs of $41 million and $233 million respectively. The only winners will be the banks, which will be better off by $141 million.

How can the minister justify this particularly ill-timed announcement this week?

[Health, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, since August, Michelle Lajoie from my riding has been waiting for a drug that is manufactured abroad to treat an orphan disease. Her health is deteriorating quickly. The oncologist treating Ms. Lajoie says that she urgently needs this drug, but that she cannot get it because of an administrative dispute between Health Canada and certain hospitals.

The department is taking four times longer than usual. Yes, I said four times. I informed the minister of this unacceptable situation on Tuesday. We still do not have any explanation.

When will the minister take responsibility and deliver this drug immediately? Four Canadians suffer from—

[Small and Medium-Sized Businesses, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the economic recovery is still fragile and, yesterday, instead of announcing tangible solutions to support SMEs, the minister hauled out of mothballs his worn-out promise to reduce red tape, which has not produced any results in six years.

Yesterday's announcement certainly cannot be called a recovery plan. It is nothing more than a normal goal for a modern country, and it does not hide the lack of a real vision to help our SMEs and stimulate the country's economy.

We are waiting for a real plan for SMEs. What is the minister waiting for to come up with one?

[Asbestos, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the neighbouring constituency, for his very important question.

There is indeed a small part of the Conservative caucus that for various reasons has stated its disagreement with respect to continuing asbestos mining in Canada. It is already in motion.

On the basis of my reading of a number of conversations I have had with other colleagues from the Conservative Party, who did not always agree with those who have thus far expressed their discontent, people were still under the completely false impression that in Quebec, there is consensus on continuing to operate the asbestos mines. It is very important to tell these colleagues that this is absolutely not the case. The PQ, the CAQ, the CSQ, the CSN, the coalition Pour que le Québec ait meilleur mine—the list is endless—as well as the clear majority of Quebec civil society, for almost two years now, do not want asbestos production to continue. This is the information that some of my colleagues on the other side of the House needed to understand, that the consensus was not only in English Canada, but also in Quebec.

That being the case, the initiatives suggested by this motion become completely natural and consistent with the position and convictions of most of the people we represent everywhere in Canada, coast to coast to coast, as my anglophone colleagues say.

[Asbestos, September 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for this to happen, many components were essential, including scientific evidence, the positions taken by the major medical organizations and the Cancer Society, the NDP’s thorough work over the years and, more recently, the position taken by sovereigntists and non-sovereigntists in Quebec, both on the right and the left, together with union organizations like the CSN and the CSQ. All of these are clearly and firmly in favour of the transition for the asbestos industry in Beauce.

How to explain why it took the Conservatives so long? I’m sorry, but that falls into the category of the inexplicable.

[Asbestos, September 27th, 2012]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) implement, in the year following the adoption of this motion, an industrial restructuring plan towards sustainable economic sectors for all communities in which a portion of the economy still depends on asbestos mining; (b) hold, in the six months following the adoption of this motion, a public consultation that shall (i) establish measures to be included in the industrial restructuring plan to ensure the creation of alternative employment for workers presently employed in the asbestos sector, (ii) include all organizations concerned and groups of regions still mining asbestos and who ask to participate; (c) publish, in the year following the adoption of this motion, a comprehensive list of public and quasi-public buildings under federal jurisdiction that contain asbestos and take the appropriate measures to ensure the health and integrity of the people working in these buildings; (d) support the inclusion of chrysotile on the Rotterdam Convention list of dangerous substances; and (e) stop financially supporting the asbestos industry within six months following the adoption of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in this House Motion No. 381 on a very thorny and important issue in Quebec.

This motion is about the next steps that the NDP and almost all Quebeckers and Canadians feel must be taken with regard to the asbestos issue in Canada. In addition, a clear majority of Canadians, who we all—New Democrats as well as Conservatives—represent here in this House would certainly prefer to hear me describe in more detail the next steps in establishing logical procedures to stop the mining of asbestos in Canada.

The motion being debated today complements the work that the NDP has been doing for years to advance—and yes, I said advance—the issue of asbestos. We sincerely believe that this motion takes into account public opinion that can no longer be ignored. It calls for respect for the main individuals affected by the difficult decisions that now inevitably have to be made, namely, the hundreds of workers who still earn their living in this industry and the people in all the surrounding communities.

Before I break down each section of the motion, I believe that it is essential to review the events that led us to the difficult circumstances that we are in today, or in other words, the need to take away from a region this mining activity that has been one of the pillars of its economy for over a century.

Around the late 1870s, the discovery of asbestos changed the Asbestos region forever. As early as 1878, 40 tonnes of asbestos were extracted from the deposits. Between 1919 and 1945, the asbestos industry flourished. It was during that period that a working class emerged and became stronger with a succession of labour movements. In 1949, the Asbestos region experienced the most important, the most significant event in the history of workers' rights in Quebec and Canada: the famous Asbestos strike.

This dispute was of such importance that, in 1956, a group of researchers, directed by the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the future Prime Minister of Canada, published a book about the strike. According to its authors, the asbestos strike was a turning point in Quebec's social history. The Honourable Jean Marchand, who held among other positions that of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and Minister of Manpower and Immigration in the Pearson government, was the leading instigator of the strike.

Even on a personal level, the struggle by the asbestos workers has affected me: the then President of the Confédération des travailleurs catholiques du Canada, Gérard Picard, the main negotiator for the labour conflict, was one of my mother's uncles, and a man she greatly admired.

In providing just a simple overview of this historic labour dispute, it is important to remember how very far workers’ rights have come since that time. For instance, it was quite acceptable then for the mine owners to say that the claim that the dusty working conditions were hazardous to the workers’ health was just a way to gain public sympathy for the employees. Strikebreakers were used routinely. There was harassment by the police. The workers showed a level of courage and solidarity that was unprecedented at that time.

On March 5, 1949, Archbishop Joseph Charbonneau spoke out in favour of the strikers and urged people to donate money to help them. The Archbishop was forced to resign in 1950. The conflict was of such significance for Quebec society that it is considered the first milestone on the road leading to the split between the clergy and the political elite, known today as the Quiet Revolution.

For all of these battles, I would like to formally thank the asbestos workers and the people of Asbestos and Thetford Mines, and convey to them my great admiration. In light of these events, it is clear to see that the workers in Asbestos and all the surrounding communities have woven the tightest possible social fabric. It is also, therefore, easy to understand how strong the position is for maintaining asbestos production among all the stakeholders in the region.

Discoveries over the past few years have confirmed that asbestos mining must stop, and these conclusions have the support of a large majority of the international community and, for more than a year now, of a distinct majority of those in Quebec's civil society.

Given this situation, and when we go back to the origins of the story of asbestos workers, there are some things that have to be said. It is time to give them the assistance they are entitled to, after years of economic uncertainty. They must be given that assistance with all the respect they are due after their years of fighting for decent working conditions. All Canadians have benefited from their courage, and we thank them for it.

It is in this spirit that I call on all of my colleagues in the House to support my motion. If the Canadian government has any hope of aligning its policy even slightly with public opinion in Canada, it must implement four initiatives.

First, there has to be a genuine industrial restructuring plan to alleviate, at long last, the incessant economic insecurity that has hung over the communities in which a portion of the economy still depends on asbestos mining. Second, that plan has to be defined through consultations that include all stakeholders in the asbestos region who wish to participate.

We need the support of a majority of the members of this House to persuade the Minister of Industry to take that last little step to guarantee a process that respects the people of Asbestos and Thetford Mines. So far, he has expressed nothing but contempt for the provincial government’s consultation plan, even though both left and right in Quebec are now prepared to help the asbestos region get out of asbestos production and make the transition to economic development projects for the future.

Third, a comprehensive list of public and quasi-public buildings under federal jurisdiction that contain asbestos must be drawn up. Over the past few years, thanks to the courage of the asbestos workers and their fight for proper working conditions, miners working in the asbestos mines are no longer regularly falling victim to respiratory diseases. However, other workers, and in particular construction workers, are the ones with health problems brought on by chrysotile. Thousands of Canadian workers need that list. We cannot deny them the ability to protect their health.

Fourth, we must support the inclusion of chrysotile on the Rotterdam Convention list of dangerous substances. Here again, we need the support of a majority of the members of this House to persuade the Minister of Industry to take that last little step. So far, the Minister is simply saying he will not oppose including chrysotile on the list.

If Canada, in the next round of talks on the Rotterdam Convention, were to simply stay silent and let another country derail the talks, Canada’s image would be tarnished even more. Why? To keep a few hundred jobs for workers who are in any event in the process of making the transition to other industries, since $50 million has already been announced for that purpose. It would be completely absurd; it would be nonsensical. We have to support this and not be reduced to the embarrassing—indeed, humiliating—position of merely not opposing it, for the sake of consistency and to protect Canada’s reputation.

I am now going to comment on particular aspects that must absolutely be considered when it comes time to vote on this motion in a few weeks. We have to think about the asbestos communities when we vote on this bill. In a nutshell, they are the victims of a massive trend. For a decade now, they have been going through waves of job losses, and this has had an enormous effect on their social fabric, in spite of how strong it was.

We must think about the fundamental right of construction workers to know, when they hit a wall with a hammer, whether there is asbestos on the other side.

This week again I was told that trainees had spent several days tearing down walls containing asbestos, without protection, without masks and without gloves. It was only after several days that a foreman showed up and told them to be careful because they were filling their lungs with asbestos fibres.

We will have to think about those people when we vote on this motion, simply to reflect Canadian public opinion in 2012. These are people whom we represent in this House. We can no longer afford to be completely at odds with Canadian public opinion. The point here is that there is a virtual consensus out there and it must absolutely be reflected in the House.

The motion also asks that we stop financially supporting the asbestos industry. This may seem like stating the obvious, following the announcement made by the Minister of Industry, who is going to give $50 million with one hand. We must ensure that no government spending will be made with the other hand to support the development of asbestos markets. We absolutely cannot be sure of that. Just since the Conservative government came to office, there have been 160 international missions to more than 50 countries. These missions have cost the government a lot of money and they have been used precisely to promote the development of asbestos markets.

Even the last point, point (e), which may seem obvious, is not a given. We need a majority of members to rise to ensure that Canada will make the necessary decisions about asbestos.

I would like to read out the points of the motion:

(a) implement, in the year following the adoption of this motion, an industrial restructuring plan towards sustainable economic sectors for all communities in which a portion of the economy still depends on asbestos mining;

The key word here is “sustainable”. People in the asbestos region deserve to be involved in sustainable development, so that over 5, 10, 15 or 20 years, they can be assured of the strength of their businesses.

(b) hold, in the six months following the adoption of this motion, a public consultation that shall (i) establish measures to be included in the industrial restructuring plan to ensure the creation of alternative employment for workers presently employed in the asbestos sector...

It may be obvious, but the key words here are “creation of alternative employment”. Do we know whether the $50 million figure that has been mentioned suits their needs? No, because there is no planned public consultation. That is the opposite of what must be done. We must talk to people in the area. They will tell us how to guarantee that there will not be a bunch of investments made in areas that will not create jobs specifically for the people who were laid off because of problems with the asbestos industry. Curiously, the key word is “employment”.

...(ii) include all organizations concerned and groups of regions still mining asbestos and who ask to participate;

The minister's first reaction is one of contempt for any provincial decision to hold consultations. This is not a given.

(c) publish, in the year following the adoption of this motion, a comprehensive list of public and quasi-public buildings under federal jurisdiction that contain asbestos and take the appropriate measures to ensure the health and integrity of the people working in these buildings;

There are already provinces in Canada, such as British Columbia, that have done this. We cannot allow some Canadians to be protected and most other Canadians to not be properly protected.

I repeat, because it is very important: we need majority support in the House to finally respect the opinion of an overwhelming majority of our constituents.

[Asbestos, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it has taken months, but we finally fixed the broken record—hooray!

Last Wednesday, the Conservatives announced that they would stop opposing the classification of asbestos as a toxic substance and its inclusion in the Rotterdam Convention. Just one tiny piece is missing, and we will try to fix that. It is not enough to simply stop opposing it: the government must support the new classification. It is a question of public health and Canada's reputation.

Will the Minister of Industry do the right thing and admit that asbestos is harmful to public health?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to discuss Bill C-24 to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Panama.

First, I would like to point out that, once more, this motion is subject to time allocation. This is the 25th time this year that we have had to put up with a motion of that kind.

I am going to make a somewhat lengthy comment about the level of absurdity that this Parliament has reached by being constantly constrained by the party in power. This week—actually for two weeks—we have watched the heights of contempt for this Parliament being scaled with Bill C-38. The Conservatives refused to split up a budget bill of more than 400 pages that has impacts on all kinds of departments: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Agri-Food, not to mention Human Resources and Skills Development because of the employment insurance issue that affects fisheries and tourism and that got a very poor reception from most Canadians. The provincial governments are angry. Another concern, and not the least of them, is the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

All of this is in a huge bill on which we were muzzled. The hon. members opposite are constantly throwing numbers at Canadians: 50 hours, 70 hours. Those numbers cannot really be weighed by someone who is not in the House. They do not accurately reflect the time that members would normally have required to share information and hear from witnesses in committee on such dense bills, had the work of Parliament been respected by the current government in this House.

Another aspect of Bill C-38 is completely mind-boggling. Just thinking that we were muzzled on it is astounding. There were decisions to eliminate organizations. Division 33 of part 4 repeals the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Act and allows the government to take the necessary measures to do away with the centre. We are gagged on fundamental issues dealing with the elimination of organizations that have been very important to the development of Canadian policies.

On the Experimental Lakes Area, Mr. Del Giorgio, a professor of biology, said:

This is a disaster of proportions...that are hard to describe. It is not just the Canadian scientific community that is completely outraged; people from all over the world are sending petitions.

The government is shutting down the Experimental Lakes Area, not just slashing its budget.

For two weeks, we were simply gagged on that as well.

Here we are with Bill C-24 before us, a free trade agreement. This is not some minor information that can just slip through. This is a potential free trade agreement with a country in the Americas. That is important. Has this bill received unanimous support? If the bill had unanimous support, we could perhaps better understand why a gag order was imposed again, but no, we have before us a bill that does not have unanimous support.

Todd Tucker, from Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, has conclusively demonstrated that Panama is one of the worst tax havens in the world and that the Panamanian government has deliberately allowed the country to become a tax haven.

Despite requests from the Canadian government, Panama refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. This point is very important. At some point during the whole free trade agreement process with Panama, the Canadian government asked for a tax information exchange agreement. Why? First, Panama has some serious problems with illegal money and money laundering associated with illegal drugs.

There is something I do not get at all. There are members here who brag about being tough on crime. They are in the middle of negotiating with a small Latin American country that has a serious money laundering problem associated with drugs and, suddenly, it is no big deal.

The Conservatives want to be tough on crime with a 16-year-old kid who makes the mistake of growing a few pot plans in his basement, but they do not have the courage to apply their own tough on crime logic, in an international agreement, to a problem as serious as money laundering associated with drugs. That makes no sense at all.

My NDP colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster moved a motion to stop the implementation of a trade agreement between Canada and Panama until Panama agrees to sign a tax information exchange agreement. This motion was rejected by the Liberals and the Conservatives. But in light of this situation, it made sense to resolve this issue first. Other countries, including the United States, that came to agreements with Panama signed similar agreements.

I will repeat, because this is a very important point. Why did a so-called tough on crime government disregard the very idea of a tax information exchange agreement that could have covered all types of trade agreements? This could have perhaps covered the problems related to money laundering. How could this have been excluded from the negotiations and not remain central to the agreement? I do not understand it.

This is not a unanimous bill, and so it is not a bill that should be muzzled. Teresa Healy of the Canadian Labour Congress testified that although the minimum labour standards of the International Labour Organization are cited, the agreement is still weaker than it should be. Moreover, as Ms. Healy pointed out, the current Panamanian government has become increasingly tough on unions and workers in recent years.

Some things having to do with workers' rights and fundamental human rights have not yet been resolved.

Muzzling debate about Bill C-24 amounts to muzzling debate on tax evasion and workers' rights. This is not trivial; it is really not trivial.

Panama is not Norway. You need to show a good dose of bad faith to throw the name Panama in the middle of existing agreements with northern European countries. That is what I heard two or three times from colleagues on the opposite side of the House. You cannot put Panama on the same list as Norway and Switzerland without showing bad faith.

A fair trade policy can be realistic. For instance, from the beginning of our discussions with emerging countries, we should demand standards regarding human rights and tax ethics that are in line with Canadian standards. It would be simple. We would not have any surprises or any appendices to add at the end, but rather just the fundamental principle whereby all trade agreements must protect and promote human rights. We should be talking about this from the beginning, imposing it, and prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any products considered to have been manufactured in deplorable conditions that do not meet international standards. This notion should be imposed at every stage of the negotiation process. Ensuring that all trade agreements respect sustainable development is a notion that this government cannot seem to grasp or assimilate.

The agreement includes side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment. These side agreements are not in the main body of the text. Someone probably suddenly realized that a bare minimum should be done in order for this to be acceptable. Why is it not simply in the main body of the text?

More than one-third of Panamanians live in dire poverty. Free trade agreements should guarantee that better living conditions and working conditions will result from the agreements, rather than the potential exploitation of the poverty there. Although the agreement appears to protect the environment on the surface, it does not include any really strong measures or any mechanisms to resolve disputes.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, which someone mentioned earlier, Panama is a major financial conduit for drug trafficking and money laundering activities. Under those conditions, there is no way anyone can guarantee a better way of life for the people of Panama.

Trade between Canada and Panama is currently worth $150 million. Why the urgency, especially since we already do $150 million worth of trade with this trading partner? How can the Conservatives justify ramming another free trade agreement down our throats as quickly as possible, using another closure motion, when the agreement does not even ensure that Panamanian tax laws will not encourage tax evasion?

I congratulate the government on one thing: in this agreement, Canada has kept over-quota tariffs on supply managed goods such as dairy, poultry and egg products. That is very good.

What is deplorable about this bill is the failure to address human rights and tax evasion. I have been talking about this from the beginning. Every time we fail to address such fundamental issues in our international agreements, we somewhat deride the work of our most courageous predecessors in Canada. They struggled to move the country forward, while constantly working to improve our fundamental rights. We must never lose sight of that.