Geoff Regan

[Healthy Schools Day, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today is Healthy Schools Day in Canada. Students, teachers, parents and others in our school communities are focused today on improving the indoor environmental quality in school buildings.

Healthy Schools Day was established by Canadians for a Safe Learning Environment in Halifax West and partner organizations across Canada. This group has been very successful in helping to improve the condition of school buildings and raising awareness of products and practices used in schools. This means that students and staff have a safer and healthier place to learn and work.

I ask the House to join me in congratulating CASLE on its work. I encourage all members to join me in promoting Healthy Schools Day.

[Gasoline Prices, April 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised he would provide relief for motorists by limiting the GST when gas hit 85¢ a litre. Another broken promise, and motorists are paying the price. Canadians cannot even afford to drive to work. The Conservatives went out of their way to help the oil companies in last week's budget. When will they keep their word and help hard-pressed consumers?

[Foreign Affairs, April 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, after spending 27 months in a Spanish prison waiting for a chance to clear his name, Philip Halliday was recently able to have a visit from his family. Although his wife and sons were glad to finally see him, they were appalled by his physical condition. He suffers from liver and kidney problems and requires medical attention.

The minister was quick to claim credit for the return of Henk Tepper to New Brunswick. Will she now finally take action to bring Philip Halliday home to his family in Digby?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I hope I will have time to answer both questions from my hon. colleague from Vancouver Kingsway.

I think he is engaging in a bit of revisionist history. In fact I encourage him to look at the Liberal red book, its platform from the 1993 election. He will find that the government of the day said it would try to negotiate agreement on labour and environment with the U.S., and that is exactly what happened.

There were side agreements that were negotiated on those issues, similar to the agreements that have been made on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

The fact of the matter is that the long history of the Liberal Party has been in favour of trade, going back to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. We are still in favour of trade. We have supported many trade agreements.

We do think there is room for improvement, and as I said before, entering into the negotiations with the U.S. toward that agreement on the basis of saying that our whole economy policy is dependent on this was not a basis for strong negotiation.

If we look at the impact on the economies of Canada and the U.S. and the benefits to workers across this country, of the growth that happened in the 1990s and between 2000 and 2010, I am not sure how my hon. colleague could say Canada did not benefit during that period and that Canadian workers did not benefit.

Yes, there were changes, and yes, there was a process and a time of transition for many workers, as there constantly is, but especially in a time of new technologies and global growth. I think we have to work hard to help workers adjust to those times, and part of that is training.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I can agree with the last point that it is important that we have good relations with our southern neighbours. I think it is also important that we state our point of view at times.

When George W. Bush was the president, there were things he did we agreed with and others we certainly did not. One of the things on which we clearly disagreed, and very strongly, and one of the things for which Mr. Chrétien deserves great credit, is his decision not to follow the U.S. in going to war in Iraq.

That was the right decision. It was a tough decision, because there was certainly lots of pressure at that time from the U.S. and from the Conservative Party. The current Prime Minister was most anxious and most critical of Mr. Chrétien and his government for not going to war in Iraq. That is a fine example.

Overall, on the question of the thickening of the border, we assume, with the perimeter deal, that they did not insist on getting better access to the U.S. market.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-24, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Panama. I enjoyed the comments of my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway. However, when he says that Canada should enter into an agreement with Norway, for example, he ought to remember that there was an agreement that was to come in the last few years with the EFTA countries, which included Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. The NDP voted against that, as I recall.

I appreciated my hon. colleague's point that trade is essential to our economy. It is important that members recognize that and understand what arises from that.

I come from a trade-dependent province, Nova Scotia. I recognize how important these kinds of agreements are to our economy, to job creation and to our families. My hon. colleague talked about the Canada–U.S. free trade agreement. In the early 1980s, the Canadian government of Mr. Trudeau was very concerned about arising sentiments of protectionism in the U.S. A variety of tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers arising in the U.S. were of great concern, causing issues for Canadian businesses trying to sell to the U.S. The process was begun under that government of discussing the possibility of an agreement with the U.S.

My biggest concern with the way the Mulroney government approached the negotiations with the U.S. was that its approach was to say that its whole economic policy was going to be dependent on getting a trade agreement with the U.S. It said to the U.S., “let us sit down and negotiate”. What kind of position are government members in if they make it clear publicly to the counterpart in negotiation that they are not going to leave the table, that they have to have an agreement as they have told their country that it is vital to their future to have this agreement? That does not put them in a very strong bargaining position. Surely it would have been better to have entered that negotiation differently.

My difficulty with the NDP point of view is that it can never find an agreement that it can support. Members are convinced that they could have negotiated a better agreement that was far more in Canada's favour. That is nice to say. Maybe there are things that could have been done differently. However, it is a bit unrealistic to say they could have negotiated a far better agreement and gotten everything they think is important. That is not what negotiation is like. It is a two-way street. That is why my friends in the NDP have never been in favour of any trade deal with any other country, as far as I can recall, no matter how many jobs it created for Canadians or Nova Scotians or how much, for example, it helped our regional economy in the Atlantic.

If we look at the record, Canada did very well. If we look at the economic performance of Canada and the U.S. during the 1990s and the decade between 2000 and 2010, the results for Canada's economy were very strong. My difficulty with the NDP approach is that opposing these agreements is preferring protectionism. Protectionism provides temporary relief. Two hundred years ago, or a little less than that, my great-grandfather was a shipwright in Dartmouth working on sailing ships. When they started to fade away and metal and steamships took over, we could have said we were going to prevent those from coming in, that we would support with protectionism and tariffs our wooden shipbuilding industry. That might have provided some relief for a little while, but sooner or later it would have had negative impacts on the economy. The standard of living for people in this country would have gone down.

I think that is the result when we have the kinds of protectionist barriers that my NDP colleagues favour. The alternative to the U.S. trade agreement, perfect though it may have been, would have been more barriers to our products.

If we look back to 1988-90, of course the trade agreement was negotiated in about 1987, we were 90% dependent for our trade on the U.S. Ninety per cent of our exports went to the U.S. That was an enormous proportion of our economy. So, to say that we did not need to have that or that it was not good enough simply is not a good enough answer. I think we have to come up with a better argument than that.

Speaking of the impacts on Atlantic Canada, I encourage colleagues to read the recent report of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, which was produced in connection with its outlook 2012 conference. It is cleverly entitled “Let's Get Out of Here”. It presents an interesting study on how Atlantic Canadian firms are taking on the world. They are not saying, “Let's get out of here and move to Fort McMurray”. They are saying, “Let's get out of here as Atlantic Canadian businesses, move around the world and sell our products to create jobs here at home”. That is the idea that they are promoting.

Atlantic Canada has been successful in building innovation-based businesses that have been focused on niche markets, while also capitalizing on our key resource sectors. However, those key resource sectors are struggling these days. If we look at what is happening in forestry, when people in the U.S. and around the world are reading fewer newspapers, when there are as not many houses being built in the U.S., that has a huge impact on the pulp and paper industry and on the lumber industry. So, we need to have other kinds of businesses, in the new economy especially, that are creating jobs.

One constant in our success in Atlantic Canada has been a reliance on trade. Before Confederation, the Maritime provinces and now the Atlantic provinces, were very strong traders. They were known as very successful traders with the U.S. and Europe. Yet, whether we are talking about Europe, the Middle East, China or America, Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada, has enjoyed success in all major markets in the world. Not enough success, in my view, but considerable success.

The fact that our reliance on exports to the U.S. has gone from 90% to 80% over the past couple of decades is a positive thing. Although we are not quite as reliant on exports to the U.S., we are still heavily reliant. I think we can expect that, for the foreseeable future, the U.S. will continue to be our most important market.

While we support this particular trade agreement, Canadian families, Canadian workers and the Canadian economy have been very poorly served by the government, which is failing in terms of its overall trade agenda around the world. While the Prime Minister and his ministers rack up a lot of frequent flyer points, jetting around the globe, they have basically ignored our key market: the U.S. We do not see much effort there.

More than $1.4 billion is traded between Canada and the U.S. on a daily basis as part of the largest commercial relationship between any two countries in the world. Yet the Conservatives have sat on their hands and watched as the border has thickened. We do not see the kind of effort there that we ought to see.

Canada's geographic, economic and cultural advantages in a North American market of nearly 500 million people will remain a major strategic asset in a rapidly evolving world, but not if we continue on the path the government has put us on.

As some of the speakers before me have noted, this trade agreement with Panama is yet another example of the current government pursuing new arrangements, at the expense of established agreements. The consequences, I think, are clear to anyone who has seen the recent trade statistics, which show declining exports and a trade deficit.

The one thing we can say about the Conservative government is it seems to be enamoured with deficits. Certainly, we know that it put the country in deficit after inheriting a $13 billion surplus. It put us in deficit by April of 2008, six months before the recession began. The government's mismanagement of Canada's trading relationship has resulted in trade deficits for the first time in 30 years. That is very worrisome. I am sure we will hear some fictions about the government's fiscal record and, we hope, about its record fiscal deficit this afternoon and the consequences for seniors, fishermen, the unemployed and just about everyone else who will pay for the Conservatives' incompetence.

[Financial System Review Act, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this week the banking ombudsman was saying, basically, that he does not want the job if it is not going to be mandatory for the banks to listen to what he says. We have seen no indication from the government that it is going to make it a mandatory process, where, if consumers have complaints against banks, they can go to the ombudsman and the ombudsman will make a decision that is enforceable. As it is, it has been a voluntary system. RBC and TD both withdrew from the system in recent months. The ombudsman is saying he is going to quit unless this is enforced.

I would like my hon. colleague's thoughts on this issue.

[Financial System Review Act, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's speech today. I also appreciate the intervention by the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in relation to Mr. Martin, who certainly played a very important role in maintaining the independence of our banks and maintaining banking regulation. I was a member of Parliament at that time. I can tell her that in fact Liberal MPs were overwhelmingly against the idea, and I want my hon. colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour to hear this, of deregulation of banks or of mergers of banks.

It concerns me because the New Democrats came to Ottawa after last May, saying that they were going be different, with a different approach to Parliament. The NDP put on that coat, or perhaps the new beard, but it is the same old face sometimes. Those members are trying to carry on with this myth that there is no difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

On this issue, it would be more reasonable and more in keeping with the coat they are trying to put on if the New Democrats would actually give credit where it is due and admit that on this issue there is a huge difference with the Liberal government. Liberal MPs overwhelmingly insisted that we maintain independent banks, maintain non-merged banks and regulation of banks and that the 40-year mortgage, for example, which the Conservatives brought in, was a disaster.

However, I am going to give the NDP credit for participating with the Liberals during the minority governments, ensuring the Conservative government did not deregulate, as it would have liked to have done.

[National Philanthropy Day Act, March 27th, 2012]

moved that Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this evening to introduce Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day.

This bill was sponsored in the other place by my good friend, Senator Terry Mercer. The senator proudly represents the north end of Halifax. He is very familiar with philanthropy and fundraising, having committed a good part of his life to fundraising as a profession. He has made numerous attempts to bring this legislation forward in the Senate. I am certainly pleased to play a minor role as a sponsor in the House.

I hope that all parties and all members will support this bill. I think it is a worthwhile initiative. This act would designate November 15, every year, as National Philanthropy Day.

Let me enumerate the purposes of this bill. First, it would increase public awareness of National Philanthropy Day, which is already celebrated, as a time to say thank you to those who give throughout the year. Second, it would focus public attention on the major accomplishments that are made possible because of contributions and because of people giving in a whole bunch of ways and in various amounts. All those philanthropic contributions are important.

Third, it would honour key local individuals and corporations for their philanthropic endeavours. Fourth, it would recognize local fundraisers and volunteers, thanking them for their time, talent and dedication. We can all think of lots of examples of the kinds of people who ought to be recognized on an ongoing basis for the wonderful contributions they make to volunteer and charitable organizations.

This type of nationally recognized day would encourage schools, community groups and individuals to become more aware of the impact of philanthropy and to get more involved as philanthropists, donors or volunteers.

The day would also be used to recognize and pay tribute to the great contributions that philanthropy has made to our lives, our communities and our country. We can all think of ways that we have benefited from people giving, financially supporting various organizations. If people played minor hockey, they probably had somebody sponsoring their sweaters. We certainly did when I was in minor hockey.

There are groups that give to so many things, such as the Lions Clubs and the Rotary. Many groups work hard year round to raise money so that they can support worthwhile initiatives in their communities. There are the hospital auxiliaries. There are many groups that ought to receive recognition and need our support.

First held in 1986, National Philanthropy Day celebrates the endless daily contributions of individuals and organizations across the world to countless causes and missions. Many of those causes are outside Canada. Many causes that Canadians support are international, particularly in the developing world.

Last year there were more than 100 National Philanthropy Day events and activities across North America with over 50,000 people taking part in those events. That is a significant day. I think this would help to make it even larger, making it official in Canada. Sixteen Canadian events honoured philanthropists and volunteers in most major Canadian cities.

As a society we need to rededicate ourselves to charitable giving, to philanthropy. Canadian giving has dropped for the last three years to about $7.8 billion in 2009, which is down from an all-time high of $8.5 billion in 2006, according to Statistics Canada. Even more significantly, the percentage of Canadians claiming charitable deductions on their tax returns has dropped from 24% in 2008 to 23% in 2009. That does not sound like a very big drop, but the impact in dollars is enormous. That leaves Canada with approximately 5.6 million donors.

As members who have connections to volunteer groups in our communities, we have all seen the dwindling ranks of volunteers and the challenges that many organizations have in getting and replacing volunteers. Volunteers serve a period of time and then move on, deciding to either take a break from that activity or go on to another organization.

The charitable sector in Canada has more than $100 billion in annual revenues. It possesses even more than that, of course, in its net assets. The charitable sector is approximately equal in size in this country to the economy of British Columbia.

We can just imagine an economic activity that large in this country and its importance and what an impact it has across this country in all our communities. If that is dwindling, it sure as heck needs our support. It sure needs us in this small way, through supporting the recognition of National Philanthropy Day, to say that this is important and that it is important to get behind giving in Canada and to recognize people who do that and who volunteer for activities.

Furthermore, the charitable sector in Canada is made up of more than 161,000 organizations with over 1.2 million paid staff and 6.5 million volunteers. That is another way it has a big economic impact in this country.

Both at home and around the globe, as I was saying earlier, Canadians are recognized for their generosity and compassion. We can be very proud of the many Canadians who go abroad and work, let alone the millions who volunteer here at home. I think we all continue to be inspired by the dedication of volunteers who give freely of their time to improve the lives of others because that is really what charitable giving and volunteering is all about.

Through Senator Mercer's persistence, dedication and hard work, the Senate passed the bill on several occasions. I hope this time it will have time to do this and that it will be passed by my colleagues in the House because every one of us is a beneficiary in some way or other of Canada's generous spirit of volunteerism.

This philanthropy is exemplified by organizations like Beacon House, a food bank in Sackville, Nova Scotia, that actually serves part of my riding and part of the riding of my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore. That food bank depends on the generosity of people who care about their friends, neighbours and primarily about people they have not even met and will not meet. They give support, whether they give at their Sunday church service or whether they give donations in cash, sometimes they will bring food but also cash.

It is valuable to note that often a food bank might be better off receiving cash as a donation because usually they can get food wholesale where we cannot and therefore they can get more food for the buck than we can if we spend it at the grocery store. However, the food bank will not say no , and people who decide they want to give food are to be thanked and recognized for that .

Larger organizations, like Feed Nova Scotia, formerly the Metro Food Bank, collects and distributes food to more than 150 food banks and meal programs across my province of Nova Scotia. It is an organization that thrives under the care and support of many Nova Scotians.

As well as corporations in Nova Scotia, Feed Nova Scotia sends me its annual report each year. I note the number of corporations that make donations in kind. Some of the food companies, like Sobeys and Loblaws and others, give massively on an annual basis in a way that I think should be recognized. That is an important part of getting the job done and ensuring that people who are going hungry are getting fed.

Nationwide, Canadians give more than two billion hours a year of their time to help others and two-thirds of all Canadians donate to charitable organizations each year. We need to encourage that and try to increase that.

It is in recognition of these immeasurable contributions that we look to recognize National Philanthropy Day every November.

I hope my hon. colleagues will support this excellent bill. I congratulate my colleague in the Senate, Senator Terry Mercer, for his efforts. I hope my colleagues from all parties will agree with this bill.

[Purple Day, March 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today is Purple Day and it is great to see so many members wearing purple and purple ribbons to help raise awareness about epilepsy.

All members received a card with information about first aid for seizures and I encourage them all to familiarize themselves with the 10 steps. The most important things to remember are to stay calm, keep the person safe and never restrain.

I also thank the House for its unanimous support of Bill C-278, which would recognize every March 26 as Purple Day so we can increase awareness of epilepsy and the impact it has on thousands of Canadians.

Canada is a world leader in this cause thanks to the commitment of people like Cassidy Megan who founded Purple Day and started a global trend.