Hélène Laverdière

[Rights & Democracy, April 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Conservatives created those problems.

The government dumped the idea of a democracy promotion institute that they had announced in the Speech from the Throne in 2008. Now they are killing Rights and Democracy, and they want to cut DFAIT programming under the international assistance envelope, which is often used to promote democracy.

The government speaks a lot about democracy, but it does not seem to want to walk the talk. What does it have against democracy?

[Rights & Democracy, April 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, at the precise moment when Canada should be helping emerging democracies, this government decides to eliminate the organization that is in the best position to do that job: Rights & Democracy.

The Conservatives made partisan appointments to Rights & Democracy. Then they attacked its respected director, who unfortunately then died. In a nutshell, they literally poisoned the organization, and today they have decided to finish it off.

Does the minister think this is what showing leadership on the international scene means?

[The Budget, March 30th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague began his speech, which was very interesting and greatly appreciated by everyone I am sure, by saying that throughout his speech he would do something that is fundamental to the NDP, namely to share in this House the points of view and opinions of the Canadian public, the people who are going to have to pay for this ill-advised budget.

I have received some comments from one of my constituents and I would like to share them—

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, March 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Conservatives showed once again that culture and information matter little to them: $115 million in cuts to the CBC amounts to a direct attack on our public broadcaster.

When will this government realize that when it attacks the CBC it is attacking our culture, our heritage and an important vehicle for presenting the issues facing our society?

[AIDS Community Action Program, March 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last December we asked the federal government about the unreasonable delays in tendering projects for the AIDS community action program. Now there are further delays, but this time the problem lies with funding approvals.

It is March 30. If these organizations, which do extraordinary work, are denied funding, they will be forced to close their doors on Monday. They have not yet heard anything.

These organizations will be told on very short notice whether they will be able to pay their experienced and competent employees, and they run the risk of losing all the expertise that has benefited the entire community. A whole group of people is anxiously hanging by a thread.

How can this government boast that it is a competent and efficient manager when this type of botched management is becoming the norm?

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

Mr. Speaker, that shows the problem with the way the government approaches issues like free trade. Despite what some of our colleagues say, New Democrats have never said we are against all free trade agreements. The government seems to say all free trade agreements are good.

With respect to Jordan, another country I have visited, by the way, we face a very different situation both in terms of human rights and workers' rights. To my knowledge, Jordan has never been on the OECD black list of tax evasion havens. They are two different situations. In each situation what would be ideal is that we negotiate more multilaterally, but if we are intent on negotiating bilaterally, we have to look at each situation and its specific circumstances, and Panama is not Jordan.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I have to confess that when I was looking at that, I was wondering exactly the same thing. We asked that there be such an accord and we understand that Panamanian authorities said no. The story leads us to believe that we walked away and said if Panama did not want one, then we would not have one. I do not understand that. It is a crucial element in that situation. It should have been there. The treaty should not have been signed until it was there. As my hon. colleague says, we do not want to over-exploit our situation of strength with other smaller economies, but in a case like that, in the long term, it is not helping anybody. It is a bit mind-boggling.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we know, Panama is an important partner to us in this hemisphere. Having visited this country a few years ago and having worked with Panamanian counterparts in various contexts, I believe that it is truly a country with which we should have closer ties. However, these ties must be based on sustainable and fair principles that benefit both countries. Yet the free trade agreement that is before us today really does not meet these criteria. In fact, this agreement is problematic in a number of ways. I will not hide the fact that many of these problems are common to a number of our free trade agreements. Despite this, I would like to revisit some of these problems, as some of my colleagues have done.

To begin with, it should be noted that there are problems when it comes to environmental protection. I will not elaborate on these problems today, because many of my colleagues have described them at length and, in any case, my time is short. There are also problems as far as protecting workers is concerned. For example, under the system we will end up with, investors will have the right to request compulsory arbitration that they can conduct independently, however a union can only file a complaint and it will be up to governments to seek and obtain remedies. Why this double standard? This is once again a whittling away of workers’ rights. This is not good for Panamanian or Canadian workers. When you start chipping away at the rights of workers in another country, what happens? We have seen this in the past. Companies relocate jobs to these countries and we lose manufacturing jobs left, right and centre, as we have seen in recent years. In short, that creates a system where nobody benefits.

There is also a somewhat more specific problem in this case, and that is the absence of a tax information exchange agreement. This is a major problem. We know that, at best, Panama is in a grey area when it comes to its tax haven status. We believe that Canada must help Panama and encourage it to be more fiscally transparent. The negotiation of a free trade agreement is an opportunity to do just that. We want to work with Panama to help stop the money laundering that is, unfortunately, happening in the country, and to help stop the funding of drug trafficking. This is a problem that affects the entire hemisphere and that has tragic consequences for Panama, the hemisphere and Canada.

I think that we should really require Panama to sign a tax information exchange agreement. Some say that the double taxation agreement will be enough. If double taxation agreements were enough, tax information exchange agreements would never have been invented. Double taxation agreements apply to legitimate and official earnings, but the problem is all the other revenue.

We are being told that the double taxation agreement covers some ground, but my fundamental question is this: why not have a tax information exchange agreement? Why not?

Who stands to lose if such an agreement were signed? It would certainly not be Canada, and I do not imagine that Panama would either. In fact, such an agreement would help put Panama in a position to better meet international standards, for example, its obligations under the OECD.

What we proposed was very simple: suspend the free trade agreement until a system is in place for exchanging tax information. The Conservatives rejected this proposal. Why did they reject it? What is the rush? Are they going to tell us that our national economy is at risk, as they did with the Air Canada situation?

Bilateral trade between Canada and Panama represents less than 1% of our trade. There is no rush. We can wait. We can use our tools and energy to help Panama meet international standards. This would help Panama. It would help the entire hemisphere, and clearly, it would also help Canada.

Meanwhile, the free trade agreement does not include the exchange of tax information. What would be the impact of signing such an agreement? According to Mr. Tucker, the research director for Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, this would make things worse for Panama. I would like to read some of what he said, because it is really very interesting and it gets to the heart of the matter.

The Canada-Panama trade deal would worsen the tax haven problem. As the OECD has noted, having a trade agreement without first tackling Panama's financial secrecy practices could incentivize even more offshore tax dodging. But there's a reason to believe that the trade deal will not only increase tax haven abuses but will also make fighting them that much harder.

Chapter 9 of the Panama agreement expands the investor-state system under NAFTA, under which Canada has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees and compensation to U.S. investors. Canada's defensive interests are many in the case of the Panama pact, because there are hundreds of thousands of U.S., Chinese, Cayman, and even Canadian corporations that can attack Canadian regulations by using aggressive nationality planning through their Panamanian subsidiaries.

In short, the free trade agreement as written, without a tax information exchange agreement, will hurt Panama because it will worsen the situation there, increasing abuses and making fighting them even harder. It will also hurt Canada.

I will repeat my questions: why not wait, and why not include a tax information exchange agreement?

[Privilege, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise on a question of privilege related to question Q-410, which I submitted on December 14, 2011. You will recall that I already raised this question in a point of order on March 14, out of concern that the government would not provide a response to my question within the deadline of 45 sitting days, as per Standing Order 39(5). The deadline was Friday, March 16. Having received no indication from the government that it would provide an answer to my question, I am rising today to speak to this troubling matter.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you look at the following three pieces of evidence when you review my request. First, I ask that you look at the question that I submitted to the government. Second, I ask that you look at the answer the government provided to my question. Third, I ask that you also look at the procedural aspects of this question, what procedural experts have said about the matter, and the troubling precedents being set with regard to written questions.

The question I asked concerned the office of religious freedom that the government had announced it was creating. In order to simplify the question for the government, the question was divided into 21 sub-questions, as is the norm for written questions. I will not read the entire question to the House, since you can find it in previous order papers. However, I will give you some examples of the level of specificity of the sub-questions.

For example, I asked, “when did the government decide to establish an Office of Religious Freedom and at whose request”. I asked, “who was consulted regarding the creation of the office”. I asked for the names, positions, and religious affiliations of the guests who attended consultations on the new office of religious freedom in October 2011. I asked what discussions were held at DFAIT about inviting Amnesty International and why this organization was not invited.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, I asked specific questions to which there are certainly specific answers. The list of people who attended a meeting held months ago should be available. Nonetheless, on March 12, the government provided the following answer, which is worth reading aloud, especially since it is not very long. In fact, it is shorter than the question. The answer I was given is the following:

The promotion and protection of human rights is fundamental to Canada's foreign policy, and the Government of Canada believes strongly in the ability of all people to be free to practise their religion of choice. Canadians enjoy the rights and privileges that come with living in a free and democratic society in which human rights are respected. The government is also keenly aware of the struggles that religious minorities face around the world. During the Speech from the Throne on June 3, 2011, and again at the United Nations General Assembly, the Government of Canada committed to creating an office of religious freedom.

At this time, no formal announcement has been made and work is ongoing. It is expected that the office will focus on areas such as advocacy, analysis, policy development and programming related to protecting and advocating on behalf of religious minorities under threat; opposing religious hatred; and promoting Canadian values of pluralism and tolerance abroad. The budget for the office will be $5 million per annum for the next 4 years. The government expects to have more to say about this important initiative shortly.

These are fine words, but they do not answer my questions. I would remind members that I had specific questions, such as who attended the October 11, 2011, meeting.

The government has made absolutely no effort to even attempt to answer the 21 sub-questions I submitted.

The government claims that it answered some of my sub-questions and that my dissatisfaction is merely a matter of opinion. I am not asking you to judge the quality or lack thereof of these minor elements. What I am asking you to do today, Mr. Speaker, is rule that the government's refusal to answer most of the sub-questions in my written question constitutes a violation of my rights as a member of Parliament.

According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, page 517, the purpose of written questions is described as follows:

...written questions are placed after notice on the Order Paper with the intent of seeking from the Ministry detailed, lengthy or technical information relating to “public affairs”.

In Chapter 7 of her November 2004 report, entitled “Process for Responding to Parliamentary Order Paper Questions”, the Auditor General wrote:

The right to seek information from the Ministry of the day and the right to hold that Ministry accountable are recognized as two of the fundamental principles of parliamentary government.

Written questions are one of the tools that Canadians, via their elected representatives, can use to force the government to be accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will consider this matter seriously and recognize that it involves a prima facie breach of my privileges as a member of Parliament. None of the information that I requested in my question is to be found in the government's response. A comparison of the question and the answer in the March 12 House of Commons Debates shows that the answer is, in fact, shorter than the question.

On March 14, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons told the House:

What the government has done is respond to the member's question within the 45-day time limit. I think the answer is self-explanatory, which is that there will be further information coming in a short period of time. We expect that should satisfy the member's concerns.

Yet he went on to say that:

Further information will be forthcoming and it should be done soon in an appropriate period of time.

I have no doubt that, in the coming weeks, months and years, the government will come up with other talking points on the office of religious freedom, but I would argue that it has not responded, nor is it ready to respond, to the specific questions I asked in Q-410, questions that it could have responded to, since it had the information. I believe this constitutes a breach of my privileges and an insult to all members.

I would like to refer to a Speaker's ruling from December 16, 1980, found on page 5797 of the House of Commons Debates. The Speaker stated:

...it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member.

I would also refer to the twenty-first edition of Erskine May, which describes contempt as follows:

...any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.

I would like to emphasize the word “omission”.

The government can try to muddy the waters on this by repeating that it has already answered my question, but in fact it has not.

Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking you to examine my question, look at the minister's response and reach a decision. If you do find a prima facie case that my parliamentary privileges have been breached, I will move the appropriate motion in due course.

[International Co-operation, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, out of the $142 million in subsidies given to development projects on December 23, 2011, only 11.6% went to organizations in Quebec. What is more, the Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale, the largest network of development NGOs in Quebec, has asked to meet with the minister a number of times, but she always refuses.

What did the NGOs of Quebec ever do to deserve such contempt from the Conservatives?