Jasbir Sandhu

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the citizens of Surrey North to speak to Bill C-24, the proposed free trade agreement between Canada and Panama.

As the Asia-Pacific Gateway critic and someone who is very concerned with Canada's trade deficit, I know my colleagues on the opposite side do not like facts and figures but I am going to give them some. When the Conservatives came into power in 2006, our trade surplus was $25 billion. That is a fact. The Conservatives like to talk about trade and how they want to expand our markets. However, under the Conservative government that $25 billion surplus has turned into a $50 billion deficit. That is the Conservatives' record and they like to talk about numbers. I have gotten that off my chest so I will carry on with my speech.

I am very supportive of an open and progressive approach to trade. That includes building a stronger economy and promoting Canada's interests. Unfortunately this agreement would not fit the bill. I will not be supporting the bill for a number of reasons. Chief among those reasons is that when the bill's previous incarnation, Bill C-46, was studied at the committee stage, we heard very compelling testimony from many witnesses regarding the use of Panama as a tax haven for tax evasion and tax avoidance. Furthermore, Panama has a poor record on labour rights, and the deal's side agreements for labour and the environment are very weak. We are also very concerned that the agreement would provide greater rights and powers to foreign investors. This is worrisome, given controversies regarding the environmental and human rights records of some Canadian mining firms in Panama.

Bill C-24 was studied very briefly at the international trade committee of which I am a member. The testimony we heard confirmed that these issues continue to be of concern today. Motions and amendments that would address these glaring issues in the agreement were introduced by the member for Vancouver Kingsway, our NDP international trade critic, but were opposed and defeated by both the Liberals and the Conservatives.

After studying the situation in Panama more closely, one of my greatest concerns is that while Canada and Panama are in the process of negotiating a tax information exchange agreement, tax disclosure issues have yet to be meaningfully addressed despite protestations to the contrary from the Panamanian government, and undoubtedly the Conservative government, when we raise these issues. It is a major issue that the U.S. Congress refused to ratify a free trade agreement with Panama before signing a tax information exchange agreement.

There are very compelling reasons not to sign the agreement with Panama in the interest of Canadian taxpayers. In 2011, Canada's bilateral trade with Panama represented 0.03%, which is less than 1%, of our overall global trade. The agreement would represent the Conservatives' quantity over quality approach to trade deals. There is no need to rush into an agreement before meaningfully addressing the concerns about Panama being a tax haven.

I will speak in more depth about the tax information exchange agreement because it is very concerning and should cause us to pause before we enter into this agreement with Panama. In March 2012, Canada and Panama entered into the negotiation of a tax information exchange agreement. However, this agreement has not yet been signed. This is very troubling, considering the large amount of money laundering in Panama, including money from drug trafficking, that we heard about at the committee level. Panama's lack of taxation transparency has led the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to label the nation a “tax haven”.

As I said before, the U.S. Congress refused to ratify a free trade agreement with Panama before it signed a tax information exchange agreement. Canadian Parliament should be equally cautious. However, analysis of these agreements indicates that they are highly ineffective in preventing legal avoidance or illegal tax evasion. These agreements typically do not have an automatic information sharing provision, rather an individual request must be made. Furthermore, they generally do not require a partner country to provide the information necessary for determining tax compliance in other nation if it has not been previously created.

Recently, Panama was removed from the so-called OECD “grey list” after substantially implementing the standard for exchange of information when it signed a tax information exchange agreement with France. I believe it has about 14 agreements in place.

At committee, prior to the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-24, my colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, proposed a motion to the international trade committee that would stop the implementation of the Canada-Panama trade agreement until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement. I voted in favour of the motion, as did the other New Democrat members of the committee. I supported it because it does not make sense to sign a free trade agreement without a tax information exchange agreement in place.

Unfortunately, the motion was defeated by the Conservatives, along with the Liberals. They argued that progress was being made and negotiations were under way to sign an agreement. I strongly disagree with this line of reasoning. This is putting the cart before the horse. There is no reason to rush the agreement through Parliament. If we in fact are on our way to signing a tax information exchange agreement, why not wait? What is the rush? Why not get that agreement in place before we sign a free trade agreement with a nation that has been known to have money laundering and tax evasion schemes in place? That question has still not been answered by the government.

Considering Panama's history and reputation on such matters, it should be clear why such an agreement is necessary before signing a trade deal and why we need to examine its terms and adequacies. The U.S. Congress would not ratify a free trade agreement with Panama before a tax information exchange agreement was signed. Why should we not have the same basic requirement in Canada? It does not make sense to me and I do not understand why or how it makes sense to the members of the House who intend to vote to pass the bill.

At the committee level, we proposed several reasonable amendments that would have made progressive changes to the bill. These included the addition of the crucial concepts of sustainable development and sustainable investment, a requirement for tax transparency and provisions to incorporate the protection of labour rights in the bill, including the right to collective bargaining. Other amendments would have required the Minister of International Trade to consult with labour and trade unions, as well as work with human rights experts and organizations in order to create impact assessments for the trade agreement.

There are many amendments. In total 13 were introduced, yet the Conservatives voted them down. They were reasonable amendments that would have made reasonable corrections to some of the things the Conservatives have overlooked in this free trade agreement. The NDP prefers the multilateral approach to trade and supports trade agreements that expand Canadian exports by reducing harmful barriers to trade and encourage the development of value-added industries.

I want to conclude by saying the same thing I started with. The Conservatives' trade record is very poor. When they took over government it was $25 billion in surplus. Now we are $50 billion in deficit. We should look this deal over before passing it.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there are many rules and regulations in this House and much terminology. One of the terms I have come to know, thanks to the Conservatives, is closure. That is shutting down a rigorous debate on legislation that is being introduced in this House. We debate to look at the laws we are passing in this House to see that they are conforming to Canadian values, to the Constitution and to what we want to do with this country. Yet the Conservatives are shutting that down.

Let me tell members about the trade policy of the Conservatives. When the Conservatives came into power in 2006, we had a $25-billion trade surplus. Today it is $50 billion in deficit. That is the Conservative record.

What are the Conservatives trying to hide in shutting down this debate?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we have a high standard for members of the military when it comes to discipline, their duties and justice. It is only fair that we give them a grievance process, a comparable process, so that the process we have will serve them. Clearly, the process that we have in place now is not working.

The member for Sherbrooke is absolutely correct. Most of the grievances, 96% in fact, are resolved by summary trial. The other 4% are through court martial.

The men and women in uniform deserve a process that is fair and effective and accountable to them.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments by the Minister of National Defence.

There was not really a question in there but he was talking about the previous versions of the bill. I was not part of the last Parliament, but it is my understanding that the bill was passed with a number of amendments from different parties and that the bill was left on the table either because Parliament was prorogued or the election was called at that time.

The minister is right. There are a couple of amendments that were brought in from the last bill, however, the majority of the concerns that were addressed in the last bill have still been left off the table. Here we have other governments, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand, that have reformed the summary trial process, and yet we have a government and a minister who have been ignoring the issue for a very long time.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, October 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-15, which is an act to amend the National Defence Act, or as the government calls it, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act.

While there are many important reforms in the bill and the NDP supports the long overdue update to the military justice system, as the official opposition we believe that Bill C-15 is a step in the right direction to bring the military justice system more in line with the civilian justice system. However, it falls short on key issues when it comes to reforming the summary trial system and the grievance system, and strengthening the military complaints commission.

Members of the Canadian armed forces are held to an extremely high standard of discipline and in turn they deserve a judicial system that is held to a comparable standard. A lot of Canadians would be shocked to learn that the people who bravely serve our country can end up with a criminal record from a system that lacks the due process usually required in civilian criminal courts.

A criminal record can make life a lot harder for military members after service. It can make getting a job, renting an apartment or travelling very difficult. The NDP will fight to bring more fairness to the Canadian military justice system for the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line in service of Canada.

Bill C-15 basically amends the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice following the 2003 report of the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer, and the May 2009 report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

In 2003, Lamer presented his report on the independent review of the National Defence Act. The Lamer report contains 88 recommendations pertaining to military justice, the Military Police Complaints Commission, the grievance process and the provost marshal.

Bill C-15 is the legislative response to these recommendations. Thus far, only 28 recommendations have been implemented in legislation, regulations or via a change in practice.

In essence, Bill C-15 is similar to the versions of Bill C-41 that came out of committee in the previous Parliament. However, other important amendments that were passed at committee stage at the end of the last parliamentary session were not included in Bill C-15.

These include the following amendments that were introduced by the NDP regarding the authority of the Chief of Defence Staff in the grievance process, responding to Justice Lamer's recommendations; changes to the composition of a grievance committee to include at least 60% civilian membership, which was amended clause 11 in Bill C-41; and a provision ensuring that a person who is convicted for an offence during a summary trial is not unfairly subjected to a criminal record.

Those are some of the amendments that were introduced by the NDP in the previous bill but are not part of Bill C-15.

The summary trial is by far the most commonly used form of service tribunal in the military justice system. It is designed to deal with minor offences in a forum where the possible punishments are limited. The objective is to deal with the alleged offences in a fast manner within the unit and return the member to service as soon as possible, thereby promoting and maintaining unit discipline.

Courts martial deal with more serious charges prosecuted within the system and are also available to deal with less serious charges at the option of the accused person.

In the last Parliament, the committee heard from Michel Drapeau, who said that summary trials continued to be the dominant disciplinary method used to try offences by the Canadian military, and that in 2008-2009, a total of 1,865 cases were determined by a summary trial. That is 96% of the total. He also said that only 67 were heard by court martial. In other words, only 4%.

The current grievance process is also flawed. Unlike in other organizations, grievers do not have unions or employee associations to which to pursue their grievances. It is essential to the morale of the Canadian Forces members that their grievances be addressed in a fair, transparent and prompt manner.

There are some shortcomings in the bill that we hope we can address at the committee stage if it passes second reading. More specifically, these are reforming the summary trial system, reforming the grievance system and strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. I will briefly talk to those three points.

The amendments in Bill C-15 do not adequately address the unfairness of summary trials. Currently, a conviction of a service offence from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There are no appeals or transcripts of the trial and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. This causes an undue harshness on certain members of the Canadian Forces who are convicted for minor service offences.

For example, some of these minor service offences include: insubordination, quarrels, disturbances, absence without leave, drunkenness and disobeying a lawful command. These could be matters that are extremely important to military discipline but they are not worthy of a criminal record. Bill C-15 makes an exemption for a select number of offences if they carry a minor punishment, which is defined in the act, or a fine of less than $500, to no longer result in a criminal record. This is one of the positive aspects of the bill but it does not, in our opinion, go far enough.

At committee stage last March, NDP amendments to Bill C-41 were carried to expand this list of offences that could be considered minor and not worthy of a criminal record from five to 27. The amendments also extended the list of punishments that may be imposed by a tribunal without an offender incurring a criminal record, such as a severe reprimand, a reprimand, a fine equal to one month's basic pay or another minor punishment.

This was a major step forward for summary trials. However, the amendment was not retained in Bill C-15 and we want to see it included. A criminal record can make life after the military very difficult.

The military grievance external review committee at present does not provide a means of external reviews. Currently, it is staffed entirely with retired Canadian Forces officers, some only relatively recently retired. If the Canadian Forces grievance board is to be perceived as an external and independent oversight civilian body, as it was designed to be, then the appointment process needs to be amended to reflect that reality. Thus, some members of the board should be drawn from civil society. The NDP amendment provided that at least 60% of the members of the grievance committee must never have been an officer or non-commissioned member of the Canadian Forces.

In regard to strengthening the military complaints commission, Bill C-15 amends the National Defence Act to establish a timeline within which the Canadian Forces would be required to resolve conduct complaints, as well as protect complainants from being penalized for submitting a complaint in good faith.

This is a good step in the right direction. However, the bill does not go far enough in addressing summary convictions or the complaints commission.

[Safe Food for Canadians Act, October 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight some of the points that my colleague made in his speech.

I have met with a number of people in my riding of Surrey North who have similar concerns in regard to having safe food available at our grocery stores and on their tables so it is safe for their children to eat.

The Americans banned the importing of beef two weeks before the Minister of Agriculture banned it in Canada. This legislation has been stuck in the Senate for 120 days. The government has had six years to come up with better legislation to address the food safety concerns of the Americans. What would be the honourable thing for the minister to do?

[Business of Supply, October 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member respond in terms of how the Conservatives are trying to balance the budget.

A relevant fact here is that under the Conservative government we have had a $54 billion deficit, the largest one Canadian history and it is under the current government. What the Conservatives have done, basically—

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with my colleague for Westmount—Ville-Marie on the bill being anti-democratic. It does not allow for debate in this House.

It is rare for me to agree with the Prime Minister, but when he was a young man back in 1994 he brought forward similar concerns to those the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, that the House be given the ability to debate different sections of an omnibus bill. However, when the young Prime Minister made his speech, the Liberals still rammed through their omnibus bill.

Is this motion an acknowledgement of the mistake that the Liberals made in 1994 of ramming through that omnibus bill?

[Petitions, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, join my colleagues in presenting a petition this morning signed by many people across this country.

The petitioners would like to draw the attention of this House to the Experimental Lakes Area research station which is a unique facility that provides research and education in regard to freshwater.

The petitioners call upon the government to recognize the importance of the ELA to the Government of Canada's mandate to study, preserve and protect aquatic ecosystems, and also to reverse the decision to close the ELA research station.

[Employment Insurance, October 4th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government is in denial about a problem that is affecting unemployed Canadians across this country.

Right now, there are approximately 870,000 unemployed Canadians with no EI compensation. That means fewer than half of all unemployed Canadians are receiving EI.

People come into my office, frustrated by trying to navigate their way through a system that has been crippled by Conservative cuts.

One man has been waiting over two months for his EI cheque. On his last box of macaroni and cheese, he had to go to the food bank for the first time in his life, when he should have been receiving the EI he had been paying into for over a decade.

New Democrats are fighting for an EI system that is fair, accessible and effective. It is time for the government to wake up, do something to help unemployed people in this country and fix the employment insurance system.