John Rafferty

[Petitions, September 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.

The first petition concerns the CBC. The petitioners would like the Government of Canada to understand that CBC programming is an essential service in northwestern Ontario and to ensure that the quality of local programming remains and that jobs are not lost in northwestern Ontario.

[Petitions, September 29th, 2009]

I will certainly do that, Madam Speaker.

The second petition is a forestry petition, again signed by thousands of constituents in my riding, calling on the government to ensure that it convenes a national forestry summit.

[Petitions, September 29th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today, signed by, I dare say, thousands of constituents in my riding.

The first one deals with employment insurance. It calls on the government to confirm its commitment to the social safety net and to help regular Canadians through these tough times; to bring forward reform to employment insurance; to expand the eligibility and improve benefits, including eliminating the two-week waiting period; reducing the qualifying period; allowing self-employed workers to participate; raising the rate of benefits to 60% and basing benefits on the best 12 weeks in a qualifying period; and to encourage training and retraining.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a further statistic that 27 trade unionists have been murdered since January to last month. The carnage continues. It is difficult in a country where there are approximately 1,800 murders a year. That is not including people who are killed by landmines and other things. It is a problem Colombia has dealt with for decades and decades and indeed centuries.

I had an opportunity to speak to some government officials some months ago in Colombia. They said that this was a problem that had gone on for 2,000 years. I have been told that it is the oldest democracy in that part of the world, and this is nothing new in that country.

I stand and talk about fair trade and human rights to make the point that we can make a difference as a country when we enter into trade agreements with other countries.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, one of the big problems with this free trade agreement is that environment and labour rights are side agreements. When we have side agreement and we do not put them in the actual text of the agreement, they become largely unenforceable. We know that from experience. We know that through NAFTA. We know that through softwood lumber. We know trade agreements need to be strong on those elements. They need to ensure that human rights are not abused.

This agreement should present Canadians with an opportunity to help Colombia improve its record and to work toward a goal where we can work together and where human rights are not abused.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments on the former speaker's remarks, but maybe I will try to include those in the points that I am going to make today.

I would like to speak about four particularly egregious parts of this free trade agreement, and then I would like to talk a little bit about the difference between free trade and fair trade, which I think is an argument and a discussion that we need to have.

This free trade agreement really is a failure regarding labour rights protection. It does not include tough labour standards, and by putting it into a side agreement, outside of the main text without any vigorous enforcement mechanism, it is destined to do absolutely nothing. There are problems with that.

The second egregious aspect of this free trade agreement is a failure regarding environmental protection. The environmental issue is also addressed as a side agreement. It has no enforcement mechanism to force Canada or Colombia to respect environmental rights. It is as simple as that.

The third egregious part of this free trade agreement is the investor chapter. I have been out on this and my party has been out on this for a number of free trade agreements, including NAFTA. This investor chapter is almost copied directly from NAFTA's chapter 11 on investor rights. The bottom line is that it allows companies to sue governments. That is dangerous. It involves the sovereignty of nations.

The fourth egregious part, and this is what the previous speaker was talking about, is agriculture and agricultural tariffs. Colombia's poverty is directly linked to agricultural development in a country where 22% of the workforce is agricultural. Now an end to tariffs on a number of Canadian goods could very well flood the market with cheap goods and could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs in the agricultural sector of Colombia.

Those are the four aspects of this agreement that really cause me some grief, and I think cause the rest of the NDP some grief.

Let me talk about free trade and fair trade. What do I mean when I talk about fair trade? We hear this expression all the time. Fair trade is really trade rules and agreements that promote sustainable practices, domestic job creation and healthy working conditions, while allowing us to manage the supply of goods, promoting democratic rights abroad and maintaining democratic sovereignty at home. All of those are elements of fair trade.

Free trade agreements that we have entered into, and I have spoken back in my riding and in this House about NAFTA and softwood lumber and other agreements, really fall quite short of being considered fair trade.

The question remains, how do we promote fair trade? When we make agreements, we can have new agreements which encourage improvement in social, environmental and labour conditions rather than just minimizing the damage of unrestricted trade. Federal and provincial procurement policies should stimulate Canadian industries by allowing governments to favour suppliers here at home.

How else can we promote fair trade? Supply management boards and single-desk marketers, like the Canadian Wheat Board, can help to replace imports with domestic products and materials. Lastly, we can promote fair trade with local, community and individual initiatives to buy fair trade imports and locally-produced goods.

Why fair trade and not free trade? Fair trade policies protect the environment by encouraging the use of domestically and locally-produced goods. We hear all about the 100 mile diet and all sorts of things going on in this country. I have a large agricultural sector in my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

What using locally-produced goods basically means for the environment is less freight, less fuel and less carbon. By promoting environmentally-conscience methods for producers who ship to Canada, we can make a positive environmental impact.

By contrast, free trade policies, even those created with the environment in mind, do little to impede multinational corporations from polluting with abandon. The environmental side agreement of NAFTA, for example, has proven largely unenforceable, particularly when compared with other protections for industries and investors.

A system of fair trade that encourages the growth of Canadian jobs, both in quality and in quantity, fair competition rules and tougher labour standards will put Canadian industries on a level playing field with our trading partners and slow the international race to the bottom. That has resulted in the loss of thousands of Canadian manufacturing jobs.

Free trade rules, on the other hand, have hurt Canadian job quality. Since 1989, most Canadian families have seen a decline in real incomes. Fair trade can also protect labour rights by fostering the growth of workers' co-operatives and labour unions.

Like the environmental side accord, NAFTA's labour agreement has gone mostly unenforced, giving industries that are willing to violate workers' rights incentives to relocate Canadian jobs. Fair trade policies which favour co-ops, unions and equitable pricing will protect workers in the developing world who might otherwise be exploited and take away reasons for Canadian producers to export jobs.

Fair trade rules would also protect societies and human rights right around the globe. Although some predicted a human rights benefit from unrestricted free trade, this has yet to be seen. In contrast, conflicts between locals and multinational corporations in such places as Peru have become violent. A fair trade policy that aims for benefits for all parties can protect the most vulnerable from human rights abuse.

Here are some facts about Colombia.

Colombia is not, in the grand scheme of things, a very significant trading partner for Canada. It is our fifth largest trading partner in Latin America.

We have heard before in this debate, from various quarters, about the problems and the violence that goes on in Colombia. I have been to Colombia recently and while things have improved in the last six years in terms of numbers, it is still a country where three people a day on average are killed by land mines. That is the highest in the world. It is a dangerous place to live and it is a dangerous place to work.

What we can do with a trade agreement is help to promote a country that is healthy and respects human rights. Maybe that should be one of the most important things about a trade agreement, certainly a fair trade agreement.

If we think about the environment, nearly 200,000 hectares of natural forest are lost in Colombia every year due to agriculture, logging, mining, energy development and construction. The rights of indigenous peoples are trampled upon. Many people do not know that the very southern border actually runs along the Amazon River, where many of the indigenous peoples in Colombia live. It is a very important spot environmentally and a very important spot for indigenous people and indigenous rights.

Almost four million people in Colombia are internally displaced, and 60% of this displacement is really in regions of mineral activity, agricultural and other economic activities.

I do not believe that this free trade agreement is very well thought out. I do believe that improvements could have been made. We could end up with, rather than a free trade agreement, a fair trade agreement, if only the government had the will to do so.

[Employment Insurance Act, September 28th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest. The member has concerns about rural Canada, as do I, and I certainly agree with some of her points about the hardships people are facing right now.

However, I have a little trouble listening to a speaker from the party that clearly, over the years, picked the pockets of employers and employees to the tune of $50-some billion and gutted the insurance system.

Would the member not now be interested in taking some small steps toward improving the EI system instead of looking for a $300 million election?

[Employment Insurance Act, September 28th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, there are approximately 1.6 million people who are unemployed right now. The bill will help tens of thousands of them and I am very pleased to support it.

I do not understand what some members of the House feel would be steps in the right direction. They may be small steps, they may be baby steps, but they are still moving forward and helping Canadians in this country. I for one in all good conscience support that.

I heard people in my riding very clearly all through the summer say, “$1 billion for unemployment or a $300 million election, take your pick”. It was pretty clear which direction we should go in.

Why does the member think there are members of the House who are not interested in making those baby steps, eventually becoming large steps, in the right direction?

[Employment Insurance Act, September 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds as if this member and perhaps his party are running a little scared and are trying to justify where they are right now.

I have a question for the member. For the people in Thunder Bay—Rainy River, this is a question of a billion dollars for the unemployed or a $300 million election. I heard loud and clear all summer that the election is not a go. Now we see movement from the government on pension reform, on things that we have been talking about, such as protecting workers' pensions. We have seen some movement from the government in the last week.

Let me ask the hon. member this question. Is he not even interested in moving forward, co-operating and protecting workers' pensions?

[Made in Canada Act, September 18th, 2009]

Yikes is right. Mr. Speaker, if we want to make life less affordable for people in Ontario, such as the people in my riding, why not increase the cost of goods by 8%, and in some cases 13%, for things that have not been taxed before?

I have spoken to all sorts of small business owners who do not want to be coddled. All they want is a fair deal. They want to be able to sell a cup of coffee or one of the great products that comes out of Thunder Bay, Persians. People cannot afford another 8% on top of that. Small businesses cannot afford that. This is all about making life affordable for all Canadians and the people in my riding. Shame on them for the harmonized sales tax. We will have a lot more to say about that later.

Speaking of affordable, not only do we have to keep Canadians working to make it affordable, but there also has to be industry to make life affordable, so that people can be employed. If preference is not given to Canadian companies, those companies will wither and die. A good example is that just recently, the federal government refused to pay its fair share for the city of Toronto to help keep its environment clean and green by having streetcars built at the Bombardier plant in my riding.

Not only are the people in my riding disappointed with the actions of the federal government, but they are disappointed because the government does not seem to understand that if Canadian taxpayers are paying for something, it is a government's responsibility to do everything it possibly can to ensure that those things are built right here in Canada with Canadian taxpayers' money.

I will speak briefly about Bombardier. Bombardier is a state-of-the-art streetcar, train car and subway car manufacturer. It is the best in the world. I have been through that plant a couple of times. Raw materials such as sheets of aluminum come in one end and go out as finished streetcars. The only thing the Bombardier plant in my riding does not make are the wheels. They buy the wheels from somebody else. Everything else is manufactured from scratch in that plant.

It means that those are highly skilled, well paid jobs. If Toronto needs streetcars, subway cars or train cars, it is the government's responsibility to ensure that those train cars are built right here in Canada and preferably right here in Ontario.

The issue is very simple. Canadian taxpayers are going to be purchasing manufactured goods. We are talking about billions of dollars of goods in the case of Bombardier and the streetcars for Toronto. If we are going to spend that money, it is going to come out of the pockets of workers who struggle every day to make ends meet and put food on the table. What would happen if the government had its way? Those jobs would be offshore.

There was a big fight. A whole of people wanted to see those streetcars made in China. We are talking about billions of dollars worth of streetcars, well-paying jobs, and there was a group who wanted to have them built in China.

It might have been $50,000 cheaper to build them in China. However, what about the service? What about after-service? What about after manufacturing? What about people who have the skills in this country to work and work hard on behalf of their families and they do not have an opportunity to work?

Mr. Speaker, I see I am running--