Marc-André Morin

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues we discussed in parliamentary committee was protecting human rights and the environment. I think that this aspect was left out of this agreement. There are agreements in principle and a bunch of good intentions, but if someone violates these rules, there are no sanctions, or if there are, they are ridiculous.

If the members opposite were sincere and truly wanted this free trade agreement to benefit all the parties, they would have ensured that there were some legitimate rules. For example, they would have required that the tax information issue be resolved before ratification, as the Americans did. They are showing the same negligence with respect to labour and environment bills. There is all kinds of lip service and plenty of fine promises, but there are no sanctions or oversight mechanisms. It was the same thing with Colombia, and if we allow it to happen, it will be the same thing with China and other countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, we do not live on a Pacific island. We have important neighbours on whom we already depend too much. We must not become a sort of Kazakhstan by taking care of border security for the Americans. Nor should we become a bottomless pit of natural resources and export our jobs south of the border. We must have a comprehensive trade strategy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is accusing us of being ideologically stubborn and against free trade. However, our position is very pragmatic: we oppose the kind of free trade proposed by the members opposite. We oppose free trade when it is negotiated without any economic, industrial or energy strategies.

Free trade agreements do not come out of a Cracker Jack box. They must be taken more seriously. The future of the country is at stake, and we are keenly aware of that.

We are asking these legitimate questions on behalf of Canadians. We are worried about the government's ability to negotiate these kinds of agreements.

I myself am by no means an expert in international trade. However, because of what I do know, I am worried about what this government is doing. One negotiator has said that only the intellectual property issue remains to be settled and that it will not take long, because it is a formality. In my opinion, he does not really understand what is happening.

We now realize just how important intellectual property is. All major conflicts and serious disputes in relation to international trade end up in lawsuits over intellectual property. And that is merely one aspect.

When a dispute arises after a treaty is signed, the problem is often not solved by lawyers but by discussions about semantics. Two words can easily cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

For example, two English phrases from article 14 of the North American Free Trade Agreement—“in comparison with” and “in relation to”—were challenged. In the end, after debating the meaning of these phrases, the United States levied a preposterous tax that almost destroyed Canada's softwood lumber industry and cost tens of thousands of jobs.

In the long term, we are gambling with the future of our country. I remember that, when I was young, we built locomotives and cargo ships. We manufactured and exported every kind of product. Naturally, things have changed, but soon we may not even be manufacturing hockey sticks or curling brooms anymore. It is time we had an intelligent long-term strategy for international trade.

It used to be that when I travelled abroad, people would tell me that Canada was a great country that had a coherent international policy and did a lot for foreign aid. Now, I am still told that Canada is a great country, but people tell me that it takes one week to travel by car from Montreal Island to Vancouver. That is not exactly the kind of grandeur to which we aspire. That is all about geography. Canada is fading as a great economic and diplomatic power. We must stop tarnishing our image. The members opposite need to think and listen when we ask intelligent questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not look that old—especially lately—but I have been in politics for 40 some years. Yet I have never seen a parliamentary leader blame the opposition for everything. He is harping on the carbon tax and making the same jokes day after day. I would prefer a carbon tax to a neuron tax. I do not know why he is avoiding the crux of the problem.

If Canada is at a disadvantage compared to the United States, it is because the Conservatives dragged their feet and did not get this agreement passed. Furthermore, they did not sign a tax information exchange agreement with Panama, as the Americans did.

If people from Prince Edward Island have to wait longer to sell their potatoes, we are not the ones to blame. The Conservatives are the ones who dragged their feet and did not do their job.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that we live in the best country in the world, according to the talking points issued by the Prime Minister's Office that the Conservatives are so proud to read, but I am still rising to speak to Bill C-24 today with some concern.

It is all well and good to criticize the official opposition and claim that it is systematically against free trade, but members must understand that we are only against free trade in the Conservative sense, meaning some willy-nilly free trade without any kind of strategy or reflection. It is easy to say that we are against free trade. Personally, I am in favour of free trade with Japan. Japan is a good example of a modern country with very high standards and whose economy complements ours.

I get the impression that the Conservatives are dragging their feet in that case. But it does not hesitate to forge ahead with signing an agreement with Panama. I have nothing against Panama. On the contrary, I admire it a lot for emerging from a civil war and decades of corruption. It has improved a lot, but its justice and tax systems are still works in progress. These systems are not fully functional yet.

What concerns me is that, when this bill was studied in committee, we asked the government to adopt the same cautious approach that the Americans took and to require the signature of a tax information exchange agreement before ratifying the treaty. That is why the Americans ratified their treaty before Canada. From the outset, they required Panama to sign a tax agreement before Congress would ratify the agreement. This was basic good sense and represents the type of suggestions that we make in committee. The government did not adopt or support a single one of our proposals except those that were completely superficial or pertained to a procedural matter that involved buying time.

It is important to understand that Canada's international reputation and status as a leading nation are being compromised. My colleagues gave a list of all the countries that will soon be ahead of us economically. The reason is that these countries have long-term industrial, transportation and economic strategies. What is more, the trade they do with other countries is included in those strategies. I get the impression that the government would rather make agreements with countries such as China.

I apologize for getting off topic a little, but I would like to give an example. China has developed an absolutely enormous capacity to produce renewable energy and is producing wind and solar power. However, it does not possess a distribution network. The country has thus taken to dumping its renewable energy products onto international markets. The Chinese have already killed the three biggest solar power manufacturers in the United States and they are close to destroying their wind energy competitors in the United States and Europe. The agreement that the government is preparing to sign with China would open the door to these products. This would nip in the bud any potential to develop a similar industry in Canada.

When we make criticisms and propose amendments, these are the types of situations that we are thinking of. The Conservatives must take out their ideological earplugs and listen to us a little. We are not here to destroy or paralyze—

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague why the government defeated the amendment we proposed in committee, which stated that before entering into an agreement with Panama, Canada would require a tax information exchange agreement, like the U.S. did. Indeed, the U.S. required Panama to sign such an exchange agreement before the U.S.-Panama free trade agreement could be signed.

Why will Canada not do the same? Was there no time to think about it, despite all the years we spent working on the agreement?

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a procedural expert, but I believe we are discussing a bill. It seems to me that the other two parties, who have always gotten along well, are now putting the official opposition on trial. I also get the impression that we are wasting our time and going around in circles. We need to get back to today's discussion topic.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister.

If Canada were to enter into an agreement with the Cayman Islands, would the agreement include an exchange of tax information and banking secrets, or would we simply sign it without even looking at it?

[National Philanthropy Day Act, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, when 850,000 people rely on food banks for their groceries, it is time for this government to thank those who provide the food, rather than brag about its achievements.

I am honoured to rise here today to support Bill S-201, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day.

Six other, similar bills have been introduced in this House. Unfortunately, they all died on the order paper.

Like all of my NDP colleagues, I support this measure and I hope that all members of this House will do the same.

It is high time that Canadian philanthropists and volunteers were recognized thanks to National Philanthropy Day on November 15. I also hope that this recognition will serve to make the public more aware of the importance of philanthropy.

Despite the wonderful prosperity we are heading towards, some of our most vulnerable citizens are being left behind.

Volunteers and philanthropists give their time and energy to take care of those less fortunate. They do so with tremendous dedication. If governments took on those responsibilities, it would cost the state billions of dollars—$71.9 billion, to be exact, according to Statistics Canada, or 7.8% of the GDP. That is more than the automotive or manufacturing industry. Granting these people one day of recognition is the least we could do.

The riding of Laurentides—Labelle is a model of solidarity and community spirit. It has a multitude of community resources for various aspects of the lives of its residents: organizations for youth and for the elderly, for the food, accommodation, education and environment sectors, and for international solidarity.

In the Antoine-Labelle RCM alone, there are more than 250 non-profit organizations run by volunteer boards of directors.

If the children of unemployed workers who are not receiving benefits have something to eat, it is no thanks to the sensitivity of the minister, for whom the penny dropped at the last minute just in time to patch up her botched reform. It is rather thanks to the volunteers of an organization in Antoine-Labelle called La Manne du jour, which collects donations from businesses and residents. In 2011, the organization helped to feed 1,229 people, including 465 children. This was the result of 11,110 hours of volunteer effort.

With the current investigations into corruption and collusion, there are too many stories making the rounds about elected representatives, business people and entrepreneurs undermining the well-being of society to line their own pockets and boost their status.

Fortunately, there are still people in this world who are willing to set their own personal comforts aside to devote their energy to ensuring that everyone can live in dignity.

These people are working to create a better world, which makes up for the others who are motivated by competition and personal ambition.

Canada has 160,000 non-profit and charitable organizations, more than half of which are run entirely by volunteers.

I unreservedly support Bill S-201. However, I would add that simply establishing National Philanthropy Day is not enough. Giving recognition on paper to these volunteers is only a first step towards proper recognition for what they do all the time, and the resources and tireless efforts they deploy to help society and to build a better world. This initial step needs to be followed by concrete action.

We need to face reality and look at the other side of the coin. Establishing Philanthropy Day is hypocritical given the cuts now being made by the Conservative government.

It is indeed distressing to see that at the very moment we are speaking of establishing National Philanthropy Day, philanthropic organizations are having their funding curtailed.

The government talks about austerity when it makes cuts to assistance programs for the poor. It talks about cuts as though they were a magic solution to economic problems. Many charities and non-profit organizations face financial uncertainty and wonder how they can meet the growing demands of Canadians living in precarious circumstances.

In the context of these draconian cuts, we also see partisan selection at work. Some organizations remain excluded; some are greatly disadvantaged by the selection and grants process, while others experience outright interference, which forces them to abandon their work. The volunteer sector is more than neglected by the Conservative government.

We have to wonder about the future of philanthropy and determine what direction we want to take. We must not send a contradictory message, by proposing to establish a National Philanthropy Day on the one hand and making serious cuts to grants to philanthropic organizations on the other. That simply makes no sense. I sincerely believe in the benefits of philanthropy and in establishing a National Philanthropy Day to recognize the work of all those men and women. I also believe it is necessary to offer more resources, to them and to the organizations with which they work.

I would therefore call upon the government to pass this bill. However, I would ask it to take action by introducing specific measures. As we have not yet entirely solved the social problems of Canadians, and as they are not all young and healthy, it is time for the government to take a serious interest in all these philanthropists and volunteers who are striving to correct the government's mistakes and negligent acts. Philanthropists and volunteers deserve real assistance to help them continue their work. Otherwise our entire society will lose out.

[Jobs and Growth, 2012, October 30th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the area my hon. colleague represents. I have travelled all over northwest British Columbia. Major pieces of infrastructure could go through rivers like the Dease and the Stikine, as well as lakes where the water is safe to drink. These regions should be protected by UNESCO, because they are very sensitive ecosystems.

Is my colleague worried about the fact that there is almost nothing left to protect these waterways and lakes? What does he think of the fact that there are practically no more environmental hearings? What will protect that area?