House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2015, with 31% of the vote.
Housing December 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, access to emergency or permanent housing is essential for women who want to escape violence. Every year, 100,000 women and children are forced out of their homes. Affordable housing is critical. Yet Canada is the only G8 country that still does not have a national housing strategy.
Will the government finally develop a housing strategy to guarantee women who are trying to escape violence a safe place to live?
The NDP has a bill to this effect. Will the Conservatives support it?
Roger Rondeau December 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to pay tribute to a dearly departed friend.
Roger Rondeau had a vivid imagination. If you needed a handyman, Roger was your man. He was an outstanding photographer, and he cultivated miniature roses and even bonsai trees. A few years before he died, Roger became homeless. Did the image in my colleagues' minds change when they heard that? Why?
During this holiday season, let us think of the Rogers of the world. Conservative members and ministers must know how important it is to renew the homelessness partnering strategy in 2014 and to index, or even increase, its budget.
Anyone can end up on the street, just as Roger Rondeau did. And there are at least 300,000 others just like him across Canada.
Happy holidays, ladies and gentlemen. And farewell, Roger.
Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 November 29th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned earlier that 4 million Canadians had core housing needs and that between 150,000 and 300,000 of them were homeless, but there is nothing in the budget for housing. The hon. member referred to a study by the Wellesley Institute, but the Gaetz report also deals with the real cost of homelessness.
Personally, I think housing is an investment. I am convinced that my colleague agrees. Housing benefits the economy. This could be one way of paying some expenses. Therefore, perhaps the hon. member could tell us how providing housing to people benefits the economy.
Financial Literacy Leader Act November 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, with respect to literacy in general, we know that 43% of the population has level 3 or lower reading skills. This portion of the population already has difficulty reading. Financial literacy could perhaps help somewhat, but if people cannot read, there may be measures, other than financial literacy initiatives, that would better help people to help themselves financially.
Housing November 22nd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, today is National Housing Day, but there is nothing to celebrate. One and a half million Canadian households have desperate needs in terms of housing, and 600,000 Canadians are in danger of losing their housing subsidy if the Conservatives do not renew the social housing agreement.
Canada is the only country that does not have a national housing strategy. The Conservatives have a golden opportunity to discuss this with the provinces during the first ministers' meeting in Halifax.
When will they stop ignoring social housing needs?
Service Canada November 7th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are cutting old age security, limiting access to employment insurance and making budget cuts at Service Canada. Obviously, we voted against all that. Statistics show that the quality of service has declined. Why? Because of the Conservatives' budget cuts. Service Canada employees are swamped. The Conservatives did not learn their lesson and they are continuing to make cuts.
Will the minister wake up and address the problem with regard to the lack of resources?
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act November 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I now remember the second part of my answer.
We have the upper hand when we are discussing and negotiating the agreement, and that is when we can bring in everything we want. We cannot do it after the fact. Afterward, we no longer have that option. The best time is when we are negotiating an agreement. That is when we should include rules to protect workers and the environment, to ensure that we end up with a real agreement and not an illegitimate one.
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act November 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I have said twice now that we support free trade agreements when there are agreements and assurances that human rights will not be violated.
I forgot the second part of my answer. I apologize.
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act November 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I just said that we are in favour of trade, but economics is not the only aspect to trade. Yes, the economic aspect is important, but there are also the environmental and human aspects.
We will always oppose agreements that do not propose anything to improve the lives of citizens and workers in terms of their rights, for example. We will absolutely oppose that.
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act November 6th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.
I must confess that I am worried about Bill C-24, which will have a serious impact on people's lives. The free trade agreement between Canada and Panama will negatively affect a lot of people. Yet the government flatly refuses to adopt the amendments we have proposed. I would like to explain why I oppose this bill.
First of all, Panama's status as one of the world's worst tax havens is not improving any. I think that one of the main functions of government is to ensure that all citizens and businesses contribute to public revenues in an equitable way. Implementing this free trade agreement will make tax evasion even easier for unscrupulous individuals and businesses.
To ensure that this agreement does not provoke even more tax evasion, a tax information exchange agreement needs to be signed before we go ahead with a trade agreement. That is exactly what the U.S. Congress did. It refused to ratify its free trade agreement with Panama until a tax information exchange agreement was signed.
The Conservatives can claim all they like that these fiscal matters have been addressed, but the truth is that they have not been adequately addressed. And they certainly have not been finalized. I find this very troubling, especially considering the high volume of money laundering activities in Panama, including laundering of money from drug trafficking.
The agreement does not yet contain any provisions regarding the automatic exchange of information. Individual requests must be made. For these kind of requests, it is often necessary to know the name of the person suspected of tax evasion in order to request tax information from the other country. As one can imagine, governments rarely obtain this information unless there is a whistleblower.
The member for Vancouver Kingsway moved a motion that made a lot of sense. He suggested that we postpone the implementation of the trade agreement with Panama until an information exchange agreement is signed. Unfortunately, both the Conservatives and the Liberals opposed this motion. Apparently the U.S. Congress had more foresight than the two old parties in the House of Commons. But during negotiations for this agreement with the Republic of Panama, Canada had the upper hand. That was the time to bring in all of the important clauses. But sadly, the Conservatives missed that opportunity.
We must also consider the environmental aspect. We cannot ignore the fact that this free trade agreement is a gift to large mining companies. The agreement has a chapter on the environment, but this chapter is not binding. The agreement is extremely weak from an environmental perspective. No monetary penalties are imposed if a party violates the rules.
There are some great principles but they are not enforced. There are empty words and honourable intentions, but there is nothing concrete to back them up. There is no control mechanism other than sheer political will, and in Panama, political will rarely favours protecting the environment. So we have to wonder: who will ensure that environmental standards are met?
Under this agreement, international mechanisms will be used for dispute resolution. As we know, these mechanisms are very expensive and cumbersome. Take the case of the American multinational that wanted to locate in Mexico a few years ago. The land had been purchased but construction had not yet started. The local government realized that operations of the plant would contaminate the groundwater and hence the region's drinking water. It was opposed to the multinational moving there. Citing chapter 11 of NAFTA, the U.S. firm dragged the local government before an international tribunal. Although the multinational did not even have a shovel in the ground and its operations would have contaminated the region's source of drinking water, the court sided with the company.
No local community will be able to afford to have its arguments heard before international tribunals. What the men and women of Panama are being told is that this has nothing to do with them and that they have no say. That is unfair and insulting. Why are big companies, such as mining companies, entitled to recourse, but mere citizens are not?
That is the old way of going about development. The NDP intends to promote the sustainable development of natural resources while respecting the will of the people. That is the opposite of the Conservatives' approach.
To conclude my remarks about the environment, I will quote Jennifer Moore, of MiningWatch Canada.
In committee, she said:
...this agreement is going to ensure greater legal stability for the Canadian mining industry within the context of a regulatory regime in Panama that has demonstrated itself to be ineffective at preventing detrimental consequences to...the environment....
Is that really what the Conservatives want? What image do they think that projects of our country on the world stage? This problem would have been easy to fix, but no, the government refused to listen to us. It is unbelievably sad.
Another thing I am concerned about is workers' rights. This is important to me and to the NDP. We believe that major development projects have to be carried out respectfully without ideological confrontations. That is why I wonder why there are no clauses in the agreement on protecting workers' rights. There is no mention of the right to strike, for example. Employers have carte blanche to fire striking employees. They also have the right to hire scabs. For years, the Conservatives have been refusing to add anti-scab legislation to the Canada Labour Code, so we should not be too surprised that they do not object to this practice in Panama.
Workers' rights have often not been respected in Panama. I am not talking about decades ago. Just a few months ago there were violent confrontations between striking workers and the police. They took a terrible toll: six demonstrators were killed, several were injured and 300 union leaders were detained arbitrarily. This is a frontal attack on the fundamental rights of workers. What did the Conservative government do about all this? Nothing at all.
My colleague from Vancouver Kingsway proposed two amendments on this in committee. He wanted to guarantee that unionized workers in Panama had the right to collective bargaining. He also wanted to require Canada's representative on the joint Panama-Canada commission to consult on a regular basis with representatives of Canadian unions. But, alas, the Conservatives rejected all these ideas.
We are being asked to support a free trade area where workers' rights will be further degraded. It is distressing. I would also like to point out how inflexible my Conservative and Liberal colleagues were throughout this entire debate. We proposed a host of amendments to improve this agreement. One after the other, our ideas were rejected, even through there was practically no debate on their relevance. Simply put, they did not take our ideas seriously.
Is that not also the case with several private members' bills that propose changes suggested by the official opposition? This government is making a complete mockery of democracy.
The NDP supports trade, and, like many Canadians, we want to eliminate trade barriers. But this is no reason for us to lose our critical thinking. At second reading, we voted to send this bill to committee in the hope of bringing forward some progressive amendments, but not one was accepted.
Yet this is a simple and straightforward matter. What the NDP wants is international trade that encourages the development of value-added Canadian industries, that creates jobs in Canada by expanding access to foreign markets for our products, and that promotes sustainable development around the world and responsible investment that protects the rights of workers here and everywhere else, while protecting our tax system.
The NDP is in favour of fair trade for all, not just blind free trade that benefits large corporations most of all. But the Conservative government does not want Canadians to know this. Once again, it is imposing a time allocation motion to limit the debate on this.
For fiscal, environmental and social reasons, I do not support Bill C-24. This bill is not good for either Canadians or Panamanians.
I invite my hon. colleagues to reflect carefully on the arguments I just raised. Let us reflect carefully on the consequences of what we are about to do. The consequences will be very apparent for a very long time.