Paul Dewar

[CANADA-PANAMA ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that there was quite an interesting documentary on CBC last night, The New Conquistadors. It was focused on Panama, specifically mining in Panama. It talked about the toxic tailings ponds that are killing fish in lakes and water and the fact that indigenous people are being pushed off the land. Canadian mining companies are the ones that are involved here. We have indigenous people protesting in front of Canadian embassies. As a result, sadly, of the protest two people have been killed recently.

I say that because one of the issues around this trade deal is: Where is the binding framework agreement when it comes to environmental standards? I asked the member's colleague earlier if he could point out where it is in this agreement. He basically said that it was a side agreement and would promote the ideas of sustainability, et cetera, but there is no binding framework agreement that is actually going to be solid, like we have in NAFTA.

If I am missing something here, maybe the member could enlighten me. If not, why do we not have a solid binding framework agreement that is going to be something we could actually show people, to demonstrate we are being responsible when it comes to the environment?

[CANADA-PANAMA ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT, June 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to drill down a bit more on this agreement. Last night on CBC we saw a documentary on mining in Panama and the effects that it is having on the population and the environment, killing fish and lakes. Could the member tell me exactly where the binding framework is for Panama and Canada when it comes to the environment under this agreement?

We can have a side agreement, but if we do not have a binding framework agreement where citizens can come forward and raise concerns, like we do in NAFTA, it is only worth the paper it is written on, which is not a lot.

Can the member point out what section of this agreement would allow for a binding framework agreement when it comes to the environment?

[CANADA-PANAMA ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT, June 19th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I want to build on what my colleague was saying a minute ago. We know that even with NAFTA there is a framework for oversight on the environment and on labour, and that there is a panel to which citizens have recourse if they have a concern around what is happening with respect to the environment. It can be from Mexico, the United States or Canada.

That is not in this deal.

The notion that we cannot have binding and enforceable mechanisms in trade deals does not seem to make any sense. The government has said that is the best it can do, but we want responsible trade on this side, and the government wants to just simply sign off on whatever.

What does the member think about the mechanisms we have in existing trade deals, such as the ones I mentioned, and the ability to put those into future trade deals so that we actually have responsible trade?

[Copyright Modernization Act, June 15th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I want to get into this digital lock issue a bit more. Granted there is the case, as my colleague pointed out, where we do have options of renting or buying, but there is an issue around sharing, and people believe there should be an ability to share.

However, my question about digital locks regards education. My colleague brought forward the idea of having an amendment so that people in education, particularly those with certain disabilities, would be able to access content. Right now in the bill, there would be a limit on that and the digital lock, as was explained by my colleague, is not a lock in itself but an algorithm. So after the content is used once, the student would have to get rid of it and could be charged. It is the same with libraries.

Does the member not think it would be a reasonable amendment to accommodate those who need to use this for education, particularly those who need it because of a disability?

[Copyright Modernization Act, June 15th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, my colleague touched on something that is very important. We have to strike a balance. We have to protect creators. We have to ensure that they will get paid for their works.

I remember doing a press conference with Billy Bragg here in Ottawa. He was saying that as an artist he wanted to ensure that his fans would not be locked up and that they should be able to share music. However, we have to find a way to find that balance.

The government has put digital locks forward as a means of protection when we know the locks will not do so. They will actually interrupt that exchange that should be there.

Therefore, I would like to ask the member, could he share with me what he thinks would be a good balance? I think the government has it wrong. It is locking up that relationship between the artists and those who want to use the information. What is the balance, how do we get there, and how would he ensure that there is an equal playing field?

[Copyright Modernization Act, June 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his precise overview of this bill and the clear, progressive, smart ideas and propositions to change it. We just went through a couple of days of putting forward propositions that the Conservative government turned down, so it is no surprise when it turns them down.

The member just touched on something that is important for Canadians to know, because we have debated the issue for a long time. It is the notion that somehow Canada is on the wrong side of the tracks, that we are a haven for piracy, and that if we do not do this right away, we are going to threaten the whole industry and Canada will be be on a pirate list forever, I guess, with the Conservative government.

Can the member help us understand why the government insists that this is just an issue about piracy when it is actually an issue that is much more detailed and nuanced? Why does the member think the Conservatives reject our propositions and only want to look at this in a black and white frame?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 12th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's comments. I was struck with this notion that there is this and that so therefore we should support it.

Conservatives cannot get their head around the fact that Canadians are quite upset and outraged right now at the way this is being done. It is about separating the bill. It is about what one MP once said should be done in the House. He said, referencing another omnibus bill:

Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill. The bill contains many distinct proposals and principles and asking members to provide simple answers to such complex questions is in contradiction to the conventions and practices of the House.

That was the Prime Minister, and he was making a very salient argument. It was about taking a bill, which was smaller than this one, and asking members of Parliament to make decisions on things of which they did not know the consequences because they had not done their homework was irresponsible and undemocratic.

Why does the member stand and not reference what is a very cogent argument, that we should simply separate the bills and do our job respectfully, smartly and listen to Canadians?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the parliamentary secretary talk about the national round table. I wonder if he could comment on Bob Mills, the former Conservative environment critic, who had very critical things to say about shutting down the round table. What does the member think of the Conservative's comment about the Conservatives' budget being rammed through and killing the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from British Columbia for sharing his insights and also those of his constituents. We come here to represent our constituents. I asked one of the Conservatives earlier for comments on what the Prime Minister had said about representing constituents when he stood up, when he was opposition leader, and said that this was wrong, that this was anti-democratic. We know that one of the B.C. MPs from the government side tried to do the same and represent his constituents and we know what happened there.

This is about the fundamentals of democracy when we have a bill this size and we are asked as parliamentarians to go over it and assure our constituents that we have done everything we can do with due diligence. I would like the member's comments as to what he thinks this is doing to our parliamentary democracy, to representative democracy, and what it is doing to the role of the MP as we ensure we are representing our constituents. What does this bill do to that job?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I want to quote an MP, who said the following:

—it has become a standard practice with governments to bring in omnibus legislation following every budget under what we might call the kitchen sink approach....

How can members represent their constituents on these various areas when they are forced to vote in a block on such legislation and on such concerns?

We can agree with some of the measures but oppose others. How do we express our views and the views of our constituents when the matters are so diverse? Dividing the bill into several components would allow members to represent views of their constituents on each of the different components in the bill.

It was, of course, the Prime Minister who said that in 1994, and this is a bigger bill.

My question is about process. Does the member believe in what the Prime Minister said in 1994? How can she get behind a bill like this with the logic of the Prime Minister in 1994, which I agree with, on this approach, which is highly undemocratic?