Paulina Ayala

[Business of Supply, April 26th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about seniors, which is a good thing. However, the government is attacking future generations instead. Our youth are already paying more for their education and housing and to provide for their families, and now their future is being jeopardized.

Young people have been taken hostage by this government. They see how the government is destroying Canadians' social safety net little by little and ensuring that those who have enjoyed benefits that have been in place for decades will be the last to do so. The fair Canada we have known is no more. The message is clear.

I would ask my hon. colleague what we can say to our youth, who will have to work longer to pay for this slashing of the social safety net.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague ended his speech by talking about Canadian families. I would like to ask him about the outcome. We are already familiar with the negative impact of these agreements: plant closures in Montreal and throughout Canada, employees threatened with having their jobs moved elsewhere, violation of legal agreements, and so forth. Has anything positive come out of these agreements?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks about the government's vision regarding free trade agreements.

Do we find, in these agreements, the sincere ambition of a government to contribute to enhancing the quality of life of our economic partners? Do we find, in these agreements, Canada's undertaking to support these countries to improve social conditions, while honouring individual and collective rights, labour standards, and environmental and other standards?

In other words, is the government trying to capitalize on the weaknesses of certain countries in these areas?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, March 29th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I believe that negotiating free trade agreements country by country shows a lack of ambition because there is no broad, regional vision. I have a question for my colleague about that.

If we examine European agreements, we see that the discourse in the European Union is such that free trade agreements establish winning conditions for long-term co-operation in order to achieve respectful and successful trade relations.

Do you believe that Canada relies simply on an economic criterion when developing its free trade agreements and that we do not have a regional vision for the Americas?

[Reconstruction of Haiti, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last week, I went to Haiti with some ParlAmericas colleagues. We were able to see first-hand Canada's commitment to the reconstruction of this devastated country. The people of Haiti are very grateful for the generosity and solidarity shown by foreign governments, which have saved many lives. Nevertheless, the extension of emergency aid is creating a climate of dependency and thus negatively affecting the Haitian economy and society.

After meeting with members of Haiti's parliament and people from local NGOs, I realized just how excluded the people of Haiti are feeling when it comes to the reconstruction of their own country. Canada is facing a major challenge—to inspire a new direction in international co-operation.

We must promote independent and sustainable economic development and always encourage grassroots participation. The people of Haiti must be allowed to take charge of their own destiny in the rebuilding of their country.

[Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. What he said moves me deeply. My little brother is also gay. He had to leave Chile at the end of the dictatorship because of the terrible homophobia there. He has been granted refugee status. He is a man with a job, who contributes a great deal to the Canadian economy.

I would like to come back to the issue of human trafficking. I think personally that we are focusing on the wrong target. I have heard it said that refugee claimants who arrive by boat are criminals. The children are sent to foster homes, and so on. We are looking at the wrong target. The real criminals we should be putting in prison are the smugglers, the ones who are taking advantage of these people in distress. Instead of putting people in jail and putting children in foster homes, we should increase the number of employees and the number of judges dealing with refugee claims. There is money for this, but there is a shortage of professionals. I agree with putting smugglers in jail, but not the people who are living in misery.

Does my colleague not believe that we are focusing on the wrong people when we criminalize the people who are seeking asylum instead of the traffickers?

[Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, certain subjects really attract my attention. When my esteemed colleague began his speech, he was talking about the economy. I think that when we talk about refugees, we are speaking primarily about human rights, in fact.

I would also like to draw a parallel with what I heard the minister say: the parents are criminals, so they are taken into custody, and the children are taken into care. I have also heard people say that refugees are just freeloaders. They are people who are taking advantage of the system and therefore they are costing the system money.

Suppose we do an economic analysis. How much does it cost to build a detention centre? How much does it cost to keep someone in detention for year? These people cannot work and therefore they cannot support themselves. This is going to cost taxpayers even more.

Because of the costs of detention centres and all that is involved in keeping each claimant in custody for a year, taxpayers will have to pay even more. Does my esteemed colleague not agree with this opinion?

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, February 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canada can play a positive role in taking up the challenges faced by Panama, a country that has to carve out a place for itself with a population of barely three million people in an ever-changing America. These three million people, for the most part, deserve to participate in and contribute to the growth being enjoyed by Latin America.

There are, however, facts that cannot be ignored if we wish to enter into a free trade agreement with Panama. Panama is one of the most active tax havens. The main economic activity in Panama is the provision of financial services. The G20 met in London in 2009 and stressed the importance of dealing with the problems caused by tax havens and now, Canada is working in the opposite direction and opening up a new front to facilitate tax leakage. An agreement with Panama will promote tax evasion, which involves depriving the taxman of huge sums of money. Canadians will not benefit from the agreement any more than Panamanians.

One aim is to significantly reduce tariffs. However these reductions in a poor country such as Panama could have serious consequences. For example, Panamanian products will end up in competition with Canadian products when, in fact, Panamanians will have little chance of exporting their own goods unless it is produced in conditions of poverty.

We know that the Conservative government has calculated the potential gains for Canada. Nobody is denying that Panama has a lot to offer. Nor is anyone denying that Panamanians are every bit the equals of their Latin American neighbours when it comes to their talent and their determination to provide a rich and honest life for their families.

An outstretched hand between two nations has tremendous potential. Today, I would say that such gestures are necessary. Canadians have extended a hand to welcome, dialogue and co-operate. Obviously, this co-operation benefits Canadians, who in turn create coveted wealth with their partners: jobs, good jobs, a peaceful youth, well-being, and even some money under the mattress. Canadians have a hand extended, but we are not sure that the government really understands why.

Canadians are afraid the government will use this outstretched hand to take without giving back. Canadians are afraid the government will flout Canadian values in its trade with other nations. The many oversights in this free trade agreement only fuel this fear. We need to ask ourselves if they are in fact oversights or if they are deliberate omissions. As it has done regarding the environment and in other areas, is the government limiting itself to developing international agreements based on what it can get out of them? Is it forgetting to include what it has to offer and should offer because it has run out of steam or run out of ink, or is it doing so deliberately? Are these omissions an invitation to Canadian companies to simply take what they like, without giving anything back, an invitation to traffickers of all kinds to continue to plunder?

I am certain that Canadian values are dear to the Conservative members. I have travelled with some of them and, together, we have seen how Canada can help meet certain challenges faced by these countries.

We were all touched by the difficulties being experienced by a number of our neighbours in the Americas. We discussed some promising solutions.

For that reason, I find it difficult to understand the lack of ambition in the bills they are introducing today. Having seen what we are capable of and what contributions we can make, I am surprised by the silence of the proposed agreements. The Conservatives could use the opportunity afforded by this new relationship to provide more education for young Panamanians, and more training for workers and upgrading for those who persevere.

However, they are taking the laissez-faire approach. They are choosing to let others promote Canadian values, and to let corporations make the decisions on trade reciprocity.

In its bill, the government claims to want to “protect, enhance and enforce basic workers' rights”. If the government were as serious about this aspect as it is about eliminating trade barriers, there would be more substance in these agreements. There might be a little more for Panamanians. If the government were serious, it would not merely list the areas of co-operation that are likely to be developed in the future.

The Conservatives could immediately guarantee adequate working conditions, whether by ensuring a minimum wage or labour standards that meet Canadian standards. Instead, they adopt a laissez-faire attitude. They could immediately protect children by offering them education and ensuring they are not put to work. This does not only mean eliminating the worst forms of child labour, but also asking businesses to reinvest 1% of their payroll in training, or promoting local hiring and co-operation with training programs. But the Conservatives adopt a laissez-faire attitude.

Yet, these would be winning conditions for all in an international relationship. He who extends his hand to grab is protecting his own pocket first and foremost. If the government's intention is to simply ensure a secure environment for Canadian investments, then it will confirm Canadians' fear and betray their values. On the other hand, if the government is serious in its desire to develop the potential of the Canada—Panama relationship, then it must be ambitious.

Canadian businesses must bring in as much as they take out. That is a principle of fairness essential to trade. If, in exchange for opening up the Panamanian market we only get a few fruits and vegetables at a discount, while also allowing tax evasion on a bigger scale, then there will be no gain for Canadians. Panama does not deserve to be isolated. On the contrary, that is the worse thing that could happen, including to us. Such isolation would give even more freedom to profiteers. Panama also does not deserve to open its frontiers to speculation and to investment without restrictions.

As for Canadians, they do not deserve to see their confidence and values betrayed by their government's negligence. They do not deserve to see agreements signed on their behalf promote abuse instead of combating it. We have all a duty here to ensure that this free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama is balanced and ambitious. Therefore, let us work together to ensure that it is indeed the case.

[Ending the Long-Gun Registry Act, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's interference in provincial matters is unacceptable. It is one thing to no longer invest in this registry, but is quite another to unilaterally decide what the provinces would do with the data for which Canadians have paid. What are we to make of this intrusion into the decisions by certain provinces to keep collecting data? How far will this ideology go? Where will this denial of provincial jurisdictions end? What does the hon. member think?

[Torture, February 13th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, I took part in a meeting of elected members from eastern Canada, elected members from the different political parties and the different levels of government. Despite our political differences, the only focus of the meeting was the well-being of our constituents. That is true democracy: working together.

I must admit, I was very shocked to hear the Minister of Public Safety's comments about torture. Torture is a despicable and evil act. During the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, my brother was tortured at a police station. He was handing out leaflets promoting the right to vote. That very sad event still scars him today.

The Chilean government at the time believed it was justified. It felt that national security was in jeopardy. History shows us that it was wrong. In a democracy, we cannot give the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or any other official, the power to decide on the legitimacy of the use of torture. It is an attack on human dignity.

Canada cannot allow itself to denounce regimes that kill their citizens in the streets—