Philip Toone

[Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

We certainly do support trade that respects human rights and improves the lot of workers. However, I do not see why we should support a bill that will primarily benefit big business and others who are already well placed to profit hugely.

I remind members that, very recently, even Nicolas Sarkozy also made the point that Panama is still a country that supports the black market. It is a country with a huge capacity for drug trafficking. This is nothing new. One organization has said otherwise, but a lot of organizations do not agree with the member across the way. There are a lot of improvements that need to be made in Panama, and progress will not be made by adopting a bill like this.

[Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, May 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very carefully to today's debate about the bill to create a free trade agreement between Canada and Panama.

Canada does not have an extensive trade relationship with Panama. Trade between our two countries amounts to less than $150 million per year, which is not much. However, the government now wants to formalize a less than satisfactory situation marked by an imbalance between the rights of workers and the rights of big companies. That is exactly why the NDP does not agree with the bill before us today.

The government did not consult with unions here or in Panama. Panamanian workers' rights have not been formalized, even though the government claims that this bill will formalize a mechanism to give workers the right to some oversight over free trade between our two countries. The sad thing about all this is that, realistically, that right is nothing but an illusion. It does not really mean anything. In Panama, workers do not really have the right to disagree. I will come back to that point shortly.

I also want to make another point. Today, we are debating the passage of a bill on free trade with a country that does not give us any hope, like the rest of Latin America. We do not want other countries to follow into Panama's footsteps to make their laws, to develop future free trade initiatives. That is not the country I want to rely on and use as a model for future bills. That country has serious problems related to tax havens and money laundering.

I do not understand why the Conservatives are so interested in moving forward with a country that has not shown that it is prepared to rehabilitate itself and to engage in open and transparent free trade. On the contrary, it is a country whose economic activities are not conducted in the open. That may be why the Conservatives are so interested in moving forward with that country, since they also prefer to avoid doing things in the open and want to make sure Canadians are not aware of the impact that the bills debated in this House will have on the rest of the country.

What concerns me in all this is the lack of openness. The Conservatives want to turn into reality, to codify a situation that is not balanced. This will benefit large corporations, but Panama's workers and average families do not have any reason to believe that they will be better off.

I find it hard to see why we are passing a bill involving a country that has so little trade with Canada. And even if that trade were to expand, there is no guarantee that this growth will not take place on the negative side, namely money laundering and drug trafficking.

I thought the Conservative government wanted to avoid increased drug use. I wonder if this agreement will not have the opposite effect.

As for the rights of workers, I want to mention a few amendments that were proposed by the NDP when this bill was brought to the attention of the House, during the 40th Parliament.

At the time, we proposed eleven amendments. Among other things, we wanted to define the notion of responsible investment as maximizing social good as well as financial return in the areas of social justice and corporate governance, in accordance with the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. I do not believe that the bill before us today is an improvement over the legislation introduced during the 40th Parliament. Among other things, that amendment did not get the support of the House today.

This is a free trade initiative that is really based on the major free trade agreements of the past. For example, in the case of NAFTA, the two partners were rather major industrial and economic powers.

Canada and the United States have had an important relationship for a long time. That is also the case for Mexico. These countries all have a very important trade and industrial history. We signed agreements based on the fact that each of the two or three partners has a certain amount of power. I am thinking in particular of the auto pact signed a number of years ago. This type of free trade benefits both parties. However, the agreement we are debating does not strike a balance.

Panama and Canada are not on the same economic and industrial level. The Canadian economy is based on exports, especially of natural resources, whereas Panama has a black market economy, an economy based for the most part on money laundering and drug trafficking.

Do we really want to formalize a relationship with a country that is incapable of being transparent and of showing that it can promote another economy and that its own is based on activities that will benefit and not harm Canada?

We believe in a model based on a trading relationship that will not cause job losses. We recommend free trade agreements that will contribute to the growth of the Canadian economy. I think the Canadian economy depends above all on the well-being of its workers, who must have the means to spend money and support their communities.

In the bill before us here today, I do not see how this agreement will benefit the workers of our regions, who will be very much affected by these changes, especially those concerning employment insurance. What benefit is there for them? This free trade agreement would benefit Panama, but what does it do for our workers? I would really like to know. Will seasonal workers in eastern Canada benefit from this bill? I highly doubt it. This bill is worthy of George Bush and his trickle down economics. This created a negative situation in the United States, where the economy has collapsed. That country still has not recovered.

I do not understand why anyone would want a bill based on bilateral trade worth less than $150 million.

I want to come back to the issue of workers and of the rights they will have under this bill. In Panama, according to chapter 11, when there is a dispute, investors will have the right to request compulsory arbitration that they can conduct independently, however Panama's unions can only file a complaint and it will be up to governments to seek and obtain remedies. The government of Panama has not ever shown that it wanted to go further and really apply workers' rights. Consequently, if the unions are not entitled to give concrete expression to the recourse being proposed in today's bill, this right becomes a mirage and not a concrete right. It is a very theoretical right. Unfortunately, Panama's unions will have neither the means nor the legal capacity to give concrete expression to the right that this bill claims to be giving them.

Clearly, workers will not be able to take advantage of these illusory rights. If members are looking for a reason why the bill before us should not be adopted, then that is their reason. Workers do not have any rights in this bill, and Panama's workers deserve better than that. This bill should be amended to improve the lot of Panamanian workers.

Several laws in Canada should be amended to improve the lot of our own workers.

[Petitions, May 18th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians from across the country who are opposed to the government's decision to make cuts to the Coast Guard's budget and close Canadian Coast Guard centres. I would also like to thank the hundreds of Canadians who signed the electronic petition.

The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to acknowledge that cuts to Coast Guard staff and the closing of Coast Guard centres put the lives of fishers and other mariners at risk and endanger the marine ecosystem.

[Search and Rescue, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, people want a plan that will work well for workers, not a plan that will work poorly for them.

Apparently, closing search and rescue stations was not enough for the government. Now it is planning to shut down 10 Coast Guard centres, which analyze marine traffic and navigation conditions. The government's decision will put crabbers, lobster boats and other Atlantic and Gulf of St. Lawrence fishers in danger.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans reverse these dangerous decisions and ensure adequate protection for fishers?

[Employment Insurance, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the government finally inoculating workers against the changes that it is proposing.

The more money they pilfer from the employment insurance fund, the less the Conservatives seem to remember that the fund belongs to workers, not to them.

Now this disrespectful government is telling workers that they will not be entitled to employment insurance. People who have contributed for years are having the rug pulled out from under them as the government changes the rules. That is unacceptable.

Is the government really planning to lock up the employment insurance fund so that unemployed workers cannot access it?

[Employment Insurance, May 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, these changes will hurt workers.

The Conservatives have decided that their new target will be those in seasonal or temporary jobs. Murky employment insurance reforms couched in barely veiled insults are an attack on these valiant workers.

The labour market has changed a lot since Duplessis's day. Jobs for life are no longer the norm, and people need employment insurance for smooth transitions.

Will the government abandon these poorly thought-out reforms, seeing as it does not even understand exactly what they mean?

[Infrastructure, May 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary.

I would like to clarify a few points: the request is for 5,500 feet and not 5,900 feet. It would cost less than the $10 million mentioned. We are not asking for more than what we need. We are simply asking for something that will meet the islands’ current needs and at the same time promote economic growth.

The cost for 5,500 feet would not be $10 million. That distance would be long enough for hospital planes. Right now, most of the planes belonging to Quebec's health and social services department cannot land on the islands, so it is a health and safety issue. We want these hospital planes to be able to land, something they cannot do at the moment.

Take the example of the C-30s. I have heard it said that these planes can land. However, these are military aircraft. No one on the Magdalen Islands wants to go to war. We would like to have a health and safety service that meets our needs. At the same time, we want to ensure that there is a commercial service that can promote tourism, on which the people of the Magdalen Islands depend entirely during the summer months.

So we are talking about 5,500 feet, not 5,900 feet. I do not want to have Hercules C-30s landing, because I do not want to go to war. I want the hospital planes to be able to land.

[Infrastructure, May 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for being here this evening. I appreciate it.

The ice storm that hit the Magdalen Islands in February 2012 demonstrated the importance of transportation infrastructure and focused attention on extending the runway at the Magdalen Islands airport, an issue that has dragged on for 30 years.

At the time of this sad event, Quebec Premier Jean Charest noted the importance of extending the runway. Subsequently, we learned that, during this major power outage, the airport's generator failed. I would like to remind members that the Magdalen Islands archipelago is located more than 100 kilometres from the Gaspé, in the middle of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

The residents of the Magdalen Islands revel in their isolation, but it does create major transportation challenges, which the Conservative government must address. Air transportation is the only direct link between the Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands. The alternative is very long: a five-hour ferry ride to Prince Edward Island and then a ten-hour drive to the Gaspé.

Airport service is vital in emergency situations, as well as for personal travel, business and tourism. The federal government has recognized this situation by designating the Magdalen Islands airport as a remote airport. Transport Canada therefore manages the airport.

Since 1983, the main runway has been 4,500 feet long, when most runways in less remote areas are 5,500 feet or longer. Why do the people of the Magdalen Islands have one of the shortest runways in Quebec? In extreme weather conditions, planes are often forced to call off their landing or turn back.

The air ambulance, which transports patients who cannot be treated on the Magdalen Islands, also faces the same situation. The people of the Magdalen Islands are wondering if this government realizes that, for people living in remote communities, this transportation infrastructure is crucial and that they should not have to settle for second-class infrastructure.

The existing runway is hindering economic development. Such a short runway limits the kind of aircraft that can land regularly and is preventing larger carriers from serving the islands. The people of the Magdalen Islands are worried about the future renewal of air fleets—meaning Dash 8s. The community has been rallying for years now to have the runway lengthened.

Lengthening the runway by 1,400 feet in two stages would help support the development of the archipelago, promote safe landings in frequent extreme weather conditions and reduce the number of cancelled flights and missed approaches. The islands want development. We have more tourism, more exports and more young people who are leaving the island to continue their training than we did 30 years ago.

The people of the Magdalen Islands are looking towards the future and calling on Transport Canada to do the same regarding the airport. Will this government finally support the people of the Magdalen Islands?

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member from British Columbia. He definitely raised a lot of interesting points in his remarks. I would like to ask a question about digital locks to gain a better understanding.

He says that artists will benefit from the bill because their rights are going to be protected. But it seems to me that consumers will be at a real disadvantage. I would like him to go a little further and highlight the contrast between the two, so that I can have a better understanding of where he is drawing the line in terms of digital locks.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 15th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech, which was very interesting.

I would like to ask him a question about the rights of communities, including remote communities and communities in our regions. The bill we have before us does not seem to provide artists in remote areas with the necessary rights to promote their craft.

I would like to know whether this bill will benefit them. Will it promote cultural development in our remote areas?