Wayne Easter

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2012]

Cannot trust your audit?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the big areas in the Panama trade agreement is the reconstruction of the Panama Canal to allow super Panamanian vessels to go through it. The government has not informed us on this issue but the Panama Canal authority gives preference to Panama nationals and maybe even to the United States in this area.

Does my colleague see that as a concern?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the member for Winnipeg Centre for getting a little agitated at that last question from the member for Kenora.

I have had the opportunity to work with the member for Winnipeg Centre and I saw how he stood up for farmers in western Canada and others in the Canadian Wheat Board fight. However, the one thing I did not see were the backbenchers on that side who come from Western Canada stand up. They did not allow democracy to flourish. They would not allow a vote. They broke the law in order to implement their ideological position.

My question for the member on the Canada-Panama trade agreement is--

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

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the member that maybe he could get his head out of the sand. Maybe he could stop the divisiveness and look at the realities.

The fact of the matter is that when we were in government we balanced the books in this economy and gave the country the foundation which we find ourselves in today. It was the Liberal government. I was a backbencher and part of a committee that made the recommendations to ensure that the banking system remained sound in this country, which now his leader, the Prime Minister of the country goes around the world and brags about, but at that time the current Prime Minister was opposed to that particular merger.

I will tell the member that in terms of the U.S. relationship, the first government in 30 years to have a merchandise trade deficit on exports in this country is in fact the current government. Yes, we were there to establish a relationship with the United States, and we did. We continually built on that relationship.

I am proud of my time as a Liberal. I just cannot understand why the government and its members, whether they are talking from speaking notes from the PMO or what I do not know, constantly use divisiveness and fear tactics. That is what the member does in the House of Commons, and it is completely unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure what specific amendments the member is talking about, but I can certainly say I know that his party is concerned with labour and environment issues. We do see these as a side agreement in the agreement. It is a step forward that labour and environment are attached as part of the agreement.

I will admit that one of the concerns I have with both labour and environment in many of the trade agreements that have been signed is that there is not the ability to enforce those rules as strongly as we would like. However, whether it is with respect to some countries where human rights are a concern, the Liberal Party's point of view is that having an economic relationship and trading relationship with that country in fact does provide an even greater ability to argue on human rights and other issues because it is then a part of the package.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again enter into the discussion on Bill C-24.

Bill C-24 would implement the free trade agreement and the related agreements on the environment and labour co-operation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Panama, done in Ottawa on May 13 and 14, 2010.

We have said previously that the Liberal Party is supportive of this legislation and we remain so. However, we maintain the concerns we raised previously with respect to the fact that as the government is pursuing new agreements, it has been neglecting our relationship with our largest trading partner, the United States.

Pursuing new trade agreements is certainly worthy of support. However, we have to keep these agreements in context. I have raised questions in this House several times, that while the minister is travelling all over the world talking about trade here and trade there, the government is ignoring our most important trading partner.

The government is also ignoring another trading partner, and that is Korea. Hog producers and beef producers have been in my office over the last few weeks. They are very concerned about the South Korean market. We have an established market of over $1 billion of trade on beef and pork. It is a growing market. However, now that the United States has moved ahead and signed a trade agreement with South Korea, the tariffs will be coming down for the Americans. We are their most important competitor, and we will be left uncompetitive in that marketplace. We will in fact lose that market rapidly over time.

What seems to be the problem with the government in so many areas is that rather than being about results, it is very much about spin. It wants to be able to say that it has signed nine trade agreements, or has had 15 or 20 or 40 discussions, when in reality it is the results that matter. Again I emphasize that we are very concerned about the fact that the government is ignoring some of our largest trading partners while it talks and signs agreements with others around the world. The new agreement does not add up to the losses we are facing as a result of the government not emphasizing the agreements we already have in place.

While the Conservatives have proclaimed the promotion of trade, it has been under their watch that the mismanagement of the file in terms of trading relationships has resulted in trade deficits for the first time in over 30 years. Let me emphasize that. We hear the minister talk about all the great things the government is doing. Last year for the first time in 30 years, Canada had its first merchandise trade deficit. That tells me the results are far different from the spin we are getting from the Minister of International Trade.

With respect to the United States, we have seen the government surprised by increased United States protectionist actions. It was surprised by the initial buy American provisions in the 2008 United States stimulus package. It was again surprised in 2011 when the new buy American provisions were returned by the Obama administration. Those buy American provisions in fact will affect Canadian jobs and will hurt both the U.S. and Canadian economies.

The Conservative administration was also surprised by the announcement by the United States Federal Maritime Commission at the instigation of United States senators of an investigation into U.S.-bound container traffic being diverted to Canadian ports and whether to impose fees or tariffs as a result of this diverted trade. This would be another potential fee placed on Canada.

The government was also surprised when the United States government, in signing the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement, withdrew the exemption Canada had of $5.50 per individual in terms of sea and air entry into the United States.

I was in Washington, D.C. over the last few days where I met with senators and congressmen about a number of issues between our two countries. They too seemed to be caught by surprise in terms of that clause in the U.S.-Colombia trade agreement that took away Canada's exemption. After my visit to the United States, I am now more concerned by the fact that we had a lot of allies in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives but the government failed on its watch to pay attention to that serious issue which puts another fee on Canada.

The importance of the U.S.-Canada relationship is in the value of trade, and that exceeds about $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion a day. The government is very much ignoring our most important trading partner.

I want to emphasize again in the House that while the government is pursuing Panama, Jordan, and others, it is ignoring our most important trading markets. I have to outline this point with the minister.

Will the minister get on the ball and get on a trading relationship with South Korea? We need a free trade agreement signed with South Korea, or we are going to be displaced as a result of being uncompetitive with the United States which has signed a trade agreement. I cannot emphasize that enough. That is worth $1 billion in trade.

In spite of the global economic downturn, Panama's GDP grew to 10.7% in 2008, one of the highest in the Americas. In 2010, Panama's GDP growth stood at 7.5%. Panama is Canada's largest export market in Central America.

Panama is an important market especially for folks in my province of Prince Edward Island. We export fish, shellfish, french fried potatoes and other agricultural products. It is very important to producers in Prince Edward Island. We need this agreement.

The bilateral trading relationship has grown 61% since 2009, reaching $213 million in bilateral trade in 2010.

As I said, the primary Canadian merchandise exports to Panama include machinery, vehicle electronic equipment, pharmaceutical equipment, pulses, frozen potato products and other agricultural products, and shellfish. Canadian service exports include financial services, engineering, information and communications technology. These are also important. We import precious stones from Panama and a number of fruits and nuts, fish and seafood products. The relationship is important.

I do have to point out what remains a concern to us within the Liberal Party. The tax haven issue with Panama has not been addressed. The President of France talked about that at the G20. The tax haven issues that a number of countries have around the world have to be addressed. In particular, the Canadian government has to work harder with Panama to address that issue.

The bottom line is that we support this trade agreement. We especially want to see the labour, environment and tax issues addressed in it though.

[41st General Election, March 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, on the Conservative robocall election fraud allegations, the Prime Minister continues to use the same tactics and the same lines the Conservatives used on the in-and-out scandal, where the Conservative Party eventually pleaded guilty to election fraud.

In this latest devious venture with allegations swirling around them, they are suggesting the Conservative Party should review all tapes before Elections Canada. For what reason? Why should Conservative operatives review the tapes first?

[Financial Literacy Leader Act, March 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There does not appear to be a quorum in the House.

[Financial Literacy Leader Act, March 1st, 2012]

What about the $40 billion health transfer? Do you remember that?

[Financial Literacy Leader Act, March 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by the motion that the question be now put. Just as we were starting to really get into the meat of the bill and to find out what was wrong with it, the government found another way of invoking closure, shutting down debate so that questions could not be asked on this bill.

I would suggest that this bill is really a shell with no meat in it, other than to perhaps appoint someone else in a patronage appointment and leave the impression that the government is doing something about financial literacy when it is not.

Financial literacy is important; we know that and we agree with it. The problem and the question that we need answers for, which the member is now trying to shut off debate about, is that the bill really does nothing to add to the tool chest of recommendations that a former member talked about and to actually exercise financial literacy and get that job done.

Could the member answer two questions? Why is he in a roundabout way trying to invoke another method of closure and shut down debate? Could he also tell me what else is in this bill from his perspective, because I do not see it, other than making another appointment and spending money without providing the tools to do the job?