Wayne Easter

[International Trade, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Canada-EU CETA negotiations are now at a critical stage and crucial decisions handed off to ministers. I remind the minister that he claimed it was a myth that CETA would increase drug and health costs. However, internal reports, held secret, state otherwise. with an extra billion dollars in drug costs forced—

[Firefighters, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 388, put forward by my colleague, the member for Wascana. The motion would direct the House to take four measures in support of Canada's firefighters, increasingly known as first responders.

Normally, we as individuals never expect to require emergency service, be it as a result of a car accident, a farm accident, an accident on the waters with either a recreational or fishing boat, or a fire. However, if such an accident were to happen, a quick response can mean the difference between life and death. It can also mean preventing a relatively small amount of fire damage or other damage from becoming a real catastrophe to the community as a whole.

I had first-hand experience with the actions of firefighters, quite a considerable time ago, when I had a major fire on my farm operation. It involved a 14,000 square foot barn and a dairy operation, and four fire departments responded to the call. We saw how those firefighters worked on site and coordinated their activities to prevent further damage from occurring. We saw how they showed up to where the fire was happening with about three seconds of notice when their pagers went off. They were mainly voluntary firefighters in that case. With about three seconds' notice on a day in May when they were doing their own work in their own fields or businesses, at the drop of a hat, they headed to the emergency. Some of them were on the site for as long as 24 hours. That is dedication and that is service to the community. They can make a huge difference between life and death or in preventing a further catastrophe from happening. Therefore, we have to recognize them on a number of fronts.

I will deal specifically with each issue in the motion. The first requests that the House affirm its support for:

(a) the creation of a national Public Safety Officer Compensation Benefit in the amount of $300,000, indexed annually, to help address the financial security of the families of firefighters and other public safety officers who are killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty....

This kind of measure is in place in the United States and we have it in place for military personnel. It could be seen as a cushion for those families who allow their husbands, wives, brothers or sisters to operate as first responders in a fire department. It gives those families some security in knowing that should something happen there would be at least some financial compensation that would protect them into the future. It would do two things. It would give the families assurance that, should something happen, there would be some security there for them, and it would also give firefighters or first responders some assurance that their families would have some measure of protection should an event happen that causes them to lose their lives.

This one-time payment of $300,000, paid by the Government of Canada to the family of a firefighter who lost his or her life in the line of duty, would therefore go a long way to help families deal with a tragic situation, free from the concern of individual bargaining agreements or subject to their province.

At an estimated annual cost of only $10 million to $12 million, can members really argue that this is too high a price to pay to recognize the service of someone who has laid down his or her life in saving others? I think not. We should be able to do this. There is no reason the House cannot approve this measure and give such assurance to first responders and their families.

The second point is the recognition of firefighters' vital role as first responders and their integral role as part of Canada's critical infrastructure, as well as health care workers under the Canadian influenza pandemic plan. In other words, they should be entitled to priority access to vaccines and other drugs in cases of pandemics or other public health emergencies. That is an extremely important point. I am almost shocked this is in fact not the case yet. As first responders to medical emergencies, including people who are in respiratory distress, firefighters are likely to come into contact with infected people in the course of their duties. As a result, they are at an increased risk of exposure to infection during an influenza pandemic.

Recall the H1N1 and SARS outbreaks. These things do happen. We never know when the next occurrence might be. I think we would all want to feel that firefighters have access to the vaccines necessary because they will be assisting people in places where they will be at greater risk. It only makes sense for them to be included in that plan so they can receive the vaccines necessary to protect their health.

The Canadian pandemic influenza plan notes that firefighters and other first responders provide “an essential service that, if not sustained at a minimal level, would threaten public health, safety or security”. A study concluded that without any precautions, 25% to 30% of firefighters could be unavailable at the height of a moderate pandemic, leaving fire departments unable to provide adequate services, including fire suppression, search and rescue, protection of our national infrastructure, and in most communities, first response to medical emergencies.

Other countries, like the United States and Germany, include firefighters and their first responders for vaccinations. Therefore, it only makes sense that we should as well.

The third thing the motion does is to specify that firefighter safety should be an objective of the National Building Code of Canada. It is a very important point and relates to the fourth point as well. I will read it and speak to both at the same time. The fourth point calls for “a review of the National Building Code of Canada, in conjunction with the International Association of Firefighters, to identify the most urgent safety issues impacting firefighters and the best means to address them”.

Perhaps many people in the House do not even know that when one walks onto the floor of a new house, the joists holding up that floor are not nailed together as they used to be. Only glue is being used. Therefore, if there is a fire in the basement and a firefighter walks onto that top floor, the glue has melted by then and the first thing that happens is the whole house collapses.

Those are some of the things that we have to look at and Motion No. 388 will assist us in doing that. I urge people to strongly support this measure.

[Canada Elections Act, November 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak on Bill C-424, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (contestation of election and punishment).

Since the last election on May 2, 2011, a lot of information has come to light about some of the actions that took place during that election. It shows the serious need for this bill.

This bill's proposed purpose, as explained in the summary, is to amend the Canada Elections Act to increase the fines for certain offences under the act. It also permits the Chief Electoral Officer to contest the election of a candidate. In other words, it gives the Chief Electoral Officer standing to take action where he or she sees fit.

Why is there a need for such a bill? Let us look at some of the examples. Daily in the House we see the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs failing to answer questions on events that happened in his riding. He sits on his hands. He claims he is going to outline those concerns and address them next Tuesday in his riding. We will have to wait and see. That is one example.

Another example is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the member for Peterborough, who finds his spending actions in turmoil.

The third point I would make is that the former parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, the member for Nepean—Carleton, stands in his place daily to defend the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Every time that member stands up, I am reminded of the in-and-out scandal of the previous election. That member never talks about the results of the in-and-out scandal and what happened, including the fact that the Conservative Party was fined $50,000 and had to pay back $260,000 for overspending.

The fourth example I would use is that quite a number of the results in a number of Conservative ridings are being challenged before the courts by the Council of Canadians. Actually, there are too many for me to name in my remarks; I would end up not being able to talk about the bill. There are quite a number of challenges now before the courts.

As these examples show, there is a need for some mechanism, a known mechanism, to clearly show candidates running in an election—and that is every candidate, because I do not just want to pick on the Conservatives here—that funny business during an election will not be tolerated, and that there are serious fines in place if such behaviour is proven.

What this bill really does is to put a mechanism in place to give some legislative teeth for action to be taken if there is a problem on the part of a candidate during an election. That would clearly be known prior to elections, and so it certainly should hold candidates more to account.

I will now turn to what those actions are in Bill C-424.

Although I think it is far superior to the American system where so much money was spent in the election, even in our system money still makes a difference. A prime example of that, for the Conservatives who are here in the House, is that the reason for the overspending by the Conservatives by way of the in and out scandal was to use more national advertising to attack and undermine the leadership of the other parties, mainly the leadership of our party. That is why the in and out scandal was invented. It was so they could overspend. While our system is superior, money still does talk.

When we think there is a problem at the national level, certainly the national parties have more means with which to challenge it. However, when there is overspending in a riding or skulduggery happens during an election at the riding level, many candidates do not have the means to challenge that overspending. They just do not have the money to do it.

I will use a recent example just to pinpoint how serious this is.

We are all aware that there was a challenge to the results and the activities in the riding of Etobicoke Centre. Those election results were upheld by the Supreme Court. However, I am not talking about the complaint as such, but the amount of money it took to challenge that in the Supreme Court. The individual who challenged, in that case, had the means with which to do so, but it was in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Therefore, it is easy to see that a number of candidates running would not have the financial means to challenge election results before the courts.

As was said by our leader in his remarks earlier, the cost should not limit the rights of citizens to ensure that the democratic process was conducted fairly. By adding the Chief Electoral Officer to the list of people who can contest an election, we are making it possible for Canadians who cannot afford this process to have another outlet for due process. It is a simple change to the act that says, in instances where election fraud is suspected, the Chief Electoral Officer can pursue it through the courts. The onus should not be on everyday Canadians to come up with vast amounts of money to protect democracy.

In this country, we want to see ordinary Canadians running for office to represent constituents in this place. It should not only be money and those who are backed with money that talk. We put limits on riding spending. We put limits on candidate spending. However, if there is election fraud, or a strong suspicion of election fraud, those citizens need the right and ability to challenge those decisions without facing bankruptcy for having challenged them.

By providing the Chief Electoral Officer with the standing to contest an election, we are putting in place a further safeguard to our democracy. That is what is important. We need to safeguard our democracy. The bill is quite simple in terms of its wording and the changes to be made, but it is quite dramatic in terms of the impact it could have on ordinary Canadians who stand for election. If there is election fraud, they would be able to challenge it.

My last point is that the penalties are there to be seen and could be imposed on those who would get involved in election fraud. I ask the House to support the bill. It is needed for our democracy.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is yes. If there is anything we need to do with the government, it is put it to review.

I said in my remarks that the Canada-China investment agreement is a very serious issue that was not debated in the House. It may not have been signed by the Governor General as of yet, but it has come into effect. It has serious implications for Canada and Canadians. I firmly believe that if a Chinese investor, under this agreement, invested in Canada, and a province made a decision that affected that investment in a way that, in the future, that investor lost profits, that investor could sue, and the Canadian government would have to respond. I have a number of written questions--

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I think I made it clear in my remarks that we have supported the Canada-Panama free trade agreement for some time. We felt that there should be a legitimate debate. We even felt that the concerns of the NDP should be addressed. I outlined in my remarks that labour and environment side agreements are all well and nice, but they are not really enforceable by law. They have some good thoughts. The fact that we have an economic agreement with a country gives us some leverage to try to deal with those issues.

Let me be absolutely clear. Do we envy the Conservative government's results on free trade? Absolutely not. The Conservatives go for the numbers. There are nine trade agreements. The U.S. is our biggest trading market. The nine trade agreements they have amount to only 126.5 hours of trade with the United States. That is not very much. They are small countries. They are small agreements. They do not mean a heck of a lot. The government tries to say that nine agreements means a lot. Meanwhile, the government is failing to challenge the Americans on exports of our products to their marketplace, where they are shutting us out. For 32 of the last 44 months, the government has been showing a deficit in trade. For the first time in 30 years, we have a deficit in trade as a result of the Conservatives' actions. Is there envy of the Conservatives? Absolutely not.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague outlined in great part the difficulty we have had with the government. It had 38 months in which to debate, discuss and implement this legislation so that we would have a secure and activated free trade agreement between Canada and Panama. First, the legislation was coming along not too badly, but the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. That created a delay. However, I think the biggest delay has been because of the fact that the only way the Conservative government seems to think it can operate is by invoking closure.

There were minority Parliaments. The government knew full well that the Liberals were in support of this agreement. Yes, other parties were in opposition. As I said earlier, they had some legitimate reasons to put on the table. However, on balance, I think the majority in this House would have passed the bill. It was the government itself that failed to give the bill priority. For the government to blame opposition parties for the fact that legislation did not get through, when it had the opportunity to get it through, is just silly. However, this is the kind of spin the Conservative government always has. It blames the opposition for everything. On this one, it could have had the job done, but it failed, and it failed clearly.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we did agree with one of the amendments that was put forward by the NDP. However, we certainly did not agree with them all because some of them did not make a whole lot of sense to us. The amendments as posed by the NDP would stretch the timeframe in terms of this discussion on the Canada–Panama bill too far into the future. I agree that the bill has some flaws, but on balance it would improve our trading relationship with Panama. The force of that agreement would also give Canadians greater leverage in terms of dealing with Panamanian authorities on labour, environment and money laundering because of that further economic relationship that would be created

I also believe, as I said in my remarks, that Canada now finds itself under the gun. On October 31, the Americans activated their agreement. We now have exporters who, day by day in the Panamanian market, are becoming less competitive. We need those players in that marketplace contributing jobs and investment for Canadians.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the member declined the earlier opportunity, because he is such an interesting speaker. As well, I really did enjoy his quite energetic remarks. That he was wrong on some points is beside the fact.

The reason the government should have passed this legislation earlier, during that 38-month period, was made clear to us by government officials. Before going to that point, I want to come back to the 38 months. That is a long time. The Conservatives had the support of the Liberal Party even when they had a minority government; they would not even have had to use closure. However, if the current government could in any way work with opposition parties and the House and allow the latter to work effectively, the legislation could have been in place long ago. Because the government tries to browbeat legislation through this place, it gets a push back. That is clearly what is wrong with the way the government operates.

As far as what the government officials said is concerned, two year ago during a meeting of the international trade committee on November 3, 2010, the officials warned that the U.S. had concluded an agreement with Panama and that as a result Canadian exporters could face very stiff competition if that agreement were acted upon. Thus, there was a degree of urgency to conclude an agreement on behalf of Canada.

When asked by a Conservative MP at the international trade committee on September 25, 2012 if there were any urgency to concluding and ratifying the FTA with Canada, government officials reiterated their warning. They said:

[I]f the U.S. agreement comes into force before the Canadian agreement...there could well be an impact on Canadian exporters who are already in the Panamanian market. They will no longer be on a level playing field with their American competitors, and the U.S. will have in some cases a significant tariff advantage....

Here is the headline from Reuters World News Service on October 31, just a few days ago. It said, “Bush-era trade deal with Panama goes into force”. Hence, six days ago the U.S.–Panama agreement came into effect. In other words, it is active.

The government of Canada virtually wasted 38 months, and now we are already non-competitive in that market and are trying to push the legislation through the House. The losses that Canadian exporters will likely incur are the responsibility of the Conservative government, and no one else. The government is responsible for the position that Canadian exporters now find themselves in within the Panamanian market, with the loss of their competitive edge, because the U.S. has now activated its free trade agreement. If this crowd cannot get a deal with an economy as small as that of Panama, which, according to government officials, represents one-hundredth of one per cent of our total trade right now, why should Canadians have any confidence that something like the Canada–China investment agreement would not turn out to be a disaster?

The government and this minister are good at reciting the talking points the Prime Minister's Office sends them, reiterating the number of trade discussions under way and the signing of a number of trade agreements. However, what really matters is the results at the end of the day.

The Conservatives claim that trade is their most important file. In fact, the Prime Minister was in China and signed an investment agreement, about which there is a lot of controversy and which has never been debated in this House. I understand that when the Prime Minister was leaving China, the chairman of the Chinese government said that they would like an FTA with Canada, and the Prime Minister accepted readily. That is because the Chinese know that with this particular Prime Minister, the Canadian government will sign a deal, regardless of its net benefits to Canada, just to get a deal. That is our concern with every trade agreement the Conservatives are doing.

The proof is in the pudding. When we look at the results on trade, we now see that for the first time in over 30 years, Canada has a merchandise trade deficit. On the government's watch, there has been a merchandise trade deficit in 32 out of those 44 months. That is serious. What it clearly shows is that the government can reach an agreement on trade, but it has failed to develop the strategy around which Canadians can make the best use of them and add the most value for Canadian industries that are exporting into those markets.

I want to now turn specifically to trade with Panama. Although it is three-hundredths of 1% of our global trade, it is substantive for those people who are in that Panamanian market.

I come from a province where frozen french fries are very important to potato producers and processors in terms of getting into Panama and exporting product there. There is no question that Panama is Canada's largest export market in Central America. It gives us a kind of gateway into the Central American and South American markets, so we need to pursue that.

Primary Canadian merchandise exports to Panama include machinery vehicles, electronic equipment, pharmaceutical equipment, pulses, which mainly come from the west, and frozen potato products, which mainly come from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Canadian service exports include financial services, engineering and information and communication technology services. Those are all important.

However, I want to point out something that I pointed out earlier in the debate. The government goes to great lengths to talk about how the Panama Canal is being twinned and how that is a big infrastructure investment, and therefore Canadian engineering, infrastructure and construction companies would benefit from the deal. That is mostly smoke and mirrors because the fact of the matter is that the Americans already have that sewed up.

The other markets and services, the sale of potatoes, pulses and the like, are extremely important to Canada. That is why we need the deal. However, for whatever reason, the government has tried to oversell it, and it does that with nearly everything it does. It has misrepresented the benefits of whatever particular issue it is in fact dealing with.

To point out and put on the record again, as it relates to the Panama Canal, this is a quotation that appeared in the United States Congressional Research Service report to Congress on the proposed U.S.-Panama FTA, dated April 21, 2011. It states:

Another unique feature of the FTA negotiations was the treatment of business issues with respect to the Panama Canal Area. Its status as an autonomous legal entity under the Panamanian Constitution required separate negotiations for government procurement, labor, investment, and other areas. The United States is the only country with which Panama has been willing to negotiate issues related to the canal area in an FTA.

We really need to ask the Conservative government to clarify its assertions on the ability of Canadian firms to participate in the canal infrastructure work, given those congressional research statements. That comes back to my point on overselling the deal with respect to the Panama Canal. Its expansion is well on its way and the U.S. basically has that sewn up.

As the parliamentary secretary said earlier, and I will agree with him on this, there are added opportunities in the future for spin-off industries from the widening of that canal, for engineering, designs and so on. However, let us not allow the government to oversell the trade agreement.

The bottom line specifically on the Canada-Panama agreement is that the government had 38 months to get this legislation through. It failed during that 38-month period to work with this Parliament and allow the legislation to come forward to a legislative debate and final vote, so now the U.S. has a step up on Canada in terms of that marketplace. Our industries that are exporting to that market will now be at a disadvantage.

The government tends to attack the NDP members for their opposition to the Canada-Panama FTA, but they have some legitimate concerns. I think we have to respect them. However, the Liberal Party has said that it will support this deal. There is no need to go to closure in order to get it through. What would we lose? We would lose one more day, when the government already had 1,155 days to deal with this issue and have a proper debate where those issues were outlined on the table.

Of course there are concerns about money laundering in Panama. We raised those concerns at committee, and we were not satisfied with the answers that the Ambassador gave us. We know there are concerns about money laundering in Panama.

We agree with the side agreements on labour and environment, and they will move us a step forward. They are side agreements. They are basically guidelines, a kind of wish list on labour and environment. They do not go as far as we would like to see them go by having them encompassed in legislation itself, where we would have enforcement ability under the law to have people live up to labour standards and environmental standards. They are not as good as we would like, but on balance, the fact that there are side agreements improves the agreement somewhat. Therefore, on balance, we are willing to support this agreement and move it forward.

We do not have a problem with the government pursuing new agreements, but we must negotiate them in the best net interest of Canadians. That is what we are worried about, and why I started my remarks by going after the member for London West a bit when he talked about Canada being open for business. Yes, we are. We always have been.

However, the difficulty with the Prime Minister is that Canada seems to be up for sale. There are many areas we could go to talk about that. We see the CNOOC-Nexen deal in today's press. It looks like it will be reviewed and now accepted for the Prime Minister. What are the implications of that agreement? Does that mean another country where a company is 64% state owned is in control of Canadian resources? These are serious issues. The government, it seems, makes these decisions about trade agreements on the fly, as the Prime Minister is flying around the world.

It is not good enough. There needs to be a trade strategy. One of the government's most important areas is trade it seems. However, where it fails is in developing an industrial strategy that follows the trade strategy that makes it possible for industries, be they agriculture, fisheries, electronics, service or financial, whatever they may be, to build up that industrial strategy so we in Canada can take advantage of these trade agreements and add jobs and value within our own country.

The benefits of trade agreements should be felt in our own country, and that is not happening under the Conservative government. The results prove it. For 32 of the last 44 months the Conservative government has racked up merchandise trade deficits, and that is just not good enough. We are seeing job losses in our manufacturing sector in Canada.

As I raised in question period, the seasonal industries which create a lot of wealth in this country, $78 billion to our economy, are under attack by the government. That makes no sense at all. They contribute a lot to our exporters, our manufacturing base and our primary industries.

We are seeing the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development basically attacking the people who work in those seasonal industries, who require EI in the off-seasons. The industries that work in those sectors require that skilled labour when the season kicks back in. This minister is attacking them, first with the clawback, in which she is clawing back for the government 50¢ on every dollar that a person earns while working on claim, and now the cancellation. She got up in question period and talked about it being a pilot project. We know that. We know that in the Atlantic region of Canada that program is still necessary, and to take five weeks of income from seasonal workers plus the clawback is attacking those who need that income the most. It is going to drive them into poverty. Those seasonal industries and workers, the ones who work in the potato industry and the fisheries industry, are some of the workers who would contribute to Canada's exports under the Canada–Panama agreement. We need to get it through, but think of the—

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad there were no questions for the member for London West, because in his remarks he talked about Canada being open for business.

That is for sure, but not only is Canada open for business, what we are also seeing in all of the Prime Minister's initiatives on free trade is that Canada is really up for sale. That is what worries us. It is one thing to be open for business, but it is entirely another to be so desirous of agreement at any cost, regardless of what the net benefits are for Canada, that Canada is really up for sale. That is what I wanted to ask the member to see how he might respond. I guess he is going to the same committee meeting that I have to go to.

On Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama FTA, since negotiations concluded on this trade agreement, more than 1,155 days have passed. That is more than 38 months or more than 3 years.

The Minister of International Trade has claimed that the reason for the delay in passing the legislation is the opposition. The real reason has nothing to do with any opposition party, but is clearly related to government incompetence in trying to utilize the House to get legislation through.

The Liberal Party has supported this legislation, and if this were any priority for the government, it could and should have passed the legislation, but has failed to do so.

[Employment Insurance, November 6th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, seasonal industries contribute $78 billion to our economy, yet the government treats seasonal workers as second class citizens. The minister has now eliminated five weeks of EI payments to those workers. This change will affect tens of thousands of Canadians, reducing many to poverty; yet not a minute of study, no economic analysis, no consultation and no discussion at committee. Why is the government stealing five weeks of income from seasonal workers?