2012-11-02

Government Orders
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Hon. Ed Fast (Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC):  moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage. 
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 On division.
The Speaker: (Motion agreed to)
[Interjection]
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
[Interjection]
Ed Fast:  moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about the importance of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. As the hon. members of the House may know, negotiations for this agreement were concluded and announced in August 2009 when the Prime Minister travelled to Panama City. In May 2010, the agreement was signed and it was first tabled in Parliament later that year.
Nearly two and a half years later, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement is still in Parliament pending ratification. In fact, members may recall that former ambassador Francisco Escobar had taken a keen interest in this file. He had his term extended with the prospect of getting this deal done before he left Canada and returned to Panama. Unfortunately, that did not happen because of delays caused by the opposition members, specifically the New Democrats who, as we know, are anti-trade and anti-investment.
The New Democrats have accused our government of trying to fast-track the Canada-Panama free trade agreement through Parliament. We are talking about two and a half years and it is still not done because of all kinds of delays and obstacles presented by the New Democrats. To date, we have spent almost 60 hours debating the merits of this agreement.
 What the opposition members do not realize is that trade and investment drive economic growth and job creation here at home in Canada. As members know, Canada's economic fundamentals lead much of the developed world. Our growth rates and our job creation record are the best among the G7. Yet, these are very fragile times for the global economy and that is why we are using trade and investment to open up new opportunities for Canadian companies around the world. We need to provide them with opportunities to be successful, to grow their businesses and to take advantage of some of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Latin America is one of those areas and Panama has been a special target for us. We have a very good relationship with the Panamanian government, which also recognizes that expanded trade is important for its long-term prosperity.
The fact of the matter is that reaching a trade agreement with a key hemispheric partner such as Panama is a logical step in our policy of pursuing deeper integration and closer co-operation throughout the Americas. In fact, we have an ambitious plan to expand Canada's footprint in Latin America. Our Conservative government recognizes that protectionist restrictions stifle our exporters and undermine Canada's competitiveness. On the world stage, Canada has been a champion in the fight against protectionism. We promote free and open trade around the world. We have collaborated with some of our key partners around the world to drive home the message that protectionism is toxic to the global economic recovery. We also understand that in order for our companies to succeed, we need to create the right conditions for their success through freer and more open trade.
This agreement with Panama would help do this by providing Canadian businesses with improved market access for goods and services and a stable and predictable investment environment. We want to ensure that when Canadian investors look to Panama as a place for investment, there are clear sets of rules in place to address the investment and also the dispute resolution process. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement would also eliminate tariffs in a range of sectors, including industrial, agricultural, forestry goods and of course fish and seafood. It would also expand market access for Canadian service providers in information and communications technology, in energy and in financial services. Something a lot of Canadians do not recognize is that 71% of Canada's GDP is driven by the services industry. It is the largest industry in Canada.
When we forge new opportunities around the world for Canadian businesses to trade and invest, we also want to provide them with opportunities to build on our strengths in the services sector, strengths in areas such as engineering. A lot of Canadians do not understand that Canada is the fourth largest exporter of engineering services in the world. We are world leaders in that area, but unfortunately there are sometimes barriers to allowing our engineering firms to compete abroad. We are removing those barriers by engaging in free trade negotiations, especially with countries such as Panama.
Just to provide some context, Panama is a dynamic and fast-growing market for Canadian exports, one that has continued to grow despite a time of global uncertainty. In fact, our bilateral trade with emerging economies such as Panama is growing very rapidly. Those are our growth opportunities around the world. Over the past five years, bilateral merchandise trade between Canada and Panama has increased by 105%. That is a staggering figure and it really frames how important it is for us to deepen our trade and investment relationship with Panama.
To ensure that Canada's economy continues to grow, we must forge closer economic ties and seize new opportunities with thriving and emerging economies such as Panama. Our bilateral trade with Panama has been growing rapidly because the Panamanian economy is in the midst of a period of impressive economic expansion. In 2011, Panama's real gross domestic product growth was a stunning 10.6%. That is just in one year. According to the International Monetary Fund, Panama's GDP will continue to grow at over 6% per year over the next five years. By any standard, that is remarkable growth in these very difficult global economic times. 
Where there is rapid growth, there are also significant commercial opportunities, especially for Canadian businesses, which are world leaders in many different sectors. Sadly, the New Democrats do not believe that Canadian businesses and workers should have these opportunities. They do not believe that our businesses can compete. They do not believe that trade creates jobs and economic prosperity for Canadians and our international partners. In fact, the NDP believes in an inward-looking Canada, a Canada that cowers in the face of competition.
Our Conservative government categorically rejects that view and vision for Canada. We believe that Canadians have proven time and time again that we can compete with the very best and win, and we will continue to do so as our government opens up new markets. 
However, we see efforts in the House by New Democrats to characterize themselves as pro-trade. They refer to it as fair trade and we all know across Canada that fair trade, when it is defined by the NDP, means no trade. There is not one trade agreement that they do not criticize. There is not one trade agreement that they see as moving Canada's trade objectives forward. 
When they speak of being born-again free traders, it belies the fact that, for example, the NDP member for Ottawa Centre asked dismissively, “Does anyone really think that signing a free trade agreement with Panama will lead to the economic prosperity of Canada?” There are others. For instance, the NDP member for British Columbia Southern Interior recently wrote that trade agreements “threaten the very existence of our nation”. 
Can anyone imagine that trade agreements are threatening our very existence as a nation? Quite the opposite is true. Trade is a key driver of economic growth and prosperity in Canada. In fact, Canada is one of the great free trading nations of the world and we benefit from more open and freer trade.
Then there is the former NDP trade critic, the member for Windsor West, who supported the Canadian auto workers' call to abandon our current negotiations for free trade agreements with countries such as Japan and the European Union. That is pretty sad. We reject that approach to trade. We also reject the New Democrats' approach to investment, which is to say no, and they have done that again in recent weeks.
According to the International Monetary Fund, Panama's GDP is recording very significant growth. It opens up new opportunities for Canadians to sell their products and their expertise into the Panamanian market. For example, Canada's agricultural exporters, on whose products Panama currently maintains tariffs reaching peaks of as high as 260%, those tariffs would be eliminated under this agreement.
Our government is proud to be promoting an ambitious pro-trade plan that is opening up these markets, removing those tariff and non-tariff barriers to ensure we can compete effectively and drive economic growth right here at home.
The opportunities for Canada are not limited to exporters. It has been widely reported that Panama is undertaking an ambitious $5.3 billion project to expand the Panama Canal. In fact, the canal's expansion project is already under way. The ongoing operation and maintenance of the canal is expected to generate significant opportunities for Canada's investment community in the years to come.
Furthermore, Panama has announced an infrastructure plan valued at $13.6 billion over five years in its effort to become a trade and logistical hub in the region. Canada is one of the leaders in infrastructure and related technology. We have some of the top firms in the world that are experts in infrastructure, construction and development.
The more that time passes by, the more that opportunities for Canada's exporters and investors are placed at risk. That is why the House must act quickly to ensure that Canadian companies have the competitive advantage to see some of the growing commercial opportunities in Latin America, and specifically in Panama.
I would remind the House that Panama has already concluded free trade agreements with the United States and the European Union, two of our fiercest competitors. Panama's free trade agreement with the European Union could enter into force as early as the end of this year. More pressing is the fact that the United States-Panama trade agreement entered into force on October 31, 2012, just two days ago.
What does that mean to Canadians? We have lost first mover advantage. We had an opportunity to get this done sooner but because of the opposition parties and the obstacles raised by the NDP, the anti-traders, the anti-investment folks on the other side of this House, we have lost that first mover advantage. Now, the United States and its exporters and its investors will have a leg up on Canada. What a shame.
While Canadian companies continue to face duties, our American counterparts are already seizing the excellent opportunities freer and open trade has brought to their workers and businesses. Now, of course, Canadian products are at a competitive disadvantage due to prohibitive duties, while 87% of products from the United States now enjoy duty-free access.
 We have missed that window of opportunity to take the lead. This will adversely impact the Canadian manufacturers, producers and exporters who want to grow and expand their commercial ties with Panama. It is absolutely imperative that we implement this agreement to defend the competitiveness of Canadian firms in Panama and solidify our Canadian presence in a growing and strategic market.
Our Conservative government clearly understands that our standard our living and Canadians' future prosperity will be generated by deepening and broadening our trade and investment relationships around the world, especially in the highest and fastest growing markets of the world.
Opening up new markets in Panama and increasing Canadian exports will benefit workers and businesses in every region of our country. We have already lost tremendous opportunities in Panama by waiting to implement this agreement. It is time to get this bill through the House. 
I ask that all hon. members of this House, on both sides of this House, support the swift ratification of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.
Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for quoting me. I was going to make that point but he has done it for me.
When we see the trade deals that the government has brought forward, does it really think that free trade agreements with Iceland, Jordan and Panama will actually open up our economy to the extent that we will lift all boats up? Unemployment is stubbornly at 7% in this country. We just heard the job numbers. 
The government has done nothing to focus on a job strategy and yet it puts out these pithy agreements that make us vulnerable because of the way they are negotiated. We put forward many amendments on this trade deal. We believe in trade but we need to ensure it is for Canadians as well as the people we are trading with.
Exactly how many good jobs will be created for Canadians, jobs we can count on because we will put this on the record for later? Why did the Conservatives reject the amendments we put forward which would protect the labour rights of those who we are trading with, in this case Panama, as well as the environmental protections? Why did they reject those amendments which were reasonable?
[Interjection]
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, due to our government's economic action plan, our global commerce strategy, under which we have created the most ambitious trade plan in Canada's history, we have seen tremendous growth in very difficult economic times around the world. 
At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned that Canada's economic fundamentals lead most of the developed world. Our job creation numbers lead the G7. In fact, I would remind the member that since 2009 and the depths of the recession, Canada has created 820,000 net new jobs. Much of that is due to the fact that we have had this ambitious investment strategy that is opening up new opportunities around the world for Canadian companies to be successful.
I also would remind the member that this free trade agreement also has a parallel agreement on labour protections. He must have missed that as he read the agreement.
Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister for the hard work that he has done. I mean that in all sincerity. It is incredible the amount of trade and the work that we are continuing to do. We are not stopping.
In my riding of Chatham—Kent Essex, a largely agricultural riding, what will it mean for the people who are involved in the agricultural business and trading and some of those aspects? What will it mean for trade for those farmers?
[Interjection]
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, my friend and I have become very close friends over the years. He is someone who really cares about Canada's economic health and he has intervened on many occasions to express how important it is for Canada to grow its economy through using trade and investment.
In trade agreements, we focus on eliminating two things, one being tariff barriers. In other words, the duties that are imposed when Canadians want to export agricultural products abroad, whether it is wheat, pulses, fruits, pork or cattle. When we are exporting these products abroad there are usually very heavy tariffs on them because other countries are trying to protect their economy. What they do not understand is that free and open trade actually builds a much bigger overall pie.
When we negotiate these agreements, we are negotiating market access, the elimination of these tariffs, and beyond that we are also negotiating the elimination of non-tariff barriers which are all the rules and standards that are behind the border that prevent Canadian farmers from being successful when they export their products abroad.
Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to let it be known for the record that on this side we agree with fair trade, not free trade at the expense of everything else. I am also a bit tired of the gibberish that I hear coming from that side and the words the minister says in his attacks that somehow I am against trade as is my party. 
The minister mentioned CETA. Is he willing to sign a free trade agreement with Europe if this allows the European multinational corporations to sue the Canadian government, if the municipalities choose, for example, to give local preference to contracts and hire local workers? Is he willing to sign this agreement if the cost of prescription drugs in Canada goes up by $2.5 billion? Is he willing to sign this agreement if those in the supply management sector see supply management gutted because of the pressure coming from Europe or Japan or in the other agreements with other countries? What if this hampers provincial governments in instituting good green energy policies? Is he willing to sell out Canada because of these so-called free trade agreements?
[Interjection]
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, I think the member has just answered his own question. It is very clear that he is anti-trade. It is very obvious from that answer.
I will again quote for the House what that member recently stated. He said, “trade agreements threaten the very existence of our nation”. That is a broad unconditional statement that says that he opposes free trade. His party, the NDP, has consistently opposed our free trade agenda. 
I would remind the member that the New Democrats has opposed free trade agreements with countries such as Iceland, Switzerland, Peru and Liechtenstein. The NDP are not born-again free traders over there. It is very clear that the NDP is anti-trade and anti-investment. Its record shows that. It has opposed almost every free trade agreement this government has ever signed.
Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I compliment the trade minister and this government on what an excellent job they have done to get out there and try to find new markets.
 How exactly would Canada, with some 35 million people, grow our economy if we were to do as the opposition wishes and only trade with ourselves? I do not understand that. What we are trying to do is eliminate barriers and tariffs, things that would create access to markets where,in some cases, our companies are already trading but on an unfair basis.
We are looking at trying to develop rule-based trading where our companies could compete on a fair ground, where they could go out and export our products and do a better job, which means they can employ more people for Canada. 
 I would like the minister to comment on where exactly we would sell our goods if we could not sell them to other places in the world.
[Interjection]
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, as members know, Canada is the second largest country in terms of land mass in the world. We are a country that is incredibly rich in natural resources but we only have a population of 34 million. That is not a large market. If we want the ability to grow the economy, we need to look outside of Canada. I am not asking the New Democrats to understand that because they have tried to understand it and it has just not gotten through.
We know that Canadians understand that trade is a kitchen table issue and that is critical to their long-term prosperity. As we seek these new markets, we remove barriers to trade around the world. We do exactly as my colleague has suggested. We find new markets. We create new markets for our Canadian businesses to be successful in and to increase their exports, not only in goods but also in services where Canada is a world leader.
 I make no apologies for our ambitious trade agenda.
Mr. Marc-André Morin (Laurentides—Labelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister.
If Canada were to enter into an agreement with the Cayman Islands, would the agreement include an exchange of tax information and banking secrets, or would we simply sign it without even looking at it?
[Interjection]
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled as to why the member would refer to the Cayman Islands. We are discussing the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.
Canada is presently in discussions with Panama to sign a tax information exchange agreement that would make it easier to detect money laundering, to ensure that our tax regimes line up and that the information that flows between two trading partners, Canada and Panama, is sufficient for us to identify when nefarious activities are going on. We have made it very clear that we see that as being part of this ongoing relationship with Panama.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, today we have heard, yet again, the government talking more about others, casting aspersions on people and making up fictitious policy statements of other parties, as opposed to talking about the merits of this trade deal. That is unfortunate. A responsible government model would be to bring forward one's best ideas, talk about the benefits, make sure they are understood and that Canadians are aware of the benefits.
 Alas, this government is more interested in throwing political mud as opposed to promoting its ideas. I guess it is nothing new. We hear it every day in the House. The Conservatives like to throw mud even more than talking about their own ridings. I guess it is not a surprise that again today we have the minister spending more than a third of his speech attacking our party and trying to in some way paraphrase us. It was fiction, indeed.
We really need to take these trade deals seriously. For most of his career in the public service, my father worked on negotiating GATT agreements. One of the things he was very clear about was that in getting involved in trade agreements, Canada has to make sure it understands all of the issues on the table. He used to negotiate the GATT agreements in Brussels on behalf of our country. He was very proud of our country's ability to take away barriers where we could, but also make sure we had a balance. 
The government does not seem to understand that; it is in such a hurry to sign a free trade agreement with whomever. This is a problem, because once these free trade agreements are stacked up, they actually have to be monitored. People have to be in place to follow them. 
The minister was bragging about the great robust global trade strategy. Then, who did he cite? Liechtenstein. I have nothing against the good people there, but it does not amount to lifting all boats up. 
We should also note that the government has had free trade agreements with countries like Honduras, for instance. With regard to the amount of value recently concluded for the free trade agreement in Honduras, in a full year, our trade with Honduras is equal to 71 minutes of the trade we do with the United States. It is interesting that the government brags that the equivalent of 71 minutes of trade with one of our bigger trading partners is somehow going to lift all boats up 
 The government has not been able to sign one agreement with a major Asian economy. It has stumbled around trying to figure out how to deal with China. It has members who still do not believe we should even have a relationship with China. I cite some of the members who have spoken for themselves. I will not quote them. 
We have a problem here in terms of the government's credibility on trade. It says one thing and it talks about this robust strategy, but when we add up the list of countries, including Panama, it really does not amount to a comprehensive strategy. 
This is a changing world. In the decades ahead, we will see a dramatic shift in global power. Projections indicate that by 2050 only the United States will represent the western nations among the top seven largest economies. China will be first. India, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Indonesia, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany, Nigeria, France, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam will have larger GDPs than Canada. This is a manifestation of a truly multipolar world, which the government does not understand. While the economic power is dispersed, new cultural, diplomatic and military strengths will be asserted that will effect trade.
What will the world look like in 2050? That is something we need to keep in mind when we are talking about these trade agreements. What values will guide our trade agreements in international politics, and how will Canada project and promote our values and interests in the future? The answers to these questions will depend on the choices we make as a country. Will Canada be isolationist, as we have seen lately, in terms of its diplomacy and the notion of signing a trade agreement with whomever and not looking at strategic interests, or will Canada assert itself as a responsible leader, comprehending this ever-changing world? 
The reality is there are vital economic and trade interests that we all recognize are important. However, the problem with the current government is that it lacks a coherent strategy and the competence to assert Canada as a responsible leader on the global stage. In doing so, it fails to achieve the very objectives it sets for itself, as I already mentioned.
There is rhetoric in saying that we have a global trade agenda and when we look at the tally sheet, we have Liechtenstein, Iceland and Honduras. There is not one single trade agreement with any of the major Asian economies.
Let me talk about Asia. It was just a month ago that Canada was denied a seat at the East Asia Summit. This adds to our collective embarrassment of losing our seat at the Security Council. I am not sure if many Canadians know this, but the East Asia Summit is where decision-makers and those who want to have a voice in the Asian economies go to meet to assert their interests.
 Canada was shut out. Two other countries were allowed in. There are 18 countries around the table. We have not heard that from the government. The government has not even explained why we were shut out.
Why were shut out of the East Asia Summit? This is a table where, as I said, important decisions are made that have major impacts on our country. We all know it is the Pacific powerhouses where trade is going to be. I just listed the 2050 projections in terms of where the GDP growth is going. However, in our absence, we will not have the input at that important table at the East Asia Summit.
I will quote for members the words of the General Secretary of the ASEAN. Mr. Surin Pitsuwan explained that Canada failed to get a seat at the East Asia Summit as a result of a lack of engagement that would project Canada's qualities. He said:
 The goodwill is there. The name is there. But you don't see the sustained effort of trying to project it out. 
What did he recommend? 
 What Canada can do is to transform its expertise in those areas of peacekeeping, peace-building into a more mediating role. A country like Norway has been very active and engaged. Canada has been less than Norway, maybe by choice. 
He argued that while everyone wants to expand trade in an economic partnership, it comes along with leadership at the same time. Leadership, in Canada's case, is because of our history in conflict resolution.
I will finish with this quote, which he said at the end:
 It has to be a package, an integrated approach. 
This should have been—sadly, I do not think it has been—a wake-up call for the government. When we are shut out of the most important table when it comes to the Asian economy, it says something.
When we have a bill like the Panama free trade agreement and we have the government suggesting this is a wow moment for us and our economy, we really have to wonder if the government is actually in tune with what is going on in the world. We were shut out of the Security Council. 
To my embarrassment, as a representative of this Parliament, we had an opportunity recently, at the General Assembly, to have our Prime Minister come forward to say what our country is about, what our values are and indeed what our trade interests are. Instead, he did not take that opportunity and sent the  foreign affairs minister, who then wagged his finger at the UN and many member states and, as an aside, quoted Kahlil Gibran, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, with some of the most misplaced quotes I have heard in a long time.
However, if we are going to take trade seriously, then we have to understand the importance of relationships. When we do not take diplomacy seriously, then it is hard to see how we can further advance trade. That is the point in critiquing our failure to get a seat at the East Asia Summit.
Having a free trade agreement with countries like Honduras and Panama is not going to get the job done. In fact, there is a very interesting critique on trade that was brought out last spring. I know the Prime Minister has read it and, in fact, I think he got most of his front bench to look at it. It is titled,“Winning in a Changing World: Canada and Emerging Markets”. It is an interesting document.
The Conservatives often like to accuse us of having tunnel vision and that we only listen to certain people. Well, in this particular critique, there are some recommendations for the government. For example, it is this document that cites that the free trade with Honduras amounts to 71 minutes of trade with our partner to the south, and the value of it is questioned. It comes up with some different recommendations than the path the Conservative government is following and suggests not just looking at a free trade agreement cookie-cutter approach. Why? It is not strategic. 
I remember my father telling me about his work and that when we get into trade, if we just put all-in agreements and language saying we would open up major sectors without understanding the implications, we lose our strategic advantage. 
The report suggests, and I applaud the authors on this, to look at the sectors here that we should invest more in to help us trade and make sure we are going to get competitive advantage with the emerging markets that I mentioned. It also points out that we cannot do these free trade agreements with emerging economies like India, China and Brazil.
I was in Brazil when the minister was there a couple of years ago. I was there for a conference on the Global Fund to fight HIV-AIDS. The whole world was there, but I was the only Canadian representative. The minister happened to be in Sao Paulo that day pitching trade, but we would need a search warrant to find evidence of that. There was no evidence in the media and absolutely no indication of what he was doing there.
 Meanwhile, the story of the day was how Brazil was reaching out to Africa, looking at making sure we are going to be more connected in the world to helping those who are suffering from HIV-AIDS, malaria and other diseases. This was actually a strategic approach as well as doing the right thing. 
Others have criticized the current government on being one dimensional. If all it is worried about are free trade agreements, we can see the results: a total shut-out in Asia. After seven years, the Conservative government has nothing to show for its robust global trade strategic plan other than a couple of pithy agreements, as I have mentioned already.
However, my concern is that we have a minister who travels to one of the most strategic should-be partners in the BRIC, Brazil, but we do not even get noticed. In fact, when we talk to people in the Americas, they scratch their heads and ask what happened to the Americas strategy. 
I remember the fanfare when the Conservative government announced there was going to be this great Americas strategy. Well, we had a rescue mission a couple of summers ago with the Prime Minister who, I guess, had to rescue his trade minister. He travelled around South America yet again, but the question is, what do we have to show for it? Where are we with Brazil? Why are we not focusing on a relationship with them? Why does the Conservative government not understand that it is trade diplomacy as well as investment? The debates we are having right now are clear that there is a problem in terms of the government understanding how to layout not only its strategy, but the rules. 
The report I mentioned, “Winning in a Changing World: Canada and Emerging Markets”, is written by Derek Burney, as well as a former chief executive officer representative, Thomas d'Aquino. These are clearly not people who would be noted as radical leftists. When speaking about on getting trade right, they said that:
 Canada should target markets with significant potential instead of those with which agreements are easy to conclude. 
I want to emphasize this because this is where the government's strategy fails. They are saying that in our guiding principles for trade:
 Canada should target markets with significant potential instead of those with which agreements are easy to conclude. A smart engagement strategy invests political and negotiating capital in talks that deliver real benefits and clear results. In the long term, the hectic pursuit of “announceables” serves neither public nor private interests. 
This report is saying that the strategy of the current Conservative government is not going down the right path. However, as the Conservative backbench and front bench know, their game is to try to set up a narrative where they are in favour of trade; they are good, but the others are not and they are bad. 
The fact is that when we have people who know what trade is about, there has to be political investment. The study talks about that. This is diplomacy. This is where the government has been unable to get the job done. It is not just talking about going after “announceables”. The government could be classified as a government by press releases and not results. When I asked the minister exactly how many jobs would be created with the Panama free trade agreement, he attacked me. When we ask how this would enhance our opportunities, there is no response except that the NDP does not like trade. It is bizarre and I do not bother responding to it. I leave his rhetoric alone and people can gauge it. 
Let us go further into what the study looked at. It looked at what Canada needed to do, which is to look at emerging markets and negotiate customized trade and investment arrangements with this in mind. It says that we should abandon these free trade agreements and this cookie-cutter approach. I know the Prime Minister has read this and hopefully the trade minister has as well. 
Let me explain what the words mean. The authors say, “We must negotiate customized trade and investment arrangements”. Customized trade arrangements, as my father used to say when he negotiated GATT, is ensuring that our producers are not going to be subsumed and played by other producers. Things like nomenclature are important. Allowing a foot in by other economies is not going to mean the abandonment of support for the economies, producers and those creating jobs in Canada. It means doing trade differently. 
With due respect, the government is kind of fighting the last war. It thought that just saying free trade and finding a sign-off with anyone was a strategy. It turns out to be political grandstanding. When the media is not around and people talk about diplomacy and trade, they scratch their heads and ask why the government is going down the path of these pithy free trade agreements when the world has changed and moved on. 
I will go through the emerging economies that I mentioned earlier, which we know are Brazil, India, Russia and China. What the authors are saying in the report is that we cannot make free trade agreements with these countries because they do things differently. The trade agreements have to be customized. When the government trumpets the free trade approach, we have to question not only the benefits for Canadians but, most important, just like when we sign off on international agreements in diplomacy, where we are going to land in 10, 15, 20 years. How are we going to be locked in?
The FIPA that we have been debating in the House is a classic example. Not many Canadians are aware that we will be locked in to this financial arrangement with China for 31 years. Most financial agreements negotiated in the past provide an option for us to say that after six months' notice, we are out of the deal. Not in this case. On the one hand, the government is signing a free trade agreement with Panama, which has questionable benefits for Canadians. On the other hand, it signs a FIPA with China which locks us in for up to 31 years. 
One has to wonder what the government's strategy is, other than “announceables”, as was critiqued in the report that I read, saying the government was able to announce something and that is somehow that is good policy. It is not. In fact, when we look at the countries I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, in 2050 the largest economies will be China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Indonesia, Japan, U.K., Germany, Nigeria, France, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam. When we look at each one of those countries individually, they are very different. We cannot sign one of these free trade agreements, like the government has, with each of these countries.
The nature of a multipolar world means that we have to change our mindset. It is not just about one big trade agreement with one country. The critique of our trade arrangement with the United States was always that it locked us in too much and we needed to ensure we would provide more opportunities for Canadian companies and workers.
 At the end of the day, the problem with this agreement is the lack of vision of where we are going with comprehensive free trade. As I mentioned, reports by those who have looked at where Canada is going in trade show it is actually in the past. We need to be looking for tailored, comprehensive free trade agreements and this is not one. That is why we cannot support it.
Mr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have heard the world according to the member for Ottawa Centre, who states that people take different views of international free trade agreements. I would imagine there are numerous approaches in people's minds about how trade should be done. 
The fact is that our Minister of International Trade has taken a very aggressive, measured and strategic approach. We are signing more trade agreements than the previous government's members ever thought of doing in the 13 years they held a majority. While we are signing trade agreements, the New Democrats are voting against every single trade agreement we bring here for passage in legislation. We are signing them; they are complaining about our signing them and voting against every one.
I suggest that our economic record, given this recent time of global pressures, has indicated to countries around the world that we are on the right path, that we are a leader in the global economy and that our country is stable. We still have pressures coming our way, but we will manage them because we have good government, and that is why we are sitting on this side with a strong, stable majority government.
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, if I could paraphrase, the member says that they are awesome and we are not and this is the way it is.
 Let us have a debate on facts here. That is what is often so deadening in this House. I laid out a critique of what is problematic with the government's trade approach. I quoted the Secretary General of the ASEAN who has said that Canada has abandoned diplomacy and that this has affected our trade. That is why we were shut out of the most important trade table in the Pacific region, the East Asia summit. The Conservatives do not want to acknowledge that. 
It has been pointed out that the free trade deal with Honduras amounts to the equivalent of just 71 minutes of Canada's daily trade with United States, and yet the former agreement is what the Conservatives want to trumpet. Seventy-one minutes of trade with Honduras compared to our daily trade with the United States is not something to be joyful about. With all due respect, the same applies to Liechtenstein, which is not a global powerhouse. 
In contrast, the Conservatives have not signed one trade agreement with a major Pacific-Asian country and they talk about what a great strategy they have. So we have to measure their rhetoric with their results.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of thoughts, followed by a question for the member for Ottawa Centre. 
First and foremost, the Liberal Party has been fairly clear in its support for freer trade with other countries around the world. As much as we respect the economy and the environment and labour laws, we do believe it is important when we are living in a global economy that we explore the opportunities for freer trade when they arise and where we can sign something that is in Canada's best interest.
Having said that, we are concerned that the government has been somewhat negligent on probably the most important file and that is with the U.S.A. Canada is very dependent on the U.S.A. and has not given it the attention necessary to provide and guarantee the types of jobs that we need to maintain and grow our jobs. 
My question for the member for Ottawa Centre is something that many Canadians wonder about. Has the NDP ever stood inside in the House of Commons and actually voted in favour of a trade agreement? Have the New Democrats actually stood and recorded a vote where they said yes to any trade agreement in the history of our country?
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Liberals on one day are all in favour of trade agreements, then on another day they do not like them any more, and then they go back to saying yes again. We have seen this a bit with FIPA. The Liberals just do not know where they stand. It gives us whiplash wondering what they believe in. It is really hard to know.
Yes, we did support the trade agreement with Jordan, as was pointed out already. In terms of the approach that we need to take, it needs to be combined with diplomacy and an effort to make sure that we are not one just dimensional. When we see the hollowing out of our diplomacy, we lose on trade. That is why the Secretary-General of ASEAN said the following: 
 The goodwill is there. The name is there. But you don't see the a sustained effort of trying to project it out. 
He continued: 
 What Canada can do is to transform its expertise in those areas of peacekeeping, peace-building into a more mediating role. A country like Norway has been very active and engaged. 
I could not agree with him more. We were shut out of East Asia Pacific table. Others are in, we are out. The government claims that it is great because we are signing deals with Lichtenstein. It is very sad.
Mr. Jean Rousseau (Compton—Stanstead, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. I paid special attention to his comments about strategy, and I would like him to elaborate further.
Our goal should not be to simply sign agreements here and there, with this or that country, without any real plan. We need to identify areas where Canada performs well. We also need to look at our economy, identify strengths and weaknesses and conduct an analysis. Then we will be in a position to enter into agreements that will benefit both parties.
That is not what is happening right now. Instead, we see the government blindly signing agreement upon agreement. It is a very pleasant activity, for sure, a great opportunity to have fun, travel and make new friends all around the world. It is all very nice.
But does it really serve the interests of our economy and of Canadians to have agreements like those, which will amount to 70 minutes worth of trade with the Americans? The Government of Canada is unable to take a stand and negotiate profitable agreements with major countries. We must enter into agreements not only with developing countries that need our help, but also with major nations that provide greater opportunities for Canadian exports. 
[Interjection]
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question because it goes to the essence of the issue. Just going around and signing anywhere is like someone putting a piece of paper down and saying “Sign here” and then they make a grand announcement. That is not where we need to go.
As I asked at the beginning of my speech, where are we going to be in 2050? The countries that I listed are going to be the top countries. I reiterate that the United States will be the only top western country. We will have China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Indonesia, Japan, U.K., Germany, Nigeria, France, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam. They will all have larger GDPs than Canada.
The government is in the past. It needs to wake up, and it needs to have a comprehensive free trade strategy.

Statements by Members
DiwaliMr. Kyle Seeback (Brampton West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, with Diwali fast approaching, I want to say a few words about the significance of this great festival.
The celebration of Diwali has become known as the victory of good over evil. It refers to the light of higher knowledge dispelling ignorance. With this awakening comes the compassion and awareness of the oneness of all things. This brings ananda, joy or peace. Just as we celebrate the birth of our physical being, Diwali is the celebration of this inner light.
Last night in Ottawa, we celebrated Diwali with our great Prime Minister. In my own riding of Brampton West, there will be many Diwali celebrations in Mundhirs, Gurdwaras and peoples' homes. 
May this Diwali illuminate our lives and bring the shower of glory, prosperity, peace and health. Best wishes to all those who celebrate Diwali and their families.
Atikamekw CommunityMs. Francine Raynault (Joliette, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on October 25, I had the privilege of attending a public meeting on education in Manawan. In the Atikamekw community, the high school dropout rate is 48% and very few students earn a diploma. The situation is not much better at the elementary level: the school is falling apart and poses a risk to public health. It even falls short of the standards for schools we build in Afghanistan.
What is the government doing to fix the problem? It is cutting $430,000 from education in Manawan. The meeting was an opportunity to take stock of the situation and to hear what the Atikamekw are hoping for. Our conclusion: enough is enough.
BurmaMr. Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have constituents worried over the fate of loved ones facing persecution in Burma. 
Rohingya are a minority group in Burma who are without citizenship rights. They are prohibited from building of worship and from working in the public service. They require a permit to travel and they must declare their religion on I.D. cards.
This summer, violence again broke out in Burma and many Rohingya were targeted. There are real concerns that Burmese security did not do an adequate job of protecting all residents and may even have contributed to the violence. 
The Canadian government advocates for the protection of human rights in Burma and around the world. We condemn the violence in Burma's Rakhine State, which has led to the displacement of up to 90,000 residents. 
We call on all sides to work toward a peaceful resolution. We urge the Burmese government to ensure the safety of all civilians.
The House must stand with the Rohingya in their quest for protection and justice.
The EnvironmentMs. Kirsty Duncan (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, through economic action plan 2012 and Bill C-38, the government severely cut the budget to Environment Canada, gutted environmental legislation, cancelled the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy. The Conservatives have also silenced dissent from environmental non-governmental organizations and continue to muzzle government scientists, threatening our economy and environment.
Our world-renowned natural heritage is now being further imperilled by a government that fails to understand that water is the foundation of life, is at the centre of economic and social development and is fundamental across economic sectors, including agriculture and energy.
Through its latest anti-democratic omnibus legislation, Bill C-45, the government is stripping federal oversight from thousands of Canadian waterways. Of the roughly 32,000 lakes in Canada, just 97 lakes and 62 rivers will now be protected.
Instead of killing the Navigable Waters Act, will the government prioritize clean water and restore our freshwater ecosystems?
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Rick Dykstra (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, CPC): Mr. Speaker, a $21 billion carbon tax can be found on page 4 of the NDP platform costing tables. While NDP members complain about mention of this fact, the NDP has been sending a completely false message to Canadian seniors.
David Boese, a local senior on an NDP mailing list in my community, wrote me about a disturbing email signed by the NDP House leader, which led him to believe he would lose $12,000 in OAS payments. Understandably, he expressed anxiety about his personal finances and was relieved to find the truth. Like all Canadians 55 and over, David Boese could live to be a thousand years old and not lose a single penny of OAS money.
It is irresponsible for NDP members to spread falsehoods about government programs to the Canadian seniors who rely on them. Seniors trust messages from elected members of Parliament and by trying to add a zero and then another zero to get to $12,000, the NDP is simply abusing that trust.
Parliamentary Budget OfficerMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is a modern-day hero and perhaps the best friend the Canadian taxpayer has. Those in government who undermine and insult him at every turn are not fit to breathe the same air as this great Canadian.
Villainy wears many masks, but none so treacherous as the mask of virtue. It was the culture of secrecy that allowed corruption to flourish in the bad years of the Liberal government. However, the Conservatives deceived Canadians by promising a brand new Camelot of transparency and accountability and then proceeded to make a mockery of any semblance of scrutiny, oversight or due diligence of government spending by ensuring that the efforts of the Parliamentary Budget Officer were thwarted and stymied at every turn.
Canadians have an absolute and constitutionally protected right to know what their government is doing with their money. History will remember Kevin Page as a great Canadian and an honourable public servant. The same cannot be said for those who would undermine, thwart and try to deter him from doing his job of protecting the Canadian taxpayer.
Member for Cariboo—Prince GeorgeMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize the service of the member for Cariboo—Prince George. This past week he began his 20th year as the federal representative for central interior B.C.
First elected to the House of Commons in 1993, the member has held numerous positions throughout the years, most recently serving as the chair of the B.C. Yukon caucus and chair of the National Forestry caucus. He is also one of the few remaining members of Parliament of the original 1993 Reform caucus.
Over the past two years, I have been able to get to know the member very well. He has been a great help as I began my own career as the member of Parliament for Prince George—Peace River. I am proud to share the city of Prince George with the member for Cariboo—Prince George and I look forward to continuing to do so in the years ahead.
I once again congratulate my friend and colleague from Cariboo—Prince George on his remarkable achievement.
Small BusinessMr. Greg Rickford (Kenora, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have some good news for the House. As of January 2011, more than 100 new small businesses have started up in the great Kenora riding. New businesses include those involved in the resource sector. There is a new hustle and bustle to our downtowns and our business and industrial parks. I visit these new businesses, attend chamber events and award galas and host small business round tables throughout the riding frequently.
Here is the bad news. A growing number of small businesses are a direct result of responsible resource development in the region or are anticipating growth as a result of it, the same sectors the leader of the NDP referred to in our region as a disease.
It gets worse. The NDP would implement a carbon tax which would dramatically increase living costs for northern Ontarians, stifle the prospects of small business and cripple resource development in northern Ontario.
Back to the good news. Our government stands with small businesses. We support responsible resource development and oppose a carbon tax.
Small businesses are just another example of what is so great—
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.
Human RightsMr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a statement on behalf of the leader of the NDP and the NDP.
 It is with great sorrow that I extend my sympathies on the 28th anniversary of the tragic pogroms of 1984 that targeted the Sikh community across India.
 Like our former leader, the NDP stands in solidarity with the Sikh community and human rights organizations. We continue our call for justice for the survivors and an explanation for why and how Sikhs were targeted by organized mobs. We also salute those who risked their lives by providing refuge and assistance to Sikhs during these pogroms.
Victims and survivors have waited too long for recognition of their plight. Rehabilitation must be prioritized. The actions of the police and allegations regarding the role of congress members and the use of state resources must be examined. The truth must be brought to light and the guilty brought to justice. These are the obligations of a democratic state.
International TradeMr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, while our government has an ambitious pro-trade plan to open up new markets, the opposition continues to stand in the way of new opportunities for Canada's exporters. Canadians have long known the NDP to be beholden to radical anti-trade activists.
In today's National Post, columnist John Ivison writes that the leader of the NDP “seems to have outsourced his trade policy to Maude Barlow and the Council of Canadians”.
The NDP also opposes our government's free trade agreement with Panama, an important Canadian trade investment destination in the Americas. At the same time, the Liberal member for Malpeque has shamefully made negative comments about the agreement.
The Liberals and the NDP should explain to Canadians why they oppose new opportunities for one in five Canadian workers whose jobs depend on exports.
The New Democrats cannot hide from their anti-trade record. In challenging global economic times, Canadians know that it is only our government that has a pro-trade plan to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.
Democratic Republic of the CongoPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, every hour 48 women are raped in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Rape is used as a strategy of war to terrorize and control women and communities. It is calculated and it is brutal. In that context, Dr. Denis Mukwege, directs Panzi Hospital where staff have treated over 30,000 survivors of systematic sexual violence. He is a determined healer, despite the ruthless reality he faces on a daily basis. 
I was deeply saddened to hear of an assassination attempt against the doctor. Just days before the attack, the doctor made a speech at the United Nations where he said, “we need action, urgent action to arrest those responsible for these crimes against humanity and to bring them to justice”. These are the words that angered the perpetrators of the worst human rights violation of our time. These are the words that must be echoed by our citizens and our government until justice prevails.
The government must condemn the attack on Dr. Mukwege. It must also support peace building in the Congo, end the trade of conflict minerals that finances this awful war and speak up against the culture of impunity.
War MemorialsMr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in the week leading up to Remembrance Day, Canadians across the country will take time to remember the sacrifices made by those who selflessly served our nation in defence of our core values and freedoms. Canadians from coast to coast will visit war memorials on November 11 and pay their respects. We believe these war memorials are sacred ground that should be treated with the utmost respect. That is why our government passed a law to protect war memorials in Canada.
Unfortunately, and I must say surprisingly, the opposition NDP stood and voted against this legislation. The NDP members voted against protecting war memorials and judicial punishment for individuals who desecrated Canada's monuments commemorating our veterans.
It is wrong that the NDP voted against this meaningful and important legislation.
Human RightsHon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recently participated in the U.S.-based Freedom Forum, which brought together former political prisoners, dissidents, human rights advocates, thinkers and innovators at the cutting edge of the global struggle for freedom, which conferred the Vaclav Havel Prize for Creative Dissent on Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Syi, an honorary citizen of Canada, who spoke movingly of the struggle for freedom always retaining its moral compass. In her words, “we need to free our people not just from oppression but from their own fears and their own hatred”. 
The forum included riveting speeches by Iranian-Canadian author and former political prisoner Marina Nemat, reminding us of the plight of political prisoners in Iran, including Iranian-Canadians Saeed Malekpour and Hamid Ghassemi-Shall, and in respect of which we have established a global Iranian political prisoner advocacy program, and by Manal al-Sharif, the Saudi Arabian women's activist, who spoke of the ongoing repression of women, even in the aftermath of the Arab Spring.
The forum serves as a beacon of hope for those suffering in the shadows of human rights violations, reminding us all that we must enlarge and enhance the international struggle for freedom. We look forward to the launch of a Canadian-based Freedom Forum in the new year to advance the cause of freedom, justice and human rights for all.
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Ryan Leef (Yukon, CPC): Mr. Speaker, last week, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River correctly stated that I have only stood twice in this place to warn my constituents of the NDP's sneaky $21 billion job-killing carbon tax.
I would like to thank the member for reminding me that twice is hardly enough effort in letting the great people of Yukon know that the NDP has a clear plan in black and orange to tax Canadians and raise the price of gas, home heating fuel, groceries, construction supplies and everything else ordinary Canadians need on a daily basis.
I am thankful the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River used his speaking spot to ignore his riding to encourage me to better communicate the NDP's job-killing carbon tax with Yukon residents who believe in our low tax plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.
The Member for Nepean-CarletonMr. Jamie Nicholls (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, NDP): Mr. Speaker, of all the PMO's servile puppets, one Conservative member stands out.
The hon. member for Nepean—Carleton is pushing deceitful fabrications to new heights. Since the beginning of the fall, he has been tarnishing the reputation of our parliamentary institutions, particularly that of the chamber over which you preside, Mr. Speaker. He would rather attack our party for made-up reasons than answer questions or recognize the accomplishments of his constituents. He has turned question period into a sad circus where he is both the clown and the only happy spectator. This type of behaviour has to stop so that we can give Canadians the Parliament that they deserve.
The next speaker has a choice: he can imitate his puppet colleague from Nepean—Carleton or he can be a member of Parliament who serves his constituents. 
New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today, in debate, we heard, once again, the NDP letting its anti-trade views show through again. This should come as no surprise from a party that has opposed every trade agreement that we have brought forward. That is a party that is anti-Canadian jobs, anti-trade mission to Washington and has even opposed NAFTA. 
The NDP leader's anti-trade views are in line with his other policy plank, as we have heard, to impose a $20 billion carbon tax on Canadians. His anti-trade views and his long held desire to impose this new multi-billion dollar carbon tax would kill Canadian jobs and stall economic growth. The NDP leader's carbon tax would raise the price of gas, groceries, electricity and literally everything. His anti-trade policies will kill Canadian exporters and kill Canadian jobs. 
On this side of the House, we will oppose the NDP leader's job-killing carbon tax and we will continue to stand up for Canadian interests as we sign trade deals that will increase Canadian exports and grow Canadian jobs. 

Oral Questions
EthicsMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. 
There are now even more allegations of campaign violations against the minister. His campaign cashed a cheque for $5,500 from a construction company.
Where do I start? First, one cannot accept a donation for more than $1,200 from anybody, and $5,500 is more than $1,200. Second, one cannot accept a donation from a private firm. Is there something that I am missing?
Is the minister willing today to rise in his place and explain himself to Canadians?
Hon. John Baird (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is a new official agent in place who is working with Elections Canada to correct any mistakes in the return.
The minister has always been very clear in directing his campaign not to accept corporate or union donations. Why did he do that? It was because this party and this government banned big money from Canadian politics.
For a member of the New Democratic Party, which pocketed $340,000 illegally into its bank account, to make these charges is just simply too rich.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I want to clear something up for my confused Conservative colleagues across the way.
Elections Canada actually thanked the New Democrats “for the full co-operation it has given to Elections Canada in order to resolve the issue promptly and effectively”.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has the floor.
[Interjection]
Nathan Cullen: The truth also hurts.
Where is the letter of thanks from Elections Canada to the Conservatives? Oh, wait, they do not have one. They pled guilty and they are now in front of Elections Canada again.
I will quote from the Prime Minister's accountability guide. It reads that all ministers are held “to the highest standards of conduct for all their actions, including those that are not directly related to their official functions”.
Will the minister finally stand in his place and account himself to Canadians?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the new official agent is working with Elections Canada on this issue.
It does not absolve the fact that Elections Canada discovered, under our new finance rules, the biggest campaign fundraising scandal under the new laws brought forward by the New Democratic Party. It is not like there was a misplaced cheque. It was hundreds of thousands of dollars which blatantly violated the Federal Accountability Act, something that the member for Winnipeg Centre and I worked so hard to stop. Little did I believe that it would not be the Liberals caught cheating, that it would be the NDP convicted of cheating under these new rules.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's guide also says that ministers must stand and be accountable for themselves to Canadians but, still, nothing from the minister.
The last election was also tarnished by voter suppression from that party. The Minister of National Defence stood in this House and said that the culprit had been caught. Michael Sona's name was leaked and he was thrown under the bus.
Who in government leaked the name? Was it a Prime Minister's office staffer or a ministerial staffer? What evidence did the minister have in leaking the name? Who is next to be thrown under the bus by the government?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. The Conservative Party of Canada ran a clean and ethical campaign and it was not involved in any voter suppression.
Obviously, we are all concerned about what took place in the riding of Guelph, which is why we are working with Elections Canada on this important issue. We do know that one conviction has been rendered about robocalls and breaking the law, and that, of course, was by the Liberal campaign that has been convicted and fined for breaking the law, as it properly should be.
41st General ElectionMs. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives did not hesitate to throw Michael Sona to the wolves in the Guelph robocalls case. Since then, we have not heard a thing. But yesterday we learned from CBC that Andrew Prescott, a Guelph campaign worker, was identified as the individual who downloaded the voter data that was used to commit this fraud.
Can the Conservatives confirm that it was indeed Andrew Prescott who had access to this data and that they have handed over the information about this individual to Elections Canada?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our party is working directly with Elections Canada to get all the facts and identify the individuals associated with the allegations about the situation in Guelph.
I find it ironic that the New Democratic Party is rising in the House to condemn these violations of the act, when the NDP accepted $340,000 in illegal union donations.
The member should rise and provide an explanation.
Alexandrine Latendresse: Mr. Speaker, such an absurd response to a serious question shows some disturbing and tacit complicity on the part of the Conservatives.
Elections Canada has been investigating these fraudulent calls for a year and a half now. This is the worst fraud in Canada's election history, and yet no charges have been laid. If Elections Canada had more power, then perhaps this would have already been sorted out. The NDP had a motion on this subject adopted last spring, but the Conservatives are still dragging their feet.
Why are they not fulfilling their promise to give Elections Canada more investigative power?
Hon. Tim Uppal (Minister of State (Democratic Reform), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think what is disturbing to all Canadians is that the NDP accepted $340,000 in illegal donations. This is a concern. It is for that reason that we are bringing forth a comprehensive proposal and that proposal will be brought forward in due course.
EthicsMr. Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, “We will put an end to the influence of big money in federal political parties by banning corporate contributions”. Do members know who said that? The Prime Minister said that. Do members know who brazenly broke that rule? The member for Labrador broke the rule. Not only did he take a corporate gift of $17,000 in free air travel, but he took a corporate cheque of $5,500 from Pennecon. 
After this slap in the face to the Prime Minister's own law, why is that minister still in cabinet?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is a new official agent in place who is working with Elections Canada on this important issue. 
I can say that the minister directed his campaign officials not to accept either corporate or union donations. We believe that is very important. We are the government and the party that got rid of the influence of big money in politics.
Let us look at the Liberals' record in this. They have four senior Liberals, including one on their front bench, who are in violation of the laws that this government brought in for disguising large donations as loans. When will they come clean with Canadians?
Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, that is more pretending than defending. What he knows and what Canadians know is that the only party that has been convicted under the Elections Act is the Conservative Party and it has paid back a $52,000 settlement. I am not sure if the member for Labrador will avoid such a conviction.
Yesterday, Tom Flanagan, the former chief of staff for the Prime Minister, said that the minister had no choice but to step out of cabinet for so clearly breaking the laws. With over 20% in overspending that we know of, and now the corporate cheque scandal, when will that minister step down?
John Baird: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals standing in judgment on campaign finance reform is almost like Colonel Sanders standing in judgment of chickens.
The minister made specific instructions to his campaign officials not to accept corporate donations. However, is it not funny that, despite the efforts of the member for Medicine Hat and many of us, the Liberal Party has yet to return the $40 million that went missing from Canadians? Why does the member for Cape Breton—Canso not put his focus and attention on that?
Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said—and I am paraphrasing here—that the government would put an end to the influence of money in federal politics by banning corporate contributions. Now one of his ministers, the member for Labrador, has brazenly broken the law. He accepted over $5,000 in illegal donations, as well as $17,000 in free air travel.
After such an affront to our democracy, why is he still a minister?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, there is a new official agent in place to address all of the issues related to the last election in Labrador. I will gladly defend my minister and I am happy to work with him. He is a man of integrity.
I would add that it is the Liberal Party that still has $400,000 in loans that have become illegal donations to the Liberal leadership candidate. If he cares so much about the law, perhaps he should answer to that. 
Correctional Service CanadaMs. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are all too aware that our correctional system is failing women with mental health problems. One-third of women offenders struggle with mental health issues and 50% have a history of self-harm and yet there is no programming for women who self-injure. 
The correctional investigator report laid out clear recommendations to address this failure in the system. Will the minister commit to implementing these recommendations? Refusal to do so would surely result in more cases like the Ashley Smith case.
Ms. Candice Bergen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the very sad case of Ashley Smith shows all of us that individuals with mental health issues need to be in professional facilities, not prisons. 
Our government has taken concrete steps and CSC has implemented a mental health strategy. We will continue to support the work that CSC does in addressing mental health issues. We have invested and we will continue to invest. However, at the end of the day, I think we all agree that individuals with mental health issues should be treated in hospitals and in professional facilities.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, this issue cannot simply be ignored. Treatment for mental health issues should be available for all women offenders during their incarceration. 
The correctional investigator discovered that only 12% of women offenders were entitled to the mental health assistance program. In addition, 35% of those offenders are currently on waiting lists. In 2011, the assistance program accounted for only 1.8% of the prison budget.
Will the minister ensure that Correctional Service Canada has the resources needed to provide adequate assistance programs to women offenders?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, our government continues to take concrete steps on the issue of mental health in prisons. Since 2006, we have invested nearly $90 million in mental health for prisoners, as well as training over 8,000 front-line staff at CSC.
We recognize this need. We also recognize, as all of us do, that people with mental health illnesses should be treated in professional facilities before they reach the correctional system.
However, it is important to recognize the investments that we have made and the steps that we have taken.
The EnvironmentMs. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when the monster budget bill was released, many in my community were shocked to find that no bodies of water on Vancouver Island would be protected. Seventy per cent of all protected lakes come from Ontario ridings, mainly held by Conservatives.
Why are the Conservatives protecting lakes of the rich and famous but casting off important wild salmon rivers and fisheries, like the Cowichan River and the Salmon River?
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Navigable Waters Protection Act is an act respecting the protection of the public to navigate. It is not an environmental piece of legislation. I do not know how many times we have to say this. There are other ways of protecting the bodies of water that the member pointed out. 
Navigation, period. That is all it does. The changes that we have made have been widely applauded right across the country.
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, only the Conservatives claim the Navigable Waters Protection Act has nothing to do with protecting the environment. The facts are just not on their side. When an owner deserts a vessel, Transport Canada has the authority to declare that boat a wreck and have it removed. However, after the Conservatives gut this act, those rules will no longer apply to most inland waters. 
Why are the Conservatives abandoning their responsibilities to Canadians and leaving local communities on the hook?
Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, the premise of that question is wrong. There will always be common law that would apply to all waterways throughout the country. This is really dealing with the large waterways where scientifically empirical evidence demonstrates that having a Navigable Waters Protection Act helps. 
The other issue the member raises is completely false. 
Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives can play that broken record all they want, but their gutting of the Navigable Waters Protection Act is an unbelievable affront to Quebec.
How is it possible that the President of the Treasury Board's riding has three times as many protected lakes as all of Quebec? The minister claims that that has nothing to do with partisanship. He is taking us for fools.
Why not treat Quebec's waterways the same way as those of their Conservative friends? Why go after Quebec's water supply?
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, I will explain. Environmental laws protect the environment, including water; the Fisheries Act protects the fisheries; and the Navigable Waters Protection Act protects navigation.
Unfortunately, as it stands right now, 98% of the projects covered by the latter have nothing to do with navigation. That is why the municipalities asked us to change and improve it.
Parliamentary Budget OfficerMs. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' futile fight with the Parliamentary Budget Officer is the umpteenth example of their obsession with secrecy and backroom decision-making with no transparency. Billions of dollars in services are being eliminated, but the Conservatives are refusing to provide information about the cuts.
What are they trying to hide: the dollar value of the looting, the number of jobs lost, the impact on services to Canadians?
Why are they hiding this information?
Hon. Tony Clement (President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is quite the contrary. We continue to provide information to the budget officer, as we have done in the past. We do so now. We will do so in the future. We have given information according to statutory obligations to the House through our quarterly financial reports, estimates and other means. We will continue to do so in the future.
Craig Scott: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's secrecy is deeply disturbing. The Conservatives have broken the promise that got them elected: more openness and more accountability. They are refusing to share information with the Parliamentary Budget Officer and with Canadians. They will not say how many jobs are being eliminated or what services are being cut. Day after day, ministers rise and simply refuse to explain their cuts.
Why are they hiding the impacts of budget cuts amounting to billions of dollars?
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, we have done the exact opposite, as I mentioned, through our quarterly financial reports, estimates and other means in the House. We have co-operated with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, of course. These decisions were made to get us to a balanced budget, which is part of our jobs plan for this country. Economic growth is important to us on this side of the House.
On the other side, the members vote against these things. However, they are all in favour of $21 billion of extra burden on taxes when it comes to their carbon tax. That is their record. We will take our record seven days out of seven.
National DefenceMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the cost of Canada's mission in Afghanistan continues to rise, long after our combat operation has ended.
Because of Conservative mismanagement of our diplomatic relations with the United Arab Emirates and due to the subsequent closure of our base, Camp Mirage, in the country, we now have to pay between half a billion dollars and a billion dollars to bring our equipment home.
Why do Canadian taxpayers have to foot the bill because of the Conservative diplomatic meltdown with the United Arab Emirates?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), CPC): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging, first, the valiant efforts made by thousands of Canadians in Afghanistan. Next week, I will take time, along with all Canadians, to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice.
In response to the question, as the Minister of National Defence told the committee of the whole last May, the government expects to invest $8.7 billion in Canada's military commitment to Afghanistan. That figure includes incremental costs, including the end of the combat mission.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' had the time to figure out how to reduce these expenses, but they did not do it. And now, taxpayers must foot the bill for the Conservatives' incompetence. They will have to pay between $500 million and $1 billion to bring back equipment from Afghanistan.
Why did the Conservatives not budget for these expenses from the beginning? Why deliberately take a diplomatic hard line knowing that taxpayers will have to foot the bill?
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Defence indicated in the House and in committee, the Afghanistan mission will cost the defence department a total of $8.7 billion, which includes the cost of bringing home equipment and closing down the mission in Afghanistan. That information was clearly articulated to the House and the committee.
Correctional Service CanadaHon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians are appalled by the grotesque videos now in the public domain, showing the abuse of young, mentally ill Ashley Smith while she was in federal custody. The scenes in the videos are an integral part of a lengthy tragedy of events that led to her death. The government has fought relentlessly to keep the videos secret and to limit any public examination to provincial matters only.
Now that Canadians know what the government was hiding and are disgusted by it, will the government stop the charade, fully co-operate and allow the videos as evidence at the Ashley Smith inquest?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, as we all agree, some of the behaviour seen in these videos is absolutely unacceptable and reiterates what a very sad case this is.
Our government has directed the Correctional Service of Canada to fully co-operate with the coroner's inquest. That is what we expect it to do.
Citizenship and ImmigrationRalph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the two Nigerian students stranded in a Regina church, the government keeps repeating the falsehood that these two young women are not students and had been working extensively. However, the University of Regina says that is not true. The government of Saskatchewan says that is not true.
Why is the government calling the province and the university liars? Can the government say whether any inducements were offered to these two young women by the federal officials handling their cases?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to confirm the facts of these cases with the University of Regina for several days now and the university, despite feeling free to speak to the media, is refusing to co-operate with both the CBSA and the CIC, even to answer simple basic questions. The fact is that Ms. Ordu admitted to CBSA officers that she knew she was working illegally. 
I call on the member for Wascana to help us get all of the facts from the University of Regina, instead of standing in the House and being political about an issue that we can work with the ministry on.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism was touting Canada as a haven for persecuted gays and lesbians, lauding his government's work to resettle 100 gay refugees from Iran. The Conservatives proclaimed that standing up for gay rights was a key plank of their foreign policy.
Yet now the government is refusing safe haven to a man from St. Vincent and the Grenadines who fled to Canada two years ago after being beaten so badly for being gay that he was left in a coma and brain damaged.
I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs, why the hypocrisy?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dennie claims that his refugee claim in Canada was rejected because the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada did not believe his claim that he was gay. This is false. Mr. Dennie's previous criminal activities were at issue, not his sexual orientation. According to public court documents, Mr. Dennie has been convicted of multiple crimes, including aggravated assault on his wife.
Foreign InvestmentMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the deadline for approving the Nexen deal is now only nine days away. If this deal is approved, a Chinese state-owned company will be given the unlimited right to buy Canadian natural resources. 
Because of this new investment agreement, if a province such as Quebec tries to limit foreign ownership of its natural resources in any way, it could be taken to court.
Why is the Conservative government endangering Canada's natural resources?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the opposite is true. The hon. member is talking about the Nexen deal, which we have always said will be scrutinized very closely. Before making a decision, we must determine whether the transaction provides a net benefit to Canada. Every decision will be made in the best interests of Canadians.
What we will not advocate for are the kinds of policies advocated by the members of the NDP who are anti-trade, anti-investment, against the development of natural resources and for a job-killing carbon tax of $21 billion that would be put on the shoulders of Canadians. We will not stand for it.
Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, it is not just that Conservatives make stuff up, they do not even seem to understand their own agreement. After FIPA, after Nexen, a Chinese state-owned company will have the unlimited right to buy up Canadian natural resources. CNOOC and Sinopec have already set their eyes on potash. If a province like Saskatchewan or Alberta tries to limit foreign ownership of its natural resources, it will be challenged under the law.
Did western Conservative MPs really come to Ottawa to preside over the greatest sell-off of our natural resources in Canadian history? Why are they so irresponsible?
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, the member is simply wrong and the louder he speaks, the less worthy he is of an answer.
Canada's economic fundamentals lead most of the developed world. In fact, we lead the G7 in terms of job creation, 820,000 new jobs, but the economic recovery is fragile. That is exactly why we need trade and investment to drive economic growth and job creation here at home. What we do not need during these fragile times is an NDP $21 billion carbon tax that will increase the cost of groceries and gasoline.
Paul Dewar:  Mr. Speaker, how can we promote trade with countries like India when investors around the world still do not know what the rules are for investing in Canada?
Two years ago, the Conservatives promised Canadians transparent criteria for evaluating foreign takeovers. Two years later, Canadians are still in the dark.
When will the minister stop the late night leaks, put an end to the midnight announcements and give Canadians clear rules for evaluating foreign takeovers?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, since being in office we have put in place guidelines for state-owned enterprises in 2007 and provisions for national security issues.
As I said, for this transaction, like the other ones, we have to determine if it provides a net benefit to Canada. Therefore, this transaction will scrutinized very closely.
What we will not do is to go with the kinds of policies advocated by the NDP, which would deter any form of investment in this country. Beyond that, the NDP would put $21 billion carbon tax on the shoulders of Canadians. We will not stand for that, never.
Mr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we cannot wait any longer.
Canadians have been waiting for two years for clear regulations to be established with regard to foreign takeovers. We cannot promote trade with countries such as India without clear and predictable rules for foreign investors.
Rather than focusing on establishing these rules, the minister is making announcements at midnight like a thief in the night.
Will the Conservatives now propose clear rules for evaluating foreign takeovers?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have been very clear.
We are in favour of investment. It creates jobs and allows our businesses to move up the global value chain. That being said, there are criteria that must be followed. One of them is that such agreements must provide a net benefit to Canada. This criterion is used for every transaction that is evaluated, and every decision is made in the best interests of Canada.
What is clear is that the members on other side of the House are against trade, investment and the development of natural resources and support a $21 billion carbon tax that would kill the economy.
That is clear, and Canadians clearly do not want that.
EmploymentMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians: helping to create jobs, supporting economic growth and securing our long-term prosperity. 
While we are focused on our low tax plan that would help create jobs, the NDP is pushing high tax schemes to kill jobs. The NDP's massive carbon scheme would not only take $21 billion out of the pockets of Canadians, it would also cripple Canadian businesses and kill Canadian jobs.
Could the Minister of State (Finance) please update the House on the state of the Canadian job market?
Hon. Ted Menzies (Minister of State (Finance), CPC): Indeed that is true, Mr. Speaker. Stats Canada today announced that we have more than 7,000 new full-time jobs as of last month, in fact 2,000 overall. That contributes to 80,000 net new jobs in the last three months, for a total of over 820,000 net new jobs since July 2009.
We have a plan for jobs and growth and it is working. It is helping businesses to employ more Canadians every day.
National DefenceMr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board, having awarded a $645,000 contract to KPMG to analyze the costs of purchasing the F-35s, has confirmed that this independent analysis was nothing but a cut-and-paste copy of the report by the American Department of Defense. The KPMG report was to have been made public in July. 
Where is the KPMG report and why must we pay for data that already existed? Why?
Mr. Jacques Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec, CPC): Mr. Speaker, KPMG was hired to perform an independent audit of the costs for the F-35s. The report will be made public.
Mr. Ryan Cleary (St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NDP): Mr. Speaker, according to the now discredited seven-point plan, the independent cost estimates should have been presented to Parliament in July. We are still waiting.
Treasury Board has confirmed that the secretary will be using numbers from the U.S. Department of Defense that were made public last March, eight months ago.
Why did the government not release those numbers in 60 days, like it said it would. It has already hidden $10 billion from Canadians. When will the government release the real numbers?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, as I already said, the report will be made public soon.
Public Works and Government ServicesMs. Linda Duncan (Edmonton—Strathcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservatives have proven they are not fiscally prudent.
This time their poor money management has meant cost overruns of half a billion dollars, and Canadian taxpayers are on the hook. The Parliament Hill renovations were estimated at $770 million. The reported price tag has now ballooned to $1.2 billion only partway through the project.
Can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services explain how she made such a mess of the project and allowed these costs to escalate?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, that is entirely untrue. The budget approved for this project has not increased.
The government is determined to ensure that the taxpayers’ money is spent properly on these renovation projects.
Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize that a $500 million overrun is completely unreasonable. The renovations to Parliament Hill's West Block are now expected to cost $1.2 billion. Considering the way costs have ballooned under the Conservatives’ disastrous management, there is no reason to think they will not rise even higher. Who will pay this exaggerated bill? Canadians.
Why have the Conservatives been twiddling their thumbs instead of keeping a close watch on these costs?
Jacques Gourde: Mr. Speaker, these statements are completely false.
On the contrary, these needed renovations are being done because the previous government allowed some of the Parliament buildings to fall into a serious state of disrepair.
HealthKirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, it is three years since CCSVI became known to the world. While the government has failed to collect a shred of evidence, 60 other countries have undertaken 30,000 procedures and 1,200 Canadians with MS have died waiting for action.
Now Bill S-204 is being debated by the Senate where Conservative senators are refusing to hear from MS patients. Why is the government silencing MS patients? Why is it shutting down these important voices?
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the truth is that our government recognizes the difficulties and the heartbreak faced by the thousands of MS patients and their families across Canada.
We have been clear all along that we are committed to funding a clinical trial for CCSVI once all the necessary medical and ethical standards have been met. That is why the Minister of Health announced at the ministers of health meeting that after a rigorous review process, clinical trials for CCSVI have been approved and recruitment of participants will begin next month.
41st General ElectionMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a story aired last night, a former Conservative staffer revealed that only a small number of high-ranking Conservatives had access to the call lists used to suppress votes during the 2011 election. He also said it would be very easy to trace the identities of the people who had access to that database.
Why will the government not hand that information over to Elections Canada? 
When the Conservatives want to pass an omnibus bill, they can move quickly, but when it comes to dealing with an attack on democracy, they drag their feet. Why is that?
The Speaker: These questions on what may have happened in elections and party lists, I do not find that they fall into the area of government responsibility. I see the parliamentary secretary standing to answer, so I will allow him the opportunity to do so.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is working proactively with Elections Canada to find all the answers with respect to allegations about what happened in Guelph.
As we all know, only one person and one party have been found guilty of violating the Canada Elections Act by making robocalls, and that was the Liberal candidate for Guelph. We all know this. He was caught and was found guilty. It is now up to the Liberal Party to work with Elections Canada to uncover the truth.
Fisheries and OceansMr. Philip Toone (Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this week the Cohen commission revealed serious and persistent Conservative mismanagement of Canada's fishery.
From the feckless Conservative changes to the Fisheries Act that devastated habitat protection to the failure to fund essential fishery sciences and the laying off of countless scientists, Conservative incompetence is putting fisheries at risk.
Will the minister prove he is capable of protecting our fishery and implement the Cohen commission recommendations?
Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of National Revenue, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Justice Cohen spent nearly 36 months and $26 million drafting this report and it would be disservice not to consider it carefully. We must do our due diligence, review the report carefully and speak with all of our stakeholders and partners about the next steps.
Natural ResourcesPhilip Toone: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have mastered the art of incompetence. They are refusing to assume their responsibilities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Last year, the minister flatly refused to hold environmental consultations on Old Harry, despite requests from the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board to do so. Since this affects five provinces, the board does not have the resources it needs to fill the void created by the federal government's disengagement.
When can we expect a real public consultation process?
Mr. David Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the member knows that what he says is not true. A strategic environmental assessment is taking place to ensure that any drilling in the gulf would be safe for the environment and Canadians. We look forward to the recommendations from the scientific assessment of that region. 
Public SafetyMr. Joe Daniel (Don Valley East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians will not tolerate being held hostage in their own communities by thugs and criminals who are members of street gangs. Our government has been clear that this sort of illegal activity is unacceptable. That is why we have passed legislation to get tough on organized crime, including harsh mandatory minimum sentences for those involved in drive-by shootings and murders related to organized crime.
Could the parliamentary secretary please update the House on any major enforcement operations to crack down on organized crime?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the RCMP, working with the SQ and 20 other police partners, concluded a cross-Canada crackdown on guns, gangs and drugs. More than a hundred arrests were made, taking dangerous criminals off the streets. Additionally, police seized 35 vehicles, 9 kilograms of cannabis and 3 kilograms of cocaine, as well as more than $180,000.
I would like to thank our front-line police officers for the good work they do to keep our streets and communities safe from criminals and gangsters.
Science and TechnologyGeoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, the National Research Council is closing the medical research lab in Halifax after promising partners that the lab would be safe for at least three years. The Institute for Biodiagnostics has improved patient care and created job opportunities for the expanding biosciences sector in Nova Scotia. Closing the lab will impact health care and halt groundbreaking medical research. It will also kill high quality jobs in Atlantic Canada.
Why will the minister not take immediate action and keep the lab open?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, our government committed to conducting a strategic review in order to maximize resources. We have asked all organizations to optimize all of their research activities. At the same time, we have invested over $8 billion in research and development. That is a record amount in the history of this country, and we will continue in that direction. We will never apologize for doing a better job of managing the nation's business.
Firearms RegistryMs. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives made quite a fuss about destroying the firearms registry data and about the cost of managing the registry. The Conservatives cannot or will not say how much it will cost to destroy the registry, or how much money they are saving by getting rid of it. As we can see, the applause has died down.
Is this the result of confusion, ignorance, incompetence, or all of the above? The troubling incompetence of the minister has left Quebec pondering one main question: will the government respect the court order and provincial jurisdiction with respect to the Quebec registry data?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to announce that the long gun registry has ended. All of the data has been destroyed. There is no longer information being gathered on law-abiding Canadians. Instead, as I just answered previously, we are cracking down on criminals, on gangsters and individuals who are using guns in crimes.
We have saved millions of dollars every year for the Canadian taxpayers. We want to put those resources into fighting real criminals and real criminal activity, not targeting law-abiding gun owners.
International TradeMr. LaVar Payne (Medicine Hat, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the NDP's anti-trade, anti-investment ideology is driven by its radical activist allies. In fact, columnist John Ivison wrote today that the anti-trade Council of Canadians “are back and they're driving the New Democratic trade bus”. This activist group has consistently opposed all efforts to create jobs and growth. 
Our government has been clear. We are creating new opportunities for Canadian exporters. Could the hard-working Minister of International Trade please share with the House how our government is doing just that?
Ed Fast: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his hard work for the constituents of Medicine Hat. 
The NDP is truly a party that is beholden to the big union bosses and the radical anti-trade activists. In opposing trade and investment, the NDP and its special interest factors continue to fearmonger and misrepresent the facts. These are challenging times for the global economy and our government is engaged in the most ambitious pro-trade plan in Canadian history. We are using trade to drive new opportunities for Canadian exporters in the world's fastest growing markets. This is creating jobs and economic growth right here at home.
HousingMs. Marie-Claude Morin (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): Mr. Speaker, food aid use is at record levels in Canada. Food Banks Canada has said that government measures to increase the number of affordable housing units is the primary solution to this problem. However, there was no such commitment in the most recent budget. The end of operating agreements is jeopardizing a significant number of housing units.
We have solutions. My private member's bill would establish a national housing strategy. Why is the government not supporting this initiative, which would help all Canadians in need to have access to decent housing?
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government believes that people should have access to affordable and safe housing. That is why, through our economic action plan, we have increased our investment in affordable housing for Canadians across the country by more than $2 billion. However, the NDP voted against these initiatives to help thousands of Canadians. 
Forestry IndustryMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it was disrespectful of the Quebec lieutenant to describe the Government of Quebec as vindictive for defending the interests of its citizens in the areas of culture, justice and health. Yet, these interests were defended by the previous government, which was very federalist.
The minister is right about one thing: comparing the support provided to the Ontario automobile industry with that provided to the forestry industry is simplistic because the inaction of the minister and his government caused many Quebec forestry workers to lose their jobs.
In making such comments, does the minister realize that he is the vindictive one and that he has not been open to Quebec's legitimate demands?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have always advocated open federalism. Since the Parti Québécois was elected on September 4, we have been saying that we are open to discussing economically promising initiatives. No doubt the hon. member is opposed to that because his one and only goal here is to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada. He is just trying to stir up trouble.
When we compare the support given to the forestry industry with that given to the automobile industry, over $4 billion was invested in the forestry along with over $17 billion in loan guarantees. Seeking out divisive issues, as the hon. member has been doing here since 2004, is not constructive—
[Interjection]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.
Foreign InvestmentMr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, it seems to be against the rules to ever say something good about another party but I will break that tradition of lockstep criticism today.
On October 18, I asked the Conservatives to block the Petronas deal. I was pleased to hear the very next day that the minister had, indeed, blocked that buyout. Hopefully, he will stay the course, stand up for Canadian energy security and block the China-Nexen takeover.
Will the minister accept my thanks?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, yes, I always accept thanks. I must repeat that these transactions, Petronas, Nexen and other transactions, we scrutinize these transactions closely to ensure they provide a net benefit to Canada. We always make the decision in the best interests of Canadians. Since the member is now independent, will he stand with us against the $21 billion of carbon tax and, if so, I will thank him?
Points of OrderNathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, in just a moment, I will be seeking to table, in both official languages, a document that refers to the comments made by my friend across the way a moment ago. 
I know the members opposite would never wish to lie in this place but the things they said just are not true. I want to help them out with the facts because they may have them wrong.
Equating a cap and trade system with a carbon tax is like apples and oranges: apples, a carbon tax down the way; oranges, cap and trade. To review, carbon taxes were proposed by them, cap and trade was proposed by us. The interesting thing is that the Prime Minister actually presented a similar cap and trade. 
Therefore, the document I wish to offer up, in both official languages, is the Prime Minister's own speech from London in which he proposed a $46 billion cap and trade program for Canada.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to table these documents?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(b) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 70 petitions. 
Committees of the HouseMr. Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-44, An act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Employment Insurance Act and to make consequential amendments to the Income Tax Act and the income tax regulations.
The committee has considered the bill and has agreed to report the bill back to the House without amendment. 
PetitionsJean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. The first petition has to do with an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act. 
The residents of Canada draw the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that derelict and abandoned vessels pose an environmental risk and a navigation hazard and regulations must be made to establish measures to be taken for the removal, disposition or destruction by the appropriate authority. 
The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to support Bill C-231, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (derelict vessels and wreck).
Jean Crowder: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have to present has to do with Bill C-233, an act to eliminate poverty in Canada.
The petitioners indicate that a majority of provincial and territorial governments have adopted poverty reduction strategies but are limited in the extent they are able to reduce poverty in their jurisdiction without support from the federal government. Bill C-233 would require the federal government to develop and implement strategy for poverty elimination in consultation with the provincial, territorial, municipal and aboriginal governments, and with the civil society organizations.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure the swift passage of Bill C-233, an act to eliminate poverty in Canada.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present. 
The first petition deals with a matter that has actually already been dealt with by the House, Motion No. 312. I regret that the petition was not received and processed in time but it is still important to present it.
Scott Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have received several petitions, mostly from constituents in my riding but also from some surrounding ridings, relating to Bill C-398, the private member's bill that continues the work of Bill C-393, which was dealt with in the last Parliament, on the subject of Canada's access to a medicines regime designed to provide medicines relating, in particular, to malaria, tuberculosis and HIV-AIDS for use in developing countries. 
The Grandmothers' Advocacy Network is focusing on the need for these medicines in Sub-Saharan Africa and ask members of Parliament to support Bill C-398.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition today from various people across Saskatchewan in places like Saskatoon, Bradwell, Clavet, Dundurn, Kinistin, Melfort, St. Brieux and others, who are expressing their concern about the government's decision to terminate the prairie shelterbelt program and, in particular, to sell off the federal tree farm at Indian Head, which has been a vital part of rural Saskatchewan and rural western Canada since it was first founded in 1901.
The petitioners are calling upon the government to change its position and to allow sufficient funding to continue to ensure that the Indian Head tree farm can continue in full operation.
LaVar Payne: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present nine petitions on the same subject from residents in my riding. They contain hundreds and hundreds of signatures from my riding on the subject of Motion No. 312. Unfortunately, they were not here in time but I am still pleased to be able to present them to the House on behalf of the constituents of Medicine Hat.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.
The first petition is from citizens in Manitoba, Ontario and Alberta who would like the establishment of a peace tax legislation by passing into law the conscientious objection act, which recognizes the right of conscientious objectors to not pay for the military but to apply that portion of their taxes that was to be used for military purposes toward peaceful non-military purposes within the powers of Parliament.
Alex Atamanenko: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from folks from Ontario, B.C. and Alberta, with over 450 names of people who support my Bill C-322.
Horses are ordinarily kept and treated as sport and companion animals and are not raised primarily as food processing animals. They are commonly administered drugs that are strictly prohibited from being used in the food chain.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Health of Animals Act and Meat Inspection Act to prohibit the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I have over a dozen petitions with hundreds of signatures on them, the majority of them being from Canadian women, who are calling upon the House of Commons to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as human by amending section 223 of our Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect 21st century medical evidence.
Marie-Claude Morin: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to present a petition signed by people from all across Canada, from all age groups and social classes, who support a national housing strategy, as described in Bill C-400.
Kirsty Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition regarding CCSVI.
The petitioners say that the Conservative Senators are refusing to hear from those who have MS. They cannot imagine a committee refusing to hear from a cancer patient, a heart patient or someone living in poverty. They are extremely disappointed that those living with MS and those who have been treated for CCSVI are being denied the opportunity to speak face-to-face with committee members. They question why Dr. Sandy McDonald, a well-known Canadian expert, is also being prevented from speaking. They want to know why the government is shutting down these important voices.
The petitioners call upon the Minister of Health to undertake phase III clinical trials on an urgent basis at multiple centres across Canada and to require follow-up care.
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, again I present a petition on behalf of the many residents of Saskatoon who are opposed to the government's decision to close the Experimental Lakes Area in northwestern Ontario. The petitioners point out that closing this world-renowned freshwater science facility will jeopardize unique research and our understanding of human impacts on lakes, rivers and fish.
Bruce Hyer: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is on the cell phone freedom act. I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of residents of Montreal, Calgary, Kamloops, Edmonton and Ottawa in support of the cell phone freedom act to provide more customer choice and promote competition in the domestic wireless market.
The petitioners want to support my Bill C-343 so that Canadian consumers are no longer chained by anti-competitive network locks on their cellular phones.
Robert Aubin: Mr. Speaker, today I am speaking on behalf of two groups of Canadians who want to make the government realize, if such a thing is even possible, how important it is to save leading-edge water research.
The Experimental Lakes Area is a unique, internationally renowned infrastructure designed for freshwater research and education. We must do whatever it takes to protect it.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions calling on the government to reverse its puzzling, unwise and lamentable decision to close the Experimental Lakes Area, which does government-directed research on water. I find it very odd that a government that claims to want to have a national water strategy would eliminate a federal water science facility such as this.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of Winnipeg North who express a great deal of concern with the government's decision to increase the retirement age from 65 to 67. The petitioners are calling upon the government to recognize the fact that people should continue to have the option to retire at the age of 65, and that the government not in any way diminish the importance and value of Canada's three major programs: OAS, GIS and CPP.
Questions on the Order PaperTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 877, 883 and 893.
Hon. John McCallum: With regard to every decision by the Treasury Board to reprofile money from one departmental program or activity, broken down by fiscal year from 2006-2007 to present, what is: (a) the department that made the application; (b) the date the decision was made; (c) the program or activity the money was reprofiled from; and (d) the program or activity to which the money was reprofiled? 
Tony Clement:  Mr. Speaker, before the beginning of a fiscal year, the Treasury Board approves departmental reference levels for the upcoming fiscal year and future fiscal years. The reference levels for a department are the total of the spending for all the programs and initiatives for which the department is responsible. The reference levels for the upcoming fiscal year are presented in the main estimates by department and vote. Through approval of the appropriation act supported by the main estimates, Parliament places limits on the amounts each department can spend on operating, capital and transfer payment expenditures.
Departmental spending is not approved by Parliament on a program activity basis. Estimates of program activity spending are provided to Parliament for information purposes only. As a result, Treasury Board does not approve reallocations of funds between programs or activities. Departments manage their inventory of programs and initiatives within the spending limits authorized by Parliament. Within these limits, departments may reallocate funds between programs and determine the most appropriate mix of resources needed to efficiently and effectively deliver those programs. In the guidance on the preparation of the departmental performance reports, http://publiservice.tbs-sct.gc.ca/estsd-bddc/dpr-rmr/template-modele/ed-de-2011-12-eng.rtf, departments are instructed to explain significant variances between planned spending, total authorities and actual spending by program activity.
If a department needs to change its overall authorities, to reprofile spending authority from one fiscal year to another or to move funds from one type of vote to another, Treasury Board approval must be obtained. Those changes are then reflected in an appropriation act, and subsequently submitted to Parliament for approval.
Supplementary estimates documents, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ems-sgd/esp-pbc/se-bs-eng.asp, now include information on reprofiled funds where applicable in explaining funds available in the vote. 
Ms. Chris Charlton:  With regard to childcare data gathered by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: (a) what is the title of the report commissioned from the Childcare Resource and Research Unit on 2010 data; (b) what is the timeline for publication and public release of the report; and (c) will the data be made publicly available for use by researchers and interested organizations? 
Diane Finley:  Mr. Speaker, as a matter of clarification in response to (a), the report in question was not “commissioned from the Childcare Resource and Research Unit.” Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC, in collaboration with provincial and territorial governments, undertook to produce a report on early childhood education and care in Canada, using 2010 data, and launched a competitive contracting process to select a consultant to undertake the preliminary data collection and preparation. The Childcare Resource and Research Unit was the successful bidder. The report is an HRSDC publication, entitled “Public Investments in Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2010”. 
In response to (b), the report was released on October 15, 2012, and is available on the HRSDC website at: http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/publications_resources/statistics/index.shtml.
 In response to (c), the data is publicly available for use by researchers and interested organizations. 
Ms. Christine Moore: With regard to the Canadian Army, what bonuses were paid to various members of Canadian Forces staff from 2008 to 2012, broken down by (i) year, (ii) recipient?
Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of National Defence, CPC): Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of this response, a bonus is defined as “an unsought or unexpected extra benefit...an amount of money given...in recognition of exceptional performance or as a supplement at Christmas etc”, as in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, or as a performance-based incentive, such as the Government of Canada’s performance management program for executives, under which some employees of the public service are eligible for bonuses.
The Canadian Army did not pay any bonuses to its members from 2008 to 2012. 
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsTom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 878, 882, 884, 888, 891 and 892 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
John McCallum:  With regard to every non-profit housing project funded under s.95 of the National Housing Act: (a) what is the name of the project; (b) what is the location of the project; (c) for each project that has a mortgage with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and for every mortgage, what is (i) the date the mortgage was signed, (ii) the length of the mortgage, (iii) the interest rate of the mortgage?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Chris Charlton:  With regard to Service Canada: (a) which administrative and processing functions will be consolidated; (b) where are the Service Canada centres located where administration of grants and contributions are currently taking place, and how many employees at each centre work on the administration of grants and contributions; (c) where will the consolidated centres for administration of grants and contributions be located, and how many employees are expected to be working on administration of grants and contributions at each consolidated centre; (d) where are the Service Canada centres located where Integrity Services currently operate, and how many employees at each centre work in Integrity Services; and (e) where will the consolidated centres for Integrity Services be located, and how many employees are expected to be working in Integrity Services at each consolidated centre? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Yvon Godin: With regard to the Summit of the Americas: (a) what is the role and what are the responsibilities of Canada regarding the official languages of the Summit and the official languages of the documents; (b) what are the official languages of the Summit; (c) what are the official languages of the documents; (d) how are the official languages of the Summit and the official languages of the documents determined; (e) does the Summit have language policies and, if so, what are they; (f) how much are Canada’s financial contributions to the Summit in the following areas, (i) total financial contribution, (ii) language, (iii) the French language, (iv) the English language, (v) translation and interpretation; (g) why are all official documents of the Summit process not available in French; and (h) why is there not a French version of the Summit website?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Glenn Thibeault: With regard to Health Canada's Consumer Product Safety Directorate, since 2005-2006 broken down by fiscal year: (a) what is the annual budget of the Directorate; (b) how many full-time, part-time and contract employees worked at or for the Directorate; (c) of these, how many were classified as administrative staff; (d) how many were classified as inspectors; (e) how many were classified as managerial staff; (f) how many were classified as media and communications staff; (g) how many distinct office locations does the Directorate maintain; and (h) how many employees are stationed at each individual location? 
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. François Choquette:  With regard to specified risk material (SRM): (a) what are the average additional costs assumed by companies subject to SRM requirements; (b) what are the rules for foreign companies, including those in the United States, with regard to SRM; (c) why do rules for imports differ from those for Canadian companies; and (d) does the government have mitigation strategies in place to create a more equitable market for Canadian companies in relation to their international counterparts?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
Mr. Scott Andrews:  With regard to Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials who work at the 200 Kent Street office in Ottawa and who met with Mr. Loyola Sullivan of Ocean Choice International from June 1, 2011, to May 10, 2012: (a) what are the names of the officials, broken down by (i) deputy ministers, (ii) associate deputy ministers, (iii) senior assistant deputy ministers, (iv) assistant deputy ministers, (v) directors, (vi) managers; (b) what is the functioning title of the officials in (a); and (c) what were the (i) date of the meetings, (ii) location of the meetings, (iii) topics discussed, (iv) details of any briefing notes or materials prepared or used for the meetings?
[Stage Direction]
(Return tabled)
[Interjection]
Tom Lukiwski: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act[Stage Direction]
 The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the third time and passed. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to support the bill. Liberals see the bill as an important piece of legislation. If history demonstrates anything, it is that over the years the Liberal Party has recognized the value of freer trade with nations around the world, though we are a little disappointed that the government has not put more of an emphasis on what is happening with our largest trading partner, the United States of America. Having said that, I want to recognize just how important it is. At the end of the day, Canada is a trading nation. The amount that trade contributes to our national GDP is virtually second to no other G7 country, or we would definitely be in the top three in terms of being a trading nation.
As a whole, it behooves us to look at ways to increase our markets. We can go back for decades. One of the first real tangible trade agreements that I can think of offhand was in our automobile industry. That played a critical role in the development of hundreds of thousands of jobs over the years in Canada. When we talk about the principle of trade, people have a good understanding of the auto pact and how Canada has benefited over the years. Not only has it provided, as I said, hundreds of thousands of jobs, it has provided some of the best cars ever made anywhere in the world.
The principle of free trade and freer trade is something Liberals believe in. We recognize that the government has been negotiating this agreement for the last few years. It was back in August 2009 that an agreement was reached. The government has not been successful in getting the bill through committee. It has had significant support, though not from the New Democratic Party, in terms of the bill being passed. 
As I commented at the beginning of my remarks, we are concerned that the government has not been as aggressive in looking at the larger markets. We look to the government to do what it can to expand trade and secure the markets that are of critical importance. I will point out a couple of them, but before I do, I will briefly comment on the Panama agreement. 
Central America is a very important region in the world. My understanding is that today Panama is the number one country in that region in terms of imports and exports. There are many benefits with regard to this agreement setting some ground rules and assisting us in being able to grow in the future.
From a Manitoban perspective, a province for which I have a very strong bias and preference, it produces a great deal of potatoes and potato products. One of the largest consumers of those potato products is the country of Panama. I suspect going forward there will be more potato products being consumed in Panama that, hopefully, will be from the province of Manitoba. If we take a look at the potato industry in the province of Manitoba, we will find that it generates and creates hundreds of relatively good-quality jobs, such as the farmers who plant the seeds and ensure there is a crop in the ground. 
There are hundreds of acres of potato farms in rural Manitoba. Our farmers do a phenomenal job. I would argue, although some of my Atlantic colleagues might question it, that the best potatoes not only in North America but anywhere are found right in the province of Manitoba. Of course, we give the credit for that production to our prairie farmers. 
There are also jobs in the processing plants. For example, we have french fry plants in the province of Manitoba that create hundreds of jobs. Whether it is the farmer or the person on the line who is cutting up potatoes or producing the many different potato products, those are all good-quality, valuable jobs. A good percentage of those potato products ultimately end up in Panama. 
The potato industry is just one industry. I think during second reading I was able to make reference to it, but there are other things.
Manitoba Hydro is one of Manitoba's, and ultimately one of Canada's, largest corporations. Manitoba Hydro has been around the province for a good number of years. It ensures that we have, if not the cheapest, very close to the cheapest utility rates in North America. Manitoba Hydro also explores the world and provides consulting and professional services. The country of Panama has recognized that and has turned to Manitoba Hydro for consultation and advice on the type of technology we use in the province of Manitoba, to ultimately help grow hydro development, electrical grid lines and so forth in the country of Panama.
I suspect we could go from province to province throughout Canada and find there are different connections that allow each province to see the benefits of having freer trade in the flow of commodities and other forms of trade, whether that is tourism or contracting, that generate economic opportunities for Canadians in each of the different provinces. 
Obviously, there is benefit for Panama at the same time. That is why I started off by saying Canada is indeed a trading nation.
 I listened to many members of the New Democratic Party try to play down Panama, saying it is a small country and very little trade actually comes to Canada or that it is a very small percentage of the overall trade.
One of the things that we should always be cognizant of is that every country in the world is an important country and has something to offer. I believe that Canada also has an obligation to work with countries, big and small. There are challenges in the country of Panama, as there are challenges here. Do we have concerns within the Liberal Party? Sure, we have concerns. I think all people have concerns. 
However, given the importance of recognizing Panama, the country we trade with more than any other in Central America, there is great value in terms of having this agreement. 
Earlier today, in talking about Panama, I posed the question to the member for Ottawa Centre in regard to whether the NDP has actually supported any free trade agreement. I was quite specific in my comments, asking if NDP members had ever literally stood up inside the House to support a free trade agreement with any country throughout the world.
After a while, the only thing the member could come up was that he somewhat implied the Jordan agreement. From what I can recall, there was no standing vote on the Jordan agreement. To the best of my knowledge, I do not believe the NDP has ever supported or stood in their place to vote in favour of a trade agreement in the history of our country.
 I believe that to be factual, and would look to the NDP members to correct that if that is not the case, to show me where, within Hansard, that they support or have supported a trade agreement.
Why is it important to recognize that? It is because consistency is important. At the end of the day—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to assist my hon. colleague in making sure he always seeks the highest principles in this place, which is to tell the truth. A number of times in his speech he repeated something that the record shows not to be truthful.
On June 4, 2012, the NDP did in fact support a trade deal.
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order but rather a point of debate. The House leader knows full well there will be other opportunities for members of the official opposition to respond to this matter according to the facts as they see them.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is important to be very factual, and I look forward to a question from the member. Prior to the member posing a question, I would suggest that he go back to that particular date so he could tell us whether all members stood in their places and voted for that bill. I look forward to hearing the question from the opposition House leader on that particular point.
He raised, through a point of order, a very important issue. The NDP, as official opposition, is trying to fool Canadians. It is trying to give the impression that it is open to free trade agreements. Yet, on the other hand, it has never supported a free trade agreement.
The member points out Jordan. During his question, he could point out which members of his caucus actually stood in their place and voted for the Jordan agreement. If they did speak for Jordan, I am sure he will correct me, if that is the case.
Having said that, it is also very important for us to recognize that consistency is important. When I raised the issue of freer trade among different nations the last time I had the opportunity to speak, I made reference to other countries. There are many countries throughout the world on which we need to focus attention, not just the small countries. 
I made reference to the United States and how important it is, as our trading partner, that we invest more time and energy to secure the markets that are so critically important to Canada. We have found that it is roughly 75% in trade. I believe it is just under 75% now, but that is fairly recent. Basically since the Conservatives have been in government, we have dropped below 75% in terms of the overall share in trade between Canada and the U.S. However, at just under 75% of our overall import and export, I would suggest it is of critical importance. That is why we believe the government needs to do more to secure those markets for Canada. 
There are other countries. We talk about the big ten, or the ten countries in the world that have these huge economies, such as China. There has been a lot of discussion about China, but it has been more from a regulation point of view. I do not see any grand vision. The last time we saw something coming out of the Government of Canada that was of great significance in relation to China—and China is number two, I believe, as an economy in the world—we would have to go back to the years when Jean Chrétien was Prime Minister. He said the Liberals would take the Team Canada approach in going in to China. There were invitations for a wide variety of stakeholders here in Canada, who ultimately went to China to try to create and enhance connections so we could improve upon trade relations with China.
We often make reference to Japan. India is another huge country. India has grown at a rapid rate. Many, myself included, think the future of India in terms of its economic importance in the world is incredibly positive. It will become a significant powerhouse economically. Canada is in an excellent position because of the size of our Indo-Canadian communities from coast to coast and the potential opportunities that could be had if we took advantage of that.
That same principle would apply for many other communities. Ultimately, I would argue, one of the greatest natural advantages that Canada has over virtually any other country in the world is our ethnic diversity.
A good example of that is India. Here there is an economic powerhouse that will continue to grow well into the future. Moreover, we have a strong, vibrant, wealthy, well motivated Indo-Canadian community that is in an excellent position to be able to capitalize on that growth.
We can talk about Germany, Russia, Brazil, U.K., France or Italy. Those are really the major players in the world economy and we need to see the government aggressively dealing with these countries.
However, I want to talk about a country I have talked about in the past because I feel very passionate about the Philippines. It is a country that I have had the opportunity to visit on numerous occasions. I came back from the Philippines recently where I met with Governor Garcia from Cebu and Governor Pineda from Pampanga. I have also had the opportunity to meet with Mayor Lim from Manilla and many different congressmen. 
When I meet with elected officials I talk about the relationship between Canada and the Philippines needing to go beyond immigration. Yes, the Philippines is Canada's number one source country for immigrants. There is no doubt about that. It has been the number one source of immigrants for the province of Manitoba for many years, but I believe there is a very real opportunity today to go well beyond that. 
I understand that the Prime Minister is going to India and the Philippines in a couple of weeks. I hope he will take my advice and the advice of others by looking at the Philippines as more than just a country for immigration. Let us look at ways in which we can have freer trade with the Philippines. Yes, there are large countries with large economies and some with smaller economies, but they are still worthwhile for Canada as a nation to reach out to and build economic ties with, ties that will ultimately allow for more trade.
With the exception of the New Democrats, who do not support freer trade, I believe it is important that we recognize the value of how that is going to generate jobs in the future. If we recognize that value, then I think that actions ultimately speak louder than words. I anticipate and would like to see ongoing agreements into the future that will enhance the opportunities for people to gain employment and to participate and engage with many other countries throughout the world.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some concern for my friend, who seems to have cribbed much of his notes from the Conservative Party's talking points regarding the NDP and trade. The fact is that under previous Liberal regimes, 13,000 consecutive foreign takeovers were approved without one single rejection. Not once in all of those years and all of those takeovers did the Liberal Party think that standing up on Canadian sovereignty issues and the rest was important.
To clarify the record, because I know my friend is very keen on records, I would point out that when the motion was presented by the members for Calgary Northeast and Wild Rose with respect to some trade negotiations and trade legislation, particularly around Bill C-23, the act with Jordan, that act was passed by this place.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: But the member himself did not vote.
[Interjection]
Nathan Cullen: My friend now heckles me to say that we did not vote for it. However, neither did he. How this place actually works is that from time to time, it gets along and Parliament decides to pass legislation by voice votes. Parliament decides to pass legislation together. 
My friend would like to make a distinction without a difference. He did not stand in his place and vote for this trade deal. In fact, no member of Parliament stood in this place and made the trade deal. He would like to present that as somehow true, that we did not stand and support this particular trade deal. He knows it to be false. He spends enough time in this place to know how it works and he knows that the NDP supported this trade deal at committee stage and then finally at the last stage in Parliament. If that were not the case, then we would have opposed it like we have opposed other bad trade deals, like we are opposing the China foreign investor protection agreement that is selling out Canadian resources.
To my friend, he might wish to stand and correct the record and be honest with all of us here about how it works and what the NDP's intentions and actions actually were with respect to trade. We seek fair trade, not this ridiculous neo-con free trade that the member so much promotes and that his government did when the Liberals were in office, allowing 13,000 consecutive foreign takeovers to happen without once—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader is daydreaming. The member says that out of all the free trade agreements in the history of Canada, the NDP members found one, sat on their hands, and we have to believe them members because there was no recorded vote. Apparently, they say that they voted in favour of it. 
The record is very clear. We know there are a lot of bills, probably more than 50%, where there are votes. The NDP members knew this was important legislation. If they wanted to send a message to Canadians that they were prepared to vote in favour of legislation, they had the opportunity to stand in their place. I suspect it is because the vast majority of their caucus would not have supported having a recorded vote. They were quite content to let it be just a voice vote. Therefore, we do not know how they would have voted. 
The member made reference to the 13,000 takeovers. What the member does not recognize is that a vast majority of that investment was the creation of new jobs. It was new companies being established. I would challenge the opposition House leader to tell me which ones out of the 13,000 he would not have supported if he were in government, Heaven forbid? At the end of the day, which one would he have opposed? That is even with the ability of having hindsight. I look forward to having a response from the member on that question.
Paul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of focus on our party and not a lot on what we are debating, which is trade. I guess it is a difficult issue for the member and for the Liberal Party because there is difficulty in establishing exactly what their criteria is on trade at times. When there is an option to amend things like this trade deal, where we wanted to have better transparency and more accountability for Canadian workers and for the environment, we put forward amendments. Maybe not to our surprise, the government voted against them. However, his party, which claims to want to protect the rights of workers and the environment, did not. It decided that it would vote with the government on this.
Therefore, if we are going to talk about doing trade and doing it smart and well, we need to have some protections. We cannot give away the store. These free trade agreements are problematic because they are cookie cutter approaches. We need to look at the details and ensure there are provisions in them that have teeth and not these side agreements. Side agreements are just what the language would suggest. They are on the side, there is no teeth in enforcement. 
Why did the member did not even think of mentioning that and why his party rejected amendments to have accountability?
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I did talk quite a bit about the Panama agreement and the benefits. I used the province of Manitoba as an example, whether Manitoba Hydro, or potatoes that are produced in the province and how Manitoba would benefit through this agreement. It will not create hundreds of thousands of jobs, but there are jobs there as a result of free trade with Panama. In general, free trade with other nations is what has allowed Canada to do as well as it has as a nation. 
I appreciate the member's comments. He is probably more true to form in terms of why the NDP never really votes for or supports free trade agreements. It is because of things which he has listed. However, that same principle could be applied on virtually any agreement that is out there. That is the reason why the NDP does not support free trade agreements, and I respect that. 
Mr. Ed Holder (London West, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I sit on the international trade committee and it has been my privilege to do that since I was elected some four and a bit years ago. Throughout that time, I am proud to say, our Conservative government passed a number of free trade agreements. I am really proud of that accomplishment so I would like to share some of those with members. We passed the European free trade agreement with Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. We passed free trade agreements with Peru, with Colombia and with Panama. Members also know that we passed a free trade agreement with Jordan, with all-party support.
However, the issue is not whether it was Jordan. Sitting in my committee, it has struck me that, while the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition are not members of that committee, but certainly have opinions on it and that is their entitlement, Her Majesty's loyal opposition has been constantly and consistently negatively criticizing these deals, notwithstanding that we have labour and environment protection.
 Do members know what businesses want? They want a rules-based system because we do business with every country in the world, including China.
Because I appreciate that the Liberal Party has been supportive, why does the member think there has been such vehement objection from Her Majesty's loyal opposition to every effective trade deal that we have put in place? I have made the comment about Jordan already.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I suspect it probably has more to do with a historical perspective of the New Democratic Party. I understand that the New Democrats are being more challenged in the last year or so in regard to trying to change some of their party policy. They have a history in which they have been very clear that they do not support free trade agreements and I think they have been challenged to come up with a better approach.
I recognize the number of agreements that the member has talked about and I do believe we need to start making it higher a priority, not only of the smaller economies but also to do more in larger economies. That is where ultimately there is a lot we could do, and I use India as a great example, just given the size and diversity of our ethnic—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle is rising on a point of order.
[Interjection]
Marc-André Morin: Mr. Speaker, I am not a procedural expert, but I believe we are discussing a bill. It seems to me that the other two parties, who have always gotten along well, are now putting the official opposition on trial. I also get the impression that we are wasting our time and going around in circles. We need to get back to today's discussion topic.
[Interjection]
Hon. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is being very touchy. The NDP has often voted with the conservatives.
The hon. member has missed a few years of debate since he is new to the House, but I understand his point of view.
When we discuss the ins and outs of a bill, it is normal to also speak about its pros and cons; I think that is good. That being said, I do not believe the hon. member's remarks constitute a point of order. 
The Deputy Speaker: I agree with the hon. member for Bourassa. This is not a point of order.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North has about 25 seconds.
[Interjection]
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I recognize how important it is for us to be more aggressive at looking at countries like India. Our greatest asset is our ethnic diversity. The Indo-Canadian community is one of great proportions, so much talent and amazing resources. If we tap into that, we could have additional and more trade and more jobs being created between India and Canada. The same principle would apply for any other country throughout the world, if we tap into the expertise and diversity of our ethnic country.
Dave Van Kesteren: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I do not think the hon. member on the Liberal side will be disappointed. In the coming years we will be working on these deals. There will be many more in the making.
It is a pleasure to rise today to talk about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the concrete benefits that this trade agreement will provide to Canadian businesses exporting to Panama.
The member for Malpeque has criticized this agreement, saying that trade with Panama is in insignificant and accuses the government of exaggerating its benefits to Canadians. Apparently the $111 million worth of exports that went to Panama last year is insignificant. What that member fails to realize is that every one of those dollars directly supports our economy and Canadian jobs and that is in no way insignificant.
During the 13 years in office, the Liberals signed 3 trade deals, but in less than 6 years this Conservative government has signed agreements with 9 countries and we are negotiating with many more.
This is why I would like to share with the House the impact that this agreement will have on Canadian companies and exporters. 
The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is a high-quality, comprehensive agreement that will bring tremendous benefit to our economy. A free trade agreement with Panama will give Canadian exporters, investors and service providers preferential access to a dynamic and fast-growing economy that recorded a GDP growth of 10.6% in 2011.
 Once implemented, the agreement will improve market access for Canadian exports in the Panamanian market by lowering trade barriers. The elimination of tariffs will create tremendous opportunities for increased Canadian exports to Panama.
Once the Canada-Panama free trade agreement is in place, Panama will eliminate tariffs on 95% of recent non-agricultural imports from Canada. The remaining tariffs will be phased out over 5 to 15 years. This is significant considering that Canadian exports on non-agricultural products are currently facing tariff peaks of up to 81% of Panama, while the average most favoured nation tariff rate for non-agricultural products stands at 6.2%.
The elimination of the vast majority of tariffs will benefit Canadian workers from coast to coast to coast, including producers of forest products, pharmaceuticals, machinery, automotive, vehicles and parts, information and communication technology and aerospace products.
Let us look at the impact of the agreement on some specific sectors of our economy.
 The pulp and paperboard producers of British Columbia will certainly benefit from this agreement. In 2011 Canada exported $5.3 million of pulp and paper board products to Panama. Though many of these products were not subject to custom duties, tariffs ranging from 5% to 15% are levied by Panama on a range of paper products. Obviously market access is not optimal. This agreement will eliminate those tariffs, which will consequently offer new commercial opportunities to Canadian exporters of goods, such as wallpaper, packaging materials, boxes and corrugated cardboard.
Another sector that will see benefits is the pharmaceutical industry, which saw Canadian businesses export $5.1 million of pharmaceutical products to Panama in 2011. According to the terms of this free trade agreement, Panamanian tariffs ranging from 5% to 8% on certain pharmaceutical products will be eliminated.
This trade deal with also benefit Canadian exports of industrial machinery and certain electronics. In 2011 Canada exported $12.8 million worth of machinery and equipment to Panama. These Canadian exporters will benefit from the elimination of Panamanian tariffs ranging from 5% to 15% on a variety of current and potential Canadian machinery exports. If Canadian businesses are able to sell their products in Panama despite these tariffs, imagine how much more successful they will be when their products have gained preferential access.
Another sector that stands to benefit from this agreement is the aerospace industry. Members of Parliament are likely aware that Canada's aerospace sector is highly competitive and has acquired a worldwide reputation for outstanding quality and performance. It is also important to note that it is a highly export-orientated sector. In fact, 80% of this sector's annual revenues are generated through exports. Panama imports some of these products.
 In 2011, Canada exported $8.1 million worth of aerospace products, including various ground flying trainers, turbo propellors and airplane and helicopter parts. The implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement would further those export opportunities by eliminating Panama's tariffs on aerospace products that are currently as high as 15%. 
It is undeniable that by creating new export opportunities in these sectors, this agreement will help foster economic growth. However, that is not all.
One additional sector that would particularly benefit from this agreement is the Canadian agricultural sector. Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector is innovative and competitive and is becoming increasingly focused on international markets.
In 2011, Canada exported nearly $25 million worth of agriculture and agri-food products to Panama. In agricultural products, Panama currently maintains tariffs reaching peaks as high as 260%. Upon implementation of our trade agreement with Panama, tariffs will also be lifted completely on 78% of Canada's agricultural exports to Panama.
Canada's high quality agriculture and agri-food products, such as beef, pork, frozen potatoes, malt, maple syrup, pulses, canola and sunflower seeds, will benefit from immediate duty-free access to Panama. For example, producers of frozen french fries in P.E.I. and New Brunswick would no longer face Panamanian tariffs of up to 20%. Canada's exporters of frozen french fries would benefit from the immediate elimination of Panama's tariffs on this product. Between 2009-11, Canada exported an annual average of $2.7 million worth of frozen french fries to Panama.
 Our pulse and cereal exporters in Saskatchewan will also benefit from immediate tariff elimination with the implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Tariffs currently amounting to 10% to 40% respectively will be gradually eliminated with the implementation of the FTA.
Another sector that would benefit from the free trade agreement with Panama is our pork sector. Pork producers of fresh and chilled pork cuts and sausages would gain preferential access. In 2011, Canada exported about $5 million of pork products to Panama.
Canadian beef exporters would also benefit form this agreement. The FTA would result in the immediate elimination of Panamanian tariffs ranging from 25% to 30% on all of Canada's high quality beef cuts within a 200 ton tariff rate quota.
This agreement would provide significant benefits for our Canadians farmers. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement being debated here today would ensure that our Canadian agriculture and agri-food producers and exporters are fully able to compete with other preferential suppliers to Panama. 
There are many more examples that I could cite but the fundamental point is that the tariff elimination driven by this agreement would create the potential for increased Canadian exports to Panama, and that is a good thing for Canadians.
Pursuing new trade opportunity is a win-win for Canada and its trading partners. Canada benefits from the jobs, prosperity and consumer benefits that come from increased trade. That is why it should not come as a surprise to the members of this House that Canadian companies are in support of this agreement. Throughout the negotiations, Canadian officials consulted with the private sector and the message was consistent and clear: Canadian companies want this deal. If Canadian companies are telling us that they want their government to implement this agreement, why should we, as elected officials, deny them those benefits?
Canadians value the real and tangible benefits that trade brings to our country and that is why Canadian companies support our government's efforts to forge new trade opportunities around the world. 
Closer economic integration with Panama promises to deliver further gains for Canadian exporters, investors, consumers and the economy as a whole. By eliminating tariffs on these goods, Canadian exporters and producers will be able to compete on a level playing field against competitors from other countries, such as the United States or the European Union, that have or will soon have preferential access to Panamanian markets in the near future.
For all those reasons, I ask all hon. members to support the implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.
Marc-André Morin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague why the government defeated the amendment we proposed in committee, which stated that before entering into an agreement with Panama, Canada would require a tax information exchange agreement, like the U.S. did. Indeed, the U.S. required Panama to sign such an exchange agreement before the U.S.-Panama free trade agreement could be signed.
Why will Canada not do the same? Was there no time to think about it, despite all the years we spent working on the agreement? 
I would like my colleague to comment on that.
[Interjection]
Dave Van Kesteren: Mr. Speaker, if I heard the question correctly, the member made reference to the American free trade agreement with Panama. He is correct that there are ongoing discussions and, more than that, Canada and Panama are currently engaged in negotiations for a tax information exchange agreement. However, the Americans have ratified their agreement. His premise that the Americans were in the act of doing this and, therefore, we should too, does not exactly add up since the Americans have already ratified their agreement. We feel it is also imperative and important. Those negotiations will take place, as well as the tax ramifications.
Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for all the work he has done on the international trade files working with the minister.
I want to make a comment and get my colleague's opinion. History shows that Canada is and always has been a trading nation simply because we can produce far more goods and services than we could ever consume in this country. Therefore, it has always been in our best interest to be a trading nation and to aggressively seek trade arrangements with other countries around the world. Canada has built itself through trade with other countries.
As time goes on, there is more competition for the trading dollar and, therefore,Canada needs to stay current and to always be seeking ways to improve trade arrangements with other countries. Maybe the member could give us some reinforcement on how this global trade continues to enhance our economy and how important it is to creating jobs and benefiting our economy.
[Interjection]
Dave Van Kesteren: Mr. Speaker, I also thank the hon. member for his fine work and for his tutoring as well. I might add that, since I arrived here, the hon. member has been my neighbour and many times we have had discussions.
It is fairly obvious, as he correctly stated, that as a nation we need to trade and we are good at it. The other thing we need that is absolutely essential is a level trading field. I believe that if Canadian companies, manufacturers or those involved in the service sector, whatever area in which they are involved, including farmers with their produce, can trade on a level trading field, we will be able to trade with any nation. Canadians will always rise to the occasion and be able to compete. The end result is that there will be more employment in this country and more products produced. It is the spinoff to the rest of Canadian society that will benefit us all.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, almost 100 per cent of my Conservative colleague's speech was about the financial side of the agreement. He briefly mentioned Canadian workers but did not say anything about the rights of Panamanian workers or measures to protect Panama's environment. But that is what fair trade is all about.
Do the Conservatives not know what fair trade looks like? Or is it that they have no intention of going that route?
[Interjection]
Dave Van Kesteren: Mr. Speaker, free trade is fair trade. With respect to the member's concern about labour co-operation, there is a labour co-operation agreement that contains strong and enforceable provisions to protect and promote internationally recognized labour rights. These measures are entrenched in this as well too. 
Is it perfect? No, it is not perfect. If we look at what labour laws are in a lot of the developing countries, they have a long way to come. The way to do that is to encourage them, trade with them and, through the labour unions here, show them how by exchanging ideas. Ultimately, when we continue to grow that trade flow and as economies continue to grow, then we can continue to better the lives of those very people who the hon. member is talking about. Those opportunities would be gained as they have opportunities as well to trade with us.
Dean Allison: Mr. Speaker, although we have lowered corporate taxes and are making reforms in immigration, trade is one of a number of arrows that we can use to make Canada strong and create jobs. 
I was wondering if the member would comment a bit on some of the things we are doing, besides trade, to encourage people to work, to create jobs and to make Canada a strong place to be.
[Interjection]
Dave Van Kesteren: Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, there is a fundamental difference that oftentimes gets played out in debate. I recognize and understand that we will not always agree but on this side of the House we believe in something that is known as the unguided hand. When opportunities arise, people take those opportunities and act on them and, subsequently, wealth is generated. That is not something that is dictated or centrally planned. It is something that just flows naturally out of a free market society. When we continue to move in the direction of free trade and engage other countries in free trade, we spread that belief and principle. Historically, that has proven to generate wealth and prosperity, not just for this country but for other nations, too.
I know the hon. member and I both serve on the foreign affairs committee, and this is a means to promote world peace, for instance. Therefore, it is a principle that we in this country believe in and that we in the government strongly believe in as well.
Jean Rousseau: Mr. Speaker, I would like the member opposite to talk about the fact that after all of the free trade agreements in the past 25 years were signed, some of our most successful industrial sectors collapsed. That was the case with the textile, leather and wood industries, among others. After agreements are signed, our industries completely collapse and there is no longer any support, from either the Liberals in the past or the Conservatives in recent years.
So how can they boast that this free trade agreement will stimulate our industries, particularly agriculture, where we are trying to be more successful? We know very well how they grow things in the south. I have no desire to eat that here.
[Interjection]
Dave Van Kesteren: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had an hour to speak to that particular topic.
 However, I did have members of the Canadian Manufacturers &amp; Exporters in my office last week and one of the industries was a forestry industry. In our discussions, members of that industry mentioned how the forestry industry has turned the corner with respect to the trade that has been opened up to the east, as well as the United States, which was its primary trading partner at that particular time. They spoke about the fact that, with the new opportunities that have opened up, the forestry industry is so much stronger.
The days of cropping up industries and artificially making them successful just has not proven to be successful. That does not work. We know that if we give these manufacturers and the people in the field the opportunity to do what they do best, they will succeed. What they need are the markets. We are told repeatedly that they must have markets, and that is what this government is doing.
Mr. Matthew Dubé (Chambly—Borduas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.
The fact that we are debating this bill this week is timely, if members follow the excellent and tireless work my friend and colleague from Brossard—La Prairie is doing on tax havens. He has been called a radical for the work he has done, as have the groups he chooses to associate with.
Bill C-24 would implement a free trade agreement with Panama, a country known for this problem. It is not known as such by groups that members on the other side would call radical, but by the OECD, which has a well-deserved reputation and is very respected—by my colleagues opposite as well, I hope.
In trying to combat these tax havens, we are trying to create an environment where all citizens—particularly those in the middle class, whom we have the honour to represent, and those who may be tempted to avoid paying their fair share by using a tax haven—are treated equally in how they pay their taxes. 
Tax havens are one of the reasons we are opposed to this bill.
 In committee, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who is our critic on this issue, asked that we not ratify this agreement until Panama and our government have signed a tax information exchange agreement, which would enable us to tighten our surveillance on the abuses of tax havens.
 The minister, in his comments this morning, said that work had begun and that such an agreement is being negotiated. Nevertheless, the agreement he referred to has not yet been signed. I think it is entirely reasonable to ask them to wait until it has been signed, in order to thoroughly evaluate the measures that would be instituted.
 I am also basing my opinion on the actions of the U.S. Congress, which decided not to ratify the free trade agreement with Panama until a tax information exchange agreement—that fights tax havens—was signed.
 I would like us to follow the example of our American counterparts on this; we must be very careful.
 My colleague’s request was not accepted by other members of the committee, neither Liberals nor Conservatives, but I believe we must support such proposals. That is one of the problems with this bill.
 In his comments earlier, a Liberal member said that we appeared to be denigrating Panama. That is not the case, not at all.
The Conservative member who spoke before me said that a free trade agreement could promote peace. But a free trade agreement is not only about the exchange of goods, but about the exchange of best practices. It is a cultural exchange, and an exchange in many fields. We must be aware of the standards we propose when we sign a free trade agreement. We also must be aware of the values we project.
Some developing countries such as China are having great economic success and are even becoming economic powerhouses. Thus, it is increasingly important that more than goods are exchanged, including what I call best practices. We live in a democratic country where, in general, the will of the public is respected. This ought to be reciprocal. 
 In this case, we really are talking about a tax haven. The core of my argument is that some housekeeping needs to be done before we can support this bill.
 We do not support this agreement in its present state, but perhaps we will later. In committee, some extremely reasonable amendments were proposed. I already mentioned one of them, and now I will talk about some others.
 There were amendments proposed concerning the minister’s obligation to consult stakeholders in Panama, both workers and employers. Whoever we are discussing, we believe that, even after signing an agreement, that should not be the end. We must continue to watch what is happening in the countries with whom we have free trade agreements. On the contrary, once the agreement has been signed, it is our duty to follow up and ensure that current practices are respected—concerning workers’ rights, sustainable development or tax havens. It is a matter of respect and completely in line with the principles of free trade, I firmly believe.
 Sustainable development should also be the subject of amendments. They would deal with environmental standards. In political science, we talk about the “tragedy of the commons”, which is the same challenge we are facing in terms of climate change. Everyone must do their fair share. Signing a free trade agreement is a perfect opportunity to establish measures to fight climate change and protect our shared environment, not only in Quebec and Canada, but all over the world.
 That opportunity is being missed here because this agreement does not address sustainable development seriously. That is another extremely essential point.
 It would be useful to remind the members opposite of one point that has not yet been mentioned very much, and that is the work of the committee. All the members of our NDP caucus are aware of the criticism. We are ready to support agreements that are drafted conscientiously, are fair to both parties and encourage best practices. Once again, the proposals made by my colleagues on the Standing Committee on International Trade have been very reasonable.
That is a relevant comment, given the remarks by the Minister of International Trade this morning. There has been a lot of talk about exports and about keeping our Canadian industries competitive. Yesterday in committee, we heard a witness representing a business that has been affected by this problem. The video game industry, for example, is having problems because the dollar’s value is high, and it is certainly not the only one. This problem will not disappear because of a free trade agreement. 
 When I was studying political science, I looked closely at monetary and economic policy. Anyone who believes that a free trade agreement will automatically solve all economic problems and create jobs does not have a good understanding of the importance of the economic responsibility and the management role of a country such as ours, with such a vast economy.
 Still, it is important to consider all the factors. The government has a lot of housekeeping to do and many problems to solve before it can say it has created a favourable environment for our exporters and investors.
 I will end on a lighter note, but one that is serious nonetheless. If we want to create an investment climate that favours industry around the world, we cannot do it by making decisions at the very last minute. That is what we say now, and what we will say when we form the government in 2015.
Ed Holder: Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague opposite, in that he gave this great presentation without notes. The House would be better served were that the case with all, so I give him that compliment.
Beyond the words comes the content, and my question for this hon. member is on the content. I sit on the international trade committee, and I sat through all the discussions on Panama. The New Democratic Party consistently opposed very reasonable positions, even with respect to labour rights when the International Labour Organization supported it, and with respect to the environment. Those are strong environmental standards and a rules-based system that would allow businesses to act and know the consequences of those actions. 
One of the things that our colleague opposite talked about was a big concern he had with respect to money laundering and the like. Because this speaks to the issue of financial integrity in Panama and the growth it has seen in terms of better handling of its financial dealings, is the member opposite aware that Panama is no longer on the grey list? I will stop there and ask for a response.
[Interjection]
Matthew Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for his compliment. It is greatly appreciated. It is also a good reminder that, even though the atmosphere in the House can sometimes get tense, we all have a common goal, and that is to serve our constituents.
To go back to concerns about the bill, although Panama is no longer on the grey list, some concerns remain. This was made obvious when the U.S. Congress chose to delay the signing of its free trade agreement. I am well aware that the minister has worked hard to negotiate an agreement with Panama and introduce measures to facilitate the release of financial information. 
Nevertheless, some reasonable suggestions were made in committee. We suggested that Canada delay signing the agreement until we see how the governments of Canada and Panama deal with the issue of tax havens. Once we have more information, we can make a better decision, so we asked that the bill be delayed until that time. Unfortunately, the government disagreed, and that is why we oppose this bill.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet: Mr. Speaker, earlier, a Conservative member admitted during his speech that the workers' rights situation in Panama is not ideal. He also said that as Panama works with Canada, it will start making improvements in that area. I think he is dreaming in Technicolor. 
Does the hon. member see that accepting the NDP amendments in committee would have been a great opportunity to strengthen this agreement?
[Interjection]
Matthew Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. That is one of the troubling aspects that I raised. I would like to stay on the topic of reasonable amendments. We proposed another reasonable amendment. As my hon. colleague put it so well, the other side of the House acknowledged that the situation was not ideal. Hoping for it to improve is not enough. Problems need to be resolved before we sign free trade agreements. That is what we are advocating for.
I would like to come back to a point I raised during my speech. We are in favour of free trade agreements, but everything needs to be in order before they are ratified. That is precisely what we are advocating for here. Many of the proposed measures require some political will. It is not clear that that political will exists on the part of either the Canadian or the Panamanian government. We want these measures to be in place before the agreement is ratified.
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member, and I think he said one of the reasons the NDP did not support it was because the Americans have not passed their free trade agreement. I have just clarified that the Americans have passed it. The member would put Canada and all of our provinces at a disadvantage. For example, Quebec would benefit from the elimination of Panamanian tariffs on key exports, such as pork, industrial construction machinery, pharmaceuticals and aerospace products, and he would put us behind. 
Will the New Democrats support the agreement now that the Americans have given it their support?
[Interjection]
Matthew Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I am glad to hear that the Americans have concluded their agreement. What is important here is why the Americans hesitated to do so. They wanted to wait until their country had signed a disclosure of information agreement with Panama. The minister admitted this morning that such an agreement between Canada and Panama has not been signed. The NDP is simply asking that we delay ratifying the free trade agreement until both governments sign a financial information disclosure agreement to combat tax havens.
Marc-André Morin: Mr. Speaker, I understand that we live in the best country in the world, according to the talking points issued by the Prime Minister's Office that the Conservatives are so proud to read, but I am still rising to speak to Bill C-24 today with some concern.
It is all well and good to criticize the official opposition and claim that it is systematically against free trade, but members must understand that we are only against free trade in the Conservative sense, meaning some willy-nilly free trade without any kind of strategy or reflection. It is easy to say that we are against free trade. Personally, I am in favour of free trade with Japan. Japan is a good example of a modern country with very high standards and whose economy complements ours.
I get the impression that the Conservatives are dragging their feet in that case. But it does not hesitate to forge ahead with signing an agreement with Panama. I have nothing against Panama. On the contrary, I admire it a lot for emerging from a civil war and decades of corruption. It has improved a lot, but its justice and tax systems are still works in progress. These systems are not fully functional yet.
What concerns me is that, when this bill was studied in committee, we asked the government to adopt the same cautious approach that the Americans took and to require the signature of a tax information exchange agreement before ratifying the treaty. That is why the Americans ratified their treaty before Canada. From the outset, they required Panama to sign a tax agreement before Congress would ratify the agreement. This was basic good sense and represents the type of suggestions that we make in committee. The government did not adopt or support a single one of our proposals except those that were completely superficial or pertained to a procedural matter that involved buying time.
It is important to understand that Canada's international reputation and status as a leading nation are being compromised. My colleagues gave a list of all the countries that will soon be ahead of us economically. The reason is that these countries have long-term industrial, transportation and economic strategies. What is more, the trade they do with other countries is included in those strategies. I get the impression that the government would rather make agreements with countries such as China.
I apologize for getting off topic a little, but I would like to give an example. China has developed an absolutely enormous capacity to produce renewable energy and is producing wind and solar power. However, it does not possess a distribution network. The country has thus taken to dumping its renewable energy products onto international markets. The Chinese have already killed the three biggest solar power manufacturers in the United States and they are close to destroying their wind energy competitors in the United States and Europe. The agreement that the government is preparing to sign with China would open the door to these products. This would nip in the bud any potential to develop a similar industry in Canada.
When we make criticisms and propose amendments, these are the types of situations that we are thinking of. The Conservatives must take out their ideological earplugs and listen to us a little. We are not here to destroy or paralyze— 
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. member will have five minutes remaining when the House resumes debate on this motion.
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Radiocommunication ActMr. Sylvain Chicoine (Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, NDP):  moved that Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act and the Telecommunications Act (antenna systems), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, it is always a tremendous honour for me to address the House, especially today, as we begin debate on the first bill that I had the great honour to introduce, Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act and the Telecommunications Act (antenna systems).
The telecommunications industry is booming in Canada and has made it possible for our industries to improve their productivity and for our people to enhance their communications, both on a personal and professional level. However, the growth of this industry and the proliferation of towers everywhere in Canada has led many Canadians in various municipalities to complain about the rather unregulated installation of telecommunication and radiocommunication antennas.
People and municipalities have complained that some proponents were not listening to their concerns and had not consulted them about the location of the antennas. For that reason, it is important to adopt an approach that strikes a balance between the development of this industry and the concerns of Canadians.
The idea for this bill came to me in the fall of 2011, when I learned about something that had happened in my riding. People from Châteauguay and Mercier were faced with a fait accompli: five telecommunications towers were erected, but the townspeople were not consulted. The municipality was not consulted about the decision to erect these towers, which were just under 15 metres tall, in residential areas. The people and the mayor were not very pleased that they had not been consulted at all.
Had the company bothered to consult the municipality, it probably would have been told to put the towers a little further away, 100 to 200 metres from the residential area chosen, in an industrial park where the towers would not have bothered anyone. That would have allowed the company to cover the entire market that it wanted to penetrate. No one was consulted and this raised the ire of the inhabitants and mayors of the towns involved.
There were already several communication towers in the riding and they could have tried to share them. They would only have had to put up two, three or four towers, instead of the five that were erected. That is where I started to research and try to understand the scope of the problem, and I quickly learned that this is happening all over Canada. In the past three or four years, there has been a proliferation of antennas and problems in many cities where the public was not consulted.
There is no doubt that this is a national problem and not an isolated problem in a few ridings. For example, in Peterborough, Industry Canada improved an antenna site that was disputed by the public. At the time, more than 400 citizens signed a petition calling for another site to be chosen. The company involved and Industry Canada completely ignored the petition and proceeded to go ahead with the chosen site and to put up the tower in question.
In Mississauga, an antenna just shy of 15 metres was put up near a church. It was disguised as a cross to hide the fact that it is an antenna. But people quickly noticed that it was not a cross and that it was a telecommunication antenna. Once again, the deed was done, and although the public disputed that fact, they were not successful since it had already been done. These are the tactics being used by telecommunications companies, which do not consult the public or the municipalities.
I have one final example. In Oakville, eight antennas were installed recently on top of a building. The citizens of the surrounding area wondered if anyone had been consulted. They then learned that no one had been consulted or even informed of the situation. Even worse, they tried to get an explanation from the company in question, but it had the nerve to say that it had conducted consultations, when that was definitely not the case.
I could go on and on giving more examples from across Canada, where people disputed many telecommunications companies' choices and practices.
To really understand the problem, it is important to know that there is no legal framework for the development of the telecommunications system. Everything is covered by CPC-2-0-03, a guideline issued by Industry Canada. The requirements of this guideline apply to all proponents who plan to install or modify an antenna system, regardless of the type of installation or service. The four-step process seems pretty straightforward. First, you examine the possibility of tower sharing. Second, you contact whoever is responsible for the land, which is usually the municipality. Third, you notify the public and respond to public concerns. And fourth, you comply with Industry Canada requirements. 
Since these are only guidelines, they are often circumvented or not applied. Unfortunately, we have no real way of forcing companies to adhere to Industry Canada's requirements. This bill addresses that and provides for a measure in that regard. Accordingly, it would be much more difficult for companies to get around what, for now, are only guidelines.
The process described in that guideline seems clear to me. Yet proponents do not always respect it. And Industry Canada does not appear to apply any of the sanctions set out in the guideline, which means that there are no penalties for companies that use dubious practices, to say the least. For instance, companies do very little consultation or else they call at unusual times, like in the afternoon. No one is home at 2 p.m. Then the company can say that it consulted people, but they were not home. That is one dubious practice.
It is time to put an end to the disrespect being shown towards the municipalities and Canadians by enhancing co-operation between municipalities, citizens and telecommunications proponents.
That is why I introduced Bill C-429. I hope that the members of all parties will support this bill in order to send a clear message to proponents: better co-operation is needed among the companies, Canadians and the municipalities when new telecommunications towers are being erected.
I would now like to talk about the various provisions of my bill so that everyone can understand it and see how it will solve the problems that I mentioned.
First, in order to avoid a proliferation of antenna sites, my bill would require licensees to discuss in good faith among themselves in order to come to an agreement that would allow for the sharing of existing antenna structures. In order to ensure that negotiations among proponents are conducted in good faith, proponents would have to produce a document showing that they tried to reach an agreement or that an agreement was signed. This document must explain the sharing agreement, if applicable, or indicate why such an agreement could not be reached. There are some cases where such agreements are impossible for technical reasons.
This provision is nothing new since it is already set out in directive CPC-2-0-03. Proponents have to produce a document explaining the content of the agreement or the reason why an agreement could not be reached.
The bill would also require proponents to consult the land-use authority, namely the municipality, in order to determine the local requirements. By consulting land-use authorities, proponents will be able to obtain information about the public consultation process already established by the authority, if applicable, and to discuss potential antenna sites.
The proponent often has an idea about where it wants to erect its antenna towers, but the municipality, which has a development plan, could suggest a location that is acceptable to both parties. The company could also respond to the reasonable and pertinent concerns of the land-use authority and of the community it represents. One of these concerns could be proximity of the antennas to residential areas. 
After consulting the municipality, the proponent must produce a document attesting to the fact that its discussions with the responsible authority were carried out in good faith. 
The bill requires public consultations for the construction of any new antenna-bearing structures or towers under or over 15 metres in height . As I mentioned, the current exception causes many problems. Proponents install towers that are 14.9 metres in height, or just under 15 metres, to avoid having to consult municipalities and their inhabitants. Under this bill, any construction of towers or antenna structures, no matter the height, will require consultation. Industry Canada will have to subsequently publish a document prepared by the proponent indicating that the consultation process was respected.
Because some antenna systems may not be detrimental to the municipality and the people, Industry Canada or the municipality may grant an exemption so that consultations are not undertaken needlessly. The bill contains a clause to that effect, which also applies to rural and remote areas. Many of these areas do not have telecommunications services. If a tower is erected in a field and does not affect anyone, consultations are not required.
There is fierce competition in the telecommunications industry, and proponents must protect their market share. Therefore, proponents do not want to share their structures with competitors. That is understandable. However it is not prejudicial to the proponents to share an antenna site where competition for the services provided is expected. If proponents do not share sites, there will be a proliferation of antenna sites, which is very bad for the land-use authority and the people. 
If proponents refuse to share the site for dubious reasons, the CRTC could rule on the matter. That is why my bill expands the CRTC's authority to allow it to settle disputes between proponents regarding the sharing of telecommunications towers. This provision will have the advantage of creating a single forum independent of government to resolve any disputes that arise between telecommunications companies regarding the sharing of radiocommunication sites. If any problems arise subsequently, the CRTC's decisions could be referred to in order to resolve conflicts.
Under the current guideline, these disputes can be solved by Industry Canada or by an arbitrator, in accordance with the arbitration procedure set out in Industry Canada's Arbitration Rules and Procedures. However, according to Industry Canada, that procedure is very rarely used because several stakeholders have told the department that the established procedure is not very well suited to the needs of the industry.
There is an advantage to giving the CRTC the authority to rule on disputes regarding tower sharing. The commission's rulings could act as a kind of jurisprudence, which could be used in the future to clarify the requirements for the sharing of telecommunications towers.
Lastly, we want to encourage compliance with laws and regulations and respect for Canadian communities by introducing clear penalties for non-compliance. 
In closing, I would like to point out to the hon. members that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Union des municipalités du Québec, and the Fédération québécoise des municipalités all support my bill. We are in talks with the other federations of municipalities in other provinces. I hope to obtain their support in the very near future. 
Therefore I ask all members of the House to support this bill. I think it strikes a good balance between the concerns of the public and the needs of the industry. 
Ms. Rathika Sitsabaiesan (Scarborough—Rouge River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his leadership with the bill and for his excellent speech. I would also like to add that, since being elected, I have heard from constituents about their desire to have their voices heard in the process of the development of telecommunication towers in their communities.
I am curious to know if my colleague heard that from his own constituents as well as from across Canada when he did his own consultation for the bill.
[Interjection]
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for her excellent question.
Soon after I was elected, many of my constituents told me that they were concerned about the fact that they have towers only 15 metres from their backyards. One constituent said that, when she put her house on the market, every time potential buyers came to see it, they would go into the backyard and see the tower next door, only 15 metres away. Buyers would then no longer want to see the inside of the house, if they had not done so already. They no longer wanted to buy the house because the tower was already built. 
The mayor of Châteauguay also told me that she was very upset about the situation because, had the company been directed to erect the tower in the nearby industrial park, then it would not have bothered anyone and everyone would have been happy. What is more, as I mentioned, the company could have shared existing structures, but right now, there is hardly any sharing of telecommunications towers. There are thus several problems that need to be solved.
The industry must change its way of doing things. This bill will limit companies a little more so that they have more respect for people and municipalities when they set up somewhere.
Jean Rousseau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for this bill.
The people in my riding, which is located in a rural area, also share this concern. There are many mountains and the scenery is extraordinary.
For the past several years, we have seen an increasing number of towers being set up. Everywhere we look we see one, two, three or even four towers. The situation is out of hand. We want to harmonize things.
We are calling on the Conservative government to harmonize the laws and consult with the public. However, it seems that this is sometimes difficult. People's quality of life is at stake. In rural areas, we have an exceptional quality of life. People all across Canada are proud of the landscape and mountains that make up our countryside. These days, we look and see one, two, three or even four towers. It has gotten out of hand, and some proponents are even trying to bend the rules.
My question is for the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant. Why is this bill so important?
[Interjection]
Sylvain Chicoine: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for his comments. 
There has been a proliferation of towers. As he mentioned, there are often several towers in any given area. More often than not, the towers could be shared. However, in some cases, the telecommunication towers cannot be shared for technical reasons.
At present, proponents of telecommunication systems are only bound by guidelines instructing them to proceed in a certain way. These guidelines are not governed by legislation. The rules, which are not very effective, can be sidestepped and do not provide an adequate framework for the industry. It would not be difficult to resolve this issue.
The bill requires that people be consulted. Furthermore, a company could be asked to not install a tower where they would create visual pollution and to move the location a few hundred metres further away, if possible, to an area where it would bother fewer people. Thus, there could be more consultation.
M. Chris Alexander (secrétaire parlementaire du ministre de la Défense nationale, PCC): Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for introducing such an important bill.
Bill C-429 aims to improve a situation in a sector that is rapidly expanding across Canada. This sector provides services to all Canadians. All Canadians rely on these services in emergencies, in their daily lives and in meeting their family's needs.
We want to discuss this issue to improve the regulations and legislation in this area. However, for the reasons I will describe, we do not think that this bill achieves the objectives set by the government and by Canadians.
We know this technology has given us a richer experience. It has added value, productivity and pleasure to the lives of Canadians across the board. However, with ever more bandwidth-intensive multimedia applications being developed for mobile uses, with high-speed data being required and with additional radio frequency spectrum becoming available, the pressure for existing towers and existing antennas to support more service than ever and for new towers to be built is obviously without precedent. The restructuring of our economy to reinforce the presence of e-commerce and to allow consumers to conduct ordinary financial transactions on their mobile phones means that we can expect these volumes of data to continue to grow.
Let us not forget the most urgent situations, the most tragic circumstances in which people are now depending on their mobile phones, either as eyewitnesses or as victims of accidents or crimes. Something like one-half of all 911 calls today in Canada are initiated by someone using a mobile phone. Police, firefighters, ambulance operators, air navigators, national defence, all of our first responders know this. They also know that when an accident happens where there are no mobile services, where we do not have a tower or antenna nearby, it is much more difficult for eyewitnesses or those involved to get the action they need.
Unfortunately, in supporting the goal of building new antennas and building a better system across Canada, Bill C-429 does not do the job. It would duplicate existing regulatory requirements. It would impose an additional regulatory and administrative burden on everyone without any discernable benefit. It would add red tape and this is obviously a challenge that our government has spent a lot of time trying to focus on. When government gets in the way of private enterprise, when government makes a sector less efficient or less productive, it affects everyone. It raises the costs of telecommunications and we do not want to allow that to happen any more than it already has.
It would also require that Industry Canada be involved in all cases, even for TV antennas or satellite dishes attached to someone's home, which is not currently the case. We want the industry to manage its own affairs and manage the question of locating antennas and towers as autonomously as possible, obviously with the participation in most cases of municipalities. The bill would add paperwork, literally, and require whole offices to be created in Industry Canada at a time when we do not think that is necessary.
To be clear, there is another issue that Bill C-429 does not address and that is health and safety considerations. Much of the debate that we hear today about mobile devices and mobile communications has to do with the potential impact of all these radio waves on our bodies, particularly on those living near the antennas. That is definitely being studied. It needs attention. It is an object of concern.
However, this bill does not address those issues. They are regulated under the Radiation Emitting Devices Act or Safety Code 6, which are effectively enforced today on all antennas and towers regardless of height or location. This bill does not seek to amend those provisions.
The government's current requirements for the regulation of antenna supporting structures were developed based on the results of extensive national consultation. Public, industry and municipalities were involved across the country and, as I will mention a little later, we are continuing these consultations on issues where we think there is even more room for improvement.
The result of these consultations was a kind of balance: a balance between the needs of Canadian consumers—of course the well-being of Canadians and their ability to use cell phones safely—and the needs of police officers, firefighters and other people who respond to emergencies, solve crises and who rely on these radio-communication and telecommunication services.
This balance is important, and as with so many issues this House has considered, whether it is the Copyright Act or the military justice bill that is still before the House, there are many stakeholders and many interests. We have to strike the right balance to make sure the interests of consumers, industry and safety are kept intact, and indeed advanced.
We think our regulation is now doing that. We think this bill would break that balance. It is not surprising to see a bill like this imposing an additional administrative and regulatory burden, additional costs on Industry Canada, and additional red tape. We have heard that in the opposition members' comments on our budget bills and on many of the bureaucracy-cutting measures that the government has tried to bring in.
The $21 billion carbon tax is probably the most obvious example of this heavy-handed interventionist approach that the NDP has committed to, at least according to their last electoral platform, but there are many other examples.
As for tower sharing, it is obvious.
Our government is in favour of tower sharing. That is why, since 2008, under our government, we have required all companies wanting to erect a new structure to explore the possibility of sharing with other users. They do not have the right to erect new structures if there is no good reason to do so.
These reasons can be related to the maximum capacity of a tower or issues related to technical incompatibility of the proposed shared users. The government has the ability to resolve disputes between operators, and even to say that a reason given for not sharing is inadmissible.
We want to improve that.
That is why, since June 2012, there has been a new consultation process.
We are seeking stakeholder views on proposed changes to the requirements to share towers that would expedite the tower sharing process and further strengthen the effectiveness of that policy.
The vast majority of proponents of new towers follow the requirements to the letter. They examine tower sharing options. In circumstances where it is not possible and it proves necessary to erect a new structure, they have to consult with local stakeholders, including land use authorities and the public. Most importantly, because proponents follow these requirements, the vast majority of the antennas erected each year are developed without the need for direct government intervention.
This is the kind of dynamic that we want to see reinforced. Obviously the Department of Industry investigates to ensure the enforcement of standards for antennas of every height and every type. This has resulted in non-compliant towers being taken down in residential or suburban areas.
In contrast to the above, the bill as proposed would require government's direct and active intervention in over 1,000 antennas erected each year, even for those that are intended for personal use, even if tower sharing arrangements had been considered and even if there are no stakeholder concerns.
It would impose extensive record-keeping and verification procedures. It could create confusion between companies and the municipalities without creating an ability to resolve those disputes. 
For this reason we cannot support the bill. We want a Canadian industry that is effective, modern, innovative and low cost. We want one that serves Canadians. We know that there are challenges, especially on the cost front in this country compared to other jurisdictions. The bill will not achieve the goals that Canadians want us to achieve. We think the consultation process in existing legislation is the way to go.
[Interjection]
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, I apologize, I thought it was time for questions and comments. I was mistaken.
Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this House today to debate the bill introduced by my hon. colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.
I will talk not only about the content of the bill, but also about its purpose. I will also discuss what we need to do to make sure we examine this issue with all due care.
I also want to speak about the problems with cell towers, which constituents of mine have raised with me over the years, and more frequently in recent times. I know it is beyond the comments of the hon. parliamentary secretary, but one of the big concerns people have is that they cannot get information. It seems that Industry Canada actually has a fair bit of information, but it is put in complicated ways and in disparate locations so that we really have to dig hard to figure out what is going on in each location. If we have a particular location in mind and want to find out what power there is from that tower, what the radio frequencies are, et cetera, we cannot find out.
I am not saying there are negative health effects associated with the present levels we hear about. However, I do have constituents who are concerned about this and who worry about those effects. Some of them have said that they accept the fact that the science today does not show there is a problem with this, but they have seen so many things where 25 years ago they thought something was fine and not causing a problem at all and today they find out that it is causing a problem. There are so many examples of that, people do not have complete confidence in what technologies such as this can do and what effects they may have.
I think it is very reasonable to say that we should have a very simple way to find out, in relation to a tower at a particular address, the key information about what is happening there. It is very difficult as it stands now to find that on the Industry Canada website and it ought to be made much easier.
I also want to start by letting my colleagues know that based upon our initial assessment of Bill C-429, we believe the House should pass the bill at second reading and send the legislation to committee for an in-depth study. That way we could benefit from expert testimony on this subject and look for ways to strengthen and improve the bill.
It is clear from a quick scan of media that cell towers are becoming a point of concern in just about every province in the country. In fact, as the bill's sponsor points out, local residents' associations, landowners, municipal councillors and others are seeing cell towers popping up all over the place and they feel they are left out of the process. There is no consultation with them. There is no consideration of the impact on their neighbourhoods, no negotiations at all. Sometimes these things are not the most attractive items in the neighbourhood and people do not find them all that desirable. Obviously it has led to hostile feelings and a sense of powerlessness among people in the neighbourhood.
My colleague said that he introduced a bill that would create legislation to support the existing Industry Canada directive on public consultations. He circulated a letter yesterday in which he said: 
 The bill will ensure that telecommunications antennas are installed in a logical manner that respects the interests of communities while increasing access to modern telecommunications services. 
I am sure it will not be that easy to have the issue settled in a logical manner. I expect that cell phone companies will bring forward arguments to support what they are doing and explain that if we want to have state-of-the-art wireless services, we also have to accept the necessary infrastructure.
I think people understand that, but I think we also have to recognize that finding middle ground, although it is difficult to find, is worth pursuing. It does not mean we should give up and not try. From personal discussions, I know this is an issue that could be a growing cause of friction in countless communities.
Let us look at what the bill actually does. Bill C-429 would amend the Radiocommunication Act in order to provide for the possibility of sharing antenna system infrastructures, and to require the proponent to consult the land use authority and hold a public consultation. It would also amend the Telecommunications Act to allow the telecommunications carrier to apply to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to gain access to masts, towers and other antenna-supporting structures belonging to the holder of an authorization under the Radiocommunication Act. I think those are worthwhile objectives.
It is obvious that something has to be done, but we also have to make sure that we get it right. Too many consumers are depending on this.
The hon. parliamentary secretary highlighted the issue of red tape and not wanting to have too much regulatory burden placed on industry. I understand that. At the same time, it is important to recognize and try to address the real concerns of people in the neighbourhoods where these are located. 
I know that the member for Peterborough has heard about the issue. Teresa Daw represents 160 homeowners and has been a forceful opponent of a proposed telecom tower application on Lansdowne Street in Peterborough. In a recent letter to the Minister of Industry, she wrote: 
 We find it incomprehensible that Industry Canada has neither appropriately responded to our correspondence nor committed to considering our reasonable and well-grounded concerns in their analysis of this application. We find it equally incomprehensible that the proponent does not appear to be held responsible to address our concerns, particularly those that are governed by CPC-2-0-03 and/or pertain to the accuracy of the description of a local environment. 
In Edmonton, people are upset with a cellphone antenna being built in a church steeple. They are angry over how the tower was approved. The hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc has pointed out that is in his riding.
Others have put forward very solid arguments calling for a cell tower protocol that gives residents a say in where these towers are erected and a meaningful role in the process. 
The stories of these concerned residents in Edmonton and Peterborough are repeated in communities across Canada. I know, because I have heard them from my own constituents in Halifax West, who have been angry about the lack of public input in cell tower locations in their own neighbourhoods. 
Some in fact have had positive results. Just over a year ago, a large number of residents gathered at the Wallace Lucas Community Centre in Lucasville, Nova Scotia to oppose an EastLink cell tower on Daisywood Drive in Hammonds Plains. Due to community concerns, EastLink responded by moving the location 100 meters and it was approved by community council. This moved it further from some of the houses, but not all, so not everyone was satisfied with that. Clearly, not everyone felt that was a big improvement, but at least it was some improvement as a result of that community involvement. Although the meeting was held by the municipal land use authority, the residents felt the decision was already made and that they had no say in whether the tower was actually to be built or not. They felt they were stuck having it in their area. It was more a question of where exactly it was going to go.
There was another case, this one in Bedford. A constituent found out just one week before a cellphone company planned to upgrade a cell tower that was already in use by the water commission. Because it was only an upgrade and not new construction, no public consultation was held at all. This particular constituent felt that the public was given very little notice and no detailed information about the cell tower, the radio frequency output and so forth. That is not acceptable.
 It seems to me to be very clear. This is not difficult. It is just simple information that ought to be made available to the public in an easily accessible way. The Internet is a marvellous tool for that sort of thing. I personally found it extremely frustrating when I attempted, for several years, to get data on a cellphone tower inside a church tower on Donaldson Avenue in Halifax, in my riding. After something like five or six years, I finally got the information. However, it was a very frustrating process and very frustrating for the constituent who lives across the street from that church, from whom I hear about this whenever I knock on his door. Therefore, I was glad to finally get the information. 
I very much appreciate the efforts of the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, who introduced this bill in the House. 
As I have already said, we must support this bill at second reading and send it to committee so that it can be studied, so that we can hear from experts and make an informed decision on the best way to manage this growing problem.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in favour of Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act and the Telecommunications Act (antenna systems).
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, for introducing the important and necessary changes to this act, for which my constituents are also grateful.
Citizens and municipalities across Canada, including Scarborough—Rouge River, have expressed their concerns with the uncontrolled development of radiocommunication and telecommunication towers. Constituents like mine are frustrated that the players involved, the proponents, are not taking their concerns into consideration.
I myself have had meetings and received numerous correspondence from residents from the Rosewood community in Scarborough—Rouge River, who are opposed to the tower that is being built in their neighbourhood and our community. Among the reasons they are opposed is that a tower already exists in that neighbourhood. They also expressed health concerns with a tower so close to a residential area, as well as concerns for the community's aesthetics. A City of Toronto planner also suggested finding an alternate location. Residents from this community have sent emails, letters and petitions to government representatives, as well as the proponent of the tower, to express their objections to the creation of it.
I also wrote a letter to the CRTC, and the company wishing to put up the tower, to express our shared concerns. In that letter, I requested that the service provider give strong consideration to the concerns of the community and the municipality and work together to find a feasible solution to the problem. That is why I am pleased to stand up in the House to support this bill that was introduced by my hon. colleague.
It is vital to have a balanced approach to the industry's growth and the concerns of Canadians. There are many changes included in the bill that would benefit my constituents of Scarborough—Rouge River and impact Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The bill is what the residents of Rosewood in Scarborough—Rouge River are asking for, that being an avenue to have their voices heard. The bill would seek to not only regulate the development and construction of antenna systems but also to democratize the process, by involving the municipalities and citizens of these municipalities in the decision-making process through a more clear and thorough public consultation process.
I want to be clear. This is not about blocking the industry's growth. Wireless telecommunications is an industry that generates enormous economic benefits for the Canadian economy of around $43 billion. It also employs more than 261,000 Canadians. I, for one, rely heavily on my wireless device and presume that the 26 million other wireless subscribers do as well. 
The bill is about ensuring that the development of the telecommunications industry is orderly, efficient and respects citizens and local planning.
I support Bill C-429 because it would legislate the process for constructing and installing antenna systems and helps to ensure a balanced development of the telecommunications antennas.
In addition, and in my opinion, the most important piece is that the bill would democratize the decision-making process by involving the land use authorities, citizens and residents of the areas.
According to directive CPC-2-0-03, towers under 15 metres are currently exempt from the consultation process. Therefore, if one is building a tower that is 14.9 metres tall, there are no obligations to have any public consultative processes. That does not seem right. Regardless of height, I believe concerned citizens and the land use authorities deserve an avenue to be heard. This bill would remedy this flaw by requiring public consultation for all towers and antennas. With this bill, telecommunication companies or persons interested in putting up a tower, the proponents, would no longer be able to install antennas without taking into consideration the concerns of municipalities and citizens as part of the project development process.
This would involve consultation to determine local requirements, including a public consultation process that must be held for the construction of any tower, antennas or antenna-bearing structures regardless of their height, a discussion of possible locations and a response to the reasonable and relevant concerns of the land use authorities and the communities they represent.
Industry Canada would have to issue a document to the proponent confirming that the public consultation process has been respected. Following these consultations, the proponent would release a document showing that discussions were held in good faith and setting out the concerns of each party.
I have heard from many constituents since my election, about their concerns with telecommunications antennae in their neighbourhoods and they have clearly expressed their desire to be consulted and included in the decision-making process. My constituents are looking for a place where they can have their say.
In addition, the bill would encourage a more efficient and fair tower sharing between companies by requiring permit holders to negotiate in good faith and produce documentation explaining the positions they have reached. This provision would thereby reduce the proliferation of redundant towers. Moreover, should any conflict arise among the proponents and competitors about tower sharing, the bill would give the CRTC the power to settle disputes and establish a unique and independent forum for settling those disputes.
 This certainly would be an improvement upon the current process where disputes are settled by Industry Canada or an arbitrator. The current process is one which stakeholders have advised is lengthy and cumbersome. Stakeholders have also indicated that it fails to encourage sharing of tower sites. Another benefit of giving the CRTC the authority to settle disputes regarding antenna sharing would be that its decision would establish precedents that would clarify the requirements for sharing radio communications installations and would provide direction on the rights and responsibilities of telecommunications.
Finally, there is also accountability added into the bill with a provision regarding penalties for non-compliance. Thank goodness the NDP and hon. members like my colleague are listening to our constituents and proposing real action on their needs and concerns. Moreover, as we have been hearing over and over again, the bill demonstrates how important consultation and democratic processes are for Canadians and the NDP. A public forum, a conversation about locations and alternatives and a response from the department all sound like reasonable, democratic actions for decision, something we know the Conservatives seem to have an aversion to as seen with their Trojan horse budget bill and with the most recent budget implementation act.
New Democrats want to protect our urban and rural environments from the uncontrolled development of antenna systems. The bill would not increase the regulatory burden, but simply and importantly would put into law an existing Industry Canada directive. We would ask simply that promoters respect municipal development plans and take into consideration the concerns of municipalities and citizens like those within the Rosewood community in my riding.
 Also, encouraging and facilitating the sharing of antenna sites by telecommunications companies makes sense. The bill would do so by streamlining the site-sharing application and dispute resolution process and giving oversight to the CRTC. 
Finally, laws without proper enforcement can simply be ineffective. Laying out clear penalties for non-compliance with acts and regulations can ensure its enforcement and the bill would do just that.
 I thank my hon. colleague for taking the time to consult with his constituents and Canadians across the country and putting forth this bill. I know residents in Scarborough—Rouge River will be happy to support the bill moving forward.
Joe Daniel: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to contribute to this debate on Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Radiocommunication Act and the Telecommunications Act (antenna systems). 
Our government embraces the interests of Canadians in the growth and advancement of wireless technology. We know that to provide the reliable high-speed services that are our customers want and need, radio telecommunications antennas are essential and they are to be placed in locations near where the wireless devices are used, not only for personal and business use but also by law enforcement and first responders.
The need to expand wireless networks to accommodate the growth in demand must be balanced with the community's needs and interests: the availability of reasonable locations to place the antennas technical limitations and the rigorous safety requirements that apply to antennas of every height and description. Bill C-429 seeks to amend the Radiocommunication Act and the Telecommunications Act. Most of the amendments duplicate existing requirements, but the amendments are much less clear and would increase the regulatory burden for Canadians without creating any additional benefits.
First, the bill would require that proponents consider sharing or using existing towers before installing a new one. Proponents are already required to take this step under the current rules. Under the bill, proponents would be required to consult local land use authorities to determine their requirements with respect to antenna systems. Once again, this requirement already exists and the roles and responsibilities of those involved are clearly explained, which the bill fails to do.
Next, the bill would create offences for failing to respect these general obligations. The government already has mechanisms in place to ensure compliance with the requirements related to antenna towers. Finally, the bill would provide the authority to the CRTC to mandate a given holder of a radio authorization to share given towers upon application to the telecommunications carrier.
The bill would represent a step backward, not forward, in the regulation for antenna towers. It would introduce general obligations with little guidance as to the details, while at the same time duplicating the existing procedures that guide relationships between proponents and the local communities. This would serve only to increase uncertainty among all Canadians as to what is required of them and how they ought to go about meeting these obligations. Property owners, businesses and local communities alike would be diverted from working meaningfully toward common ground. At a time when Canadians are interested as ever in clear rules to address this important issue, Bill C-429 provides less clarity than the existing procedures.
The Client Procedures Circular on Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems provides specific guidance to proponents of new antenna infrastructure that must be followed in order to meet the government's objectives of striking a balance between enabling the development of needed wireless infrastructure and taking into consideration local concerns. Additionally, current procedures provide dispute resolution mechanisms that allow impasses between local communities, land use authorities, such as municipalities, and the proponents to be resolved.
In place of meaningful guidelines that ensure that local concerns are taken into account in an antenna-siting decisions, the obligations outlined in the bill emphasize paperwork over meaningful consultation. This sort of approach does not provide meaningful benefit to the public. 
For instance, under the bill, even a property owner who wishes to install a low impact antenna system would have to engage in an extensive documentation procedure, including direct government involvement. These requirements, according to the bill, would apply to any person who plans the installation or modification of an antenna system, regardless of the type of installation or service offered. It would apply regardless of whether community stakeholders have voiced any concerns.
I would also direct particular attention to the redundant provisions proposed by the bill that would provide additional unnecessary power to the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission. This power would allow the CRTC to issue orders to holders of radio authorizations issued by the Minister of Industry to require that they share towers with telecommunications carriers.
This proposed power is so broad that it would allow the CRTC to issue orders to any holder of a radio authorization, including public safety agencies and other non-commercial carriers. It would also introduce overlapping authorities with the existing powers of the Minister of Industry, who is responsible for regulating the behaviour of those holding the radio authorizations.
There is little reason to introduce these additional regulations and authorities. Doing so would only add to the regulatory uncertainty and increase the administrative burden on government.
Let me be absolutely clear. The bill would do nothing for the health or safety of Canadians, given that it would not change the requirements that are imposed on every tower or antenna, regardless of height or location. It would harm consumers and those in need of emergency services by tying up the growth of essential services, wireless infrastructure and paperwork. It would intrude upon property owners who wished to install basic antenna systems. It would increase the costs to taxpayers by requiring direct government involvement in every antenna installation. At best is it would duplicate some of the existing requirements, while adding ineffectual red tape.
In the meantime, our government continues to take action, consulting those who are interested in this important issue of tower sharing to find solutions that could reduce the need for new towers, at the same time enforcing existing requirements with rigour. It is this kind of proactive approach that should be favoured by the House, rather than unnecessary red tape.
I urge all hon. members to oppose the bill.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis will have two minutes.
Francis Scarpaleggia: Mr. Speaker, I only have two minutes, so I will not delve into the core of the speech I intended to deliver. However, I would like to address a point raised by the member for Ajax—Pickering. He mentioned that it was very important for safety, for civil emergencies, that we have cell towers so communications could be facilitated in these situations. 
Indeed, that is very much the case. I fail to understand how the bill would prevent the installation of cell towers in a network intended to, among other things, provide a communications system for first responders. As I understand it, the government already has the power to expropriate. For a telecommunications provider to put up a tower, it needs a licence from Industry Canada. Industry Canada will give the licence, if there are no objections, to a tower going in a specific place in a municipality and it will wait for the parties to agree on a some suitable location before issuing a licence.
However, in cases where a tower is required for the communications network to be complete and for first responders to have access to a complete telecommunications system, even if there is no agreement among the parties, I believe the government has the right to expropriate in certain circumstances, namely, where it believes the public interest is at stake.
[Interjection]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. 
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)