Bill C-24 (Historical)

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements on the environment and labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Peru and signed at Lima on May 29, 2008.
The general provisions of the enactment specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of the provisions of Part 1 of the enactment or any order made under that Part, or the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement or the related agreements themselves, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 of the enactment approves the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional aspects of the Free Trade Agreement and the power of the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out the provisions of the enactment.
Part 2 of the enactment amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreement on labour cooperation.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

moved that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure to speak to Bill C-24, a bill dealing with trade liberalization and market access.

Bill C-24 is just another step that our government is taking to help Canadians compete and succeed in the global economy. Our global commerce strategy includes a re-energized agenda of trade liberalization with our partners around the world.

As a trading nation, Canadian companies, Canadian producers and Canadian investors need access to international markets to stay competitive. We have entered an age of fierce global competition as emerging economies continue climbing the value chain and establishing themselves in an ever-widening range of sectors.

In this time of economic uncertainty. where a slowdown in the U.S. economy, our top commercial partner by far, and ongoing turbulence in international financial markets will continue to affect Canadian exporters and investors, we have done a good job of riding out the storm. thanks largely to Canada's strengths, strengths like low unemployment, the strongest fiscal situation in the G7, a sound borrowing system and our endowment of natural resources that continue to be in demand the world over.

We could add to that fiscal attribute by recognizing the fact that Canada's banking system is the most stable and best banking system in the world today.

We should also recognize the fact that our public pension plans have sound fiscal footing, unlike many public pension plans around the world.

It is clear, however, that we must remain vigilant. Canada must continue to fight protectionist pressures around the world and continue taking steps to ensure Canadian companies remain competitive, maintain their markets, and have access to new opportunities.

We have done something about that. Our government understands the challenge. Canada has committed to playing an active role in the Americas and in building strategic relationships with key partners in our neighbourhood. Our neighbourhood certainly is the Americas. The government's policy of re-engagement with the Americas has made a lot of economic sense. It is only reasonable, practical and intelligent foreign policy and trade policy on Canada's behalf that we have become more active in the Americas at our very own doorstep.

In Latin America, Peru is a leader, a lynchpin in the political and economic stability of the region. It has been an economic engine with a gross domestic product growth rate of 9.1% in 2008, near the top of the Latin American countries. Peru also has a solid outward orientation. A leader in trade liberalization, Peru is currently pursuing trade negotiations with a number of countries. We need partners like Peru, especially as we move forward on engaging with like-minded countries throughout the Americas. Canadians will benefit. Peru is already an established and growing market for our businesses. Exports like wheat, pulses and mining equipment are just part of that picture.

Canadians also offer services in the financial and engineering fields and this activity is driving strong, two-way commerce between our businesses. In 2008. two-way merchandise trade between our countries totalled $2.8 billion. Canadian exports. like cereals, pulses, paper, technical instruments and machinery, were all a part of this success.

Peru is an important supplier to Canada of gold, zinc, copper and petroleum,

Canadian investors, too, have a significant presence in the Peruvian market. In fact, Canada is one of Peru's largest overall foreign investors with an estimated $1.8 billion worth of investment stock in Peru in 2007 led by the mining and financial services sectors. It is no wonder that Canadian businesses in a number of sectors have been strong advocates of this agreement. Their support has been crucial throughout the negotiating process which began in June 2007.

The result is something we can all be proud of. With this new agreement, our nations are taking a critical step to intensify our commercial relationship in the years ahead and to create new opportunities for citizens in both countries who will be able to prosper.

We have negotiated a high quality and comprehensive free trade agreement covering everything from market access for goods to cross-border trade and services to investment and government procurement. Canadian exporters will certainly benefit. The agreement would create new opportunities for Canadian businesses and producers in the Peruvian market. Under the agreement, Peru will immediately eliminate its tariffs on nearly all current Canadian imports with remaining tariffs to be gradually eliminated over the next five to ten years.

Canadian producers will enjoy immediate duty-free access to Peru products like wheat, barely, lentils and peas. A variety of paper products, machinery and equipment will also enjoy the same benefit.

However, an effective free trade agreement should do more than eliminate tariffs. It should also tackle the non-tariff barriers that keep a trade relationship from reaching its full potential. We have done that by including new measures to ensure greater transparency, including better predictability for incoming regulations and the right by industry to be consulted at an early stage in the development of regulations, promoting the use of international standards and creating a mechanism to promptly address problems.

We are taking action on a number of fronts to unlock the trade potential inherent in the Canada-Peru relationship.

However, this agreement is significant for other reasons. It also includes important side agreements that demonstrate our joint commitment to corporate social responsibility, the rights of workers and preserving the natural environment. Our nations recognize that prosperity must not come at the expense of the environment and workers' rights.

This agreement paves the way for significant dialogue on other areas of mutual interest, including poverty reduction and trade related cooperation. In fact, this approach builds on our successful experience with free trade partners such as the U.S., Mexico, Chile and Costa Rica. The agreement will provide an opportunity to grow business and investment between Canada and Peru. We anticipate that freer trade will promote economic growth and employment and help Peruvians reduce high levels of poverty.

CIDA has contributed significantly to developing and enabling environment for trade and investment in Peru by improving the economic governance through the development of Peru's natural gas and mining regulatory frameworks, building its capacity to protect the environment, managing social conflicts by promoting corporate social responsibility in Peru, supporting work on improved labour administration, promoting democratic governance, meeting developmental targets and supporting the FTA negotiations on trade related cooperation between Canada and Peru.

The Canada-Peru free trade agreement builds on our work by including a number of development friendly provisions. It improves market access for Peru to Canada and allows Peru to adjust to freer trade with Canada. For the first time in a Canadian free trade agreement, Canada has agreed to the incorporation of a chapter on trade related cooperation that will help Peru maximize its opportunities under the free trade agreement. Through these measures, as well as the parallel agreements on labour and the environment that my colleagues have previously outlined, the Canada-Peru free trade agreement stands as a comprehensive and wide-ranging agreement.

It is also another example of Canada's re-engagement in the Americas. Our government is committed to working closely with our partners throughout the hemisphere to deepen our economic and security ties and promote stability, security and prosperity. The Canada-Peru free trade agreement is an important part of these efforts. It will also help us expand upon the friendship and cooperation our countries enjoy and create new economic opportunities for Canadians and Peruvians alike.

We share a belief that open markets and international trade are the best hopes for fostering development and our common security in the hemisphere.

We recognize that prosperity cannot take hold without security or, in the absence of freedom and the rule of law brought about through the pursuit of democratic governance, a good, healthy democracy cannot function without a sound underpinning of personal security and the chance to improve living standards through increased trade and investment. That is why we are committed to working closely with partners like Peru to influence positive change throughout the region and promote the principles of sound governance, security and prosperity.

Taken together, these agreements mark a new chapter in the Canada-Peru relationship, one that will forge an even stronger bond between our nations in the years ahead. They also mark yet another milestone in Canada's trade policy. In this day of fierce global competition and overall economic uncertainty, I am proud to say that we are taking the measures necessary to continue creating a resilient and competitive Canadian economy in the years ahead.

I ask for the support of all hon. members as we continue these efforts and create new opportunities for all Canadians to thrive and prosper in the global economy.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member whether the government has any projections for trade between Canada and Peru over the next five or ten years.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Madam Speaker, we expect this free trade agreement with Peru to be the beginning of a very prosperous trade relationship that will benefit both countries. We are looking at $2.8 billion worth of trade today and we certainly expect that to be enhanced and expanded upon in the future.

Peru has a growing economy with a 9% GDP increase every year. With an opportunity like that, there is absolutely no reason why both countries would not prosper and continue to prosper from this enhanced and improved trading relationship.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question.

Peru is a rather small market for Canada and Quebec. When the government decided in 2002 to forge ties with the countries of South America, there were supposedly some consultations and discussions with various organizations, companies and so forth. Surely the government did an impact study. If so, what were the medium and long-term forecasts concerning Peru?

In addition, what factors are most motivating the government to quickly sign agreements of this kind which still have a lot of NAFTA’s chapter 11 in them? Investment agreements like those in chapter 11 are detrimental because they enable multinationals to sue governments.

I would like the hon. member to answer these questions.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Madam Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, the hon. member was looking at the situation that Peru was in when many of these negotiations began in 2002 and the situation that Peru is in today.

I already mentioned that Peru's economy is growing at about 9% a year. That is certainly a record that many countries would be very jealous of and should be very jealous of.

The other issue that we need to understand is Canada's whole development of not just foreign policy but trade policy. When we came to government, the Prime Minister made a clear commitment to pay more emphasis to the Americas. That is not just that longstanding relationship between Canada and the United States and Mexico, but beyond the NAFTA borders where there really are many more opportunities for Canadian companies throughout all the provinces.

Certainly, our re-engagement with the Americas in Central America, in the Caribbean and in South America is very positive for Canadian business. There are tremendous opportunities there. The long-term prognosis of a stable, secure trading partner of proven stature in South America is extremely important, not just for our trading relationship with Peru but our trading relationships with other South American countries. We signed a free trade agreement with Colombia as well. We have signed a science and technology agreement with Brazil.

Those agreements are all extremely important to our re-engagement with the Americas, to our emphasis on Canadian trade, to the number of companies within Canada that are doing business directly, especially in the extractive sector in Peru, and for the opportunity to sell our manufactured goods and agricultural goods. It is a two-way relationship. Peru will also benefit from our increased emphasis and our demonstration of that through this FTA with the Peruvian government.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for doing a great job as the parliamentary secretary on our international trade committee. My hon. colleague just alluded to part of our government strategy to diversify our trade. Our number one trading partner for years has been the United States, and we continue to work closely with that country. I would like my hon. colleague to expand a little bit more on how this specific agreement will help Canadian businesses during this global economic crisis.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his kind words and reiterate with some of my own. He is also a valuable member of our trade committee.

It is not simply a free trade agreement with Peru. There has been a terrific change in the entire mindset of government. We appreciate and understand how important our NAFTA partners are, how important that north-south trade with Mexico and with the United States is to Canada, but we are not about to sit back on our heels and simply be dependent on that.

Look at our trading partners around the world. Look at what we did with our free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association, the EFTA countries, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway. Look at ongoing negotiations with South Korea and many other countries around the world. Look at where trade has moved. China is now our number two trading partner. Who would have imagined that five, six or seven years ago? Nobody, quite frankly.

There is opportunity. There is opportunity abroad, there is opportunity with Japan, Korea, China, and the European Union. Those are all opportunities that we expect to engage in.

In the immediate term, there is tremendous opportunity on our very doorsteps in a region of the world that we live in, and we would be remiss if we did not take advantage of that in a very mature, open and equitable manner as we have done.

Everything has been covered under these free trade agreements. It is not just about trade. We have certainly looked at corporate social responsibility, the responsibilities of our country when working abroad. We have certainly looked at the environment and the importance of having a separate environmental agreement with the free trade agreement. We have looked at the whole question of human rights, where there has been all kinds of criticism but not many facts from the opposition.

All of these issues are addressed. They are addressed in this agreement. They are addressed in all of the free trade agreements we are looking at. That is a positive move. At the end of the day, it is good for the countries we are doing business with and it is good for Canada to not be as dependent on that NAFTA relationship as we have been in the past.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, getting back to what the previous member said in reference to the economic development of Peru, I want to remind him that Canada and Quebec have a negative trade balance with Peru that increased at least ninefold 2004 and 2008. Our exports and imports are mounting and the disparity between them has increased tremendously.

I want to ask him a final question. Canadian mining companies have a strong presence in Peru. What kind of regulations does the government foresee for Canadian mining companies, which tend to behave rather badly in foreign countries when it comes to the environment and, unfortunately, human rights?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The parliamentary secretary has less than a minute to answer, 55 seconds.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

How many seconds, Madam Speaker, 55? I will try to address that.

We know that when we are dealing with free trade agreements, first of all, it is a two-way trade, so the trade balance does shift and change. Sometimes it is in Canada's advantage and sometimes it is in the other country's advantage. That is to be expected and that is normal. I would say it is also fair and equitable.

The other issue is the whole question around the extractive sector and corporate social responsibility. I have been on a number of mine sites, both within Canada and abroad, and our companies, certainly on the sites I have been on, have done an exemplary job, a stellar job of representing Canada abroad, of running a solid corporation, and of providing benefits, safety measures and environmental mitigation to the country they are in and to the workers they employ.

I really take exception to the idea that the entire extractive sector is out there running rampant and footloose around the world. It is not the case. These companies are very responsible.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-24, the free trade agreement between Canada and Peru.

The Liberal Party recognizes the importance of free trade and the opportunity to create jobs and prosperity not only for Canadians but for our trade partners. Particularly, during this global economic downturn, it is important that we not only work to expand our free trade relationships but we fight protectionist tendencies, whether it is from U.S. congressmen or senators or from Europeans.

Around the world there is a tremendous fear of protectionism. We saw what happened in the 1930s, going back to the Smoot-Hawley tariff act in the United States, which turned a recession into a full-fledged depression, as we saw responses from around the world and retaliatory actions against U.S. protectionism. Thankfully, the international community and the G20 have been quite consistent in acting and speaking against protectionist measures. We hope that wisdom will last but we have to be vigilant and vigorous in our opposition of protectionist measures.

We are a trade-dependent nation. We have a small, open economy. It is troubling that under the Conservative government we have the first trade deficit that Canada has seen in over 30 years. It is ominous that as a small, open economy that depends on external trade for our prosperity and jobs, in fact, today we are buying more as a country than we are selling. We are facing a weakened global economy and we must broaden our trading relationships. We must seek out new trading opportunities.

Canada's reliance on trade with the U.S., particularly with the United States having been hit the hardest during this economic downturn, demonstrates to us that we need to diversify our trading relationships during not just these difficult times but on an ongoing basis so that we are not as vulnerable or reliant on one market for the future. The U.S. is an important market to us, we all recognize that, and we need to continue to deepen and strengthen our trading relationship with the U.S., but we need to diversify dramatically our trading relationships so that we are not as dependent.

Countries like China, India and Brazil are critically important. My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, just mentioned that China has become Canada's second largest trading partner. He asked who could have imagined that just a few years ago. In fact, the Liberal government and Prime Ministers Chrétien and Martin saw this coming.

The Liberal government worked very hard to deepen our trading relationship and friendship with China, a friendship that goes back to Dr. Bethune and Pierre Trudeau. Pierre Trudeau and Richard Nixon agreed on almost nothing but the one thing they did agree on was the importance of opening up China. They were right then. The opening up of China in terms of economic trade and relationships has increased our capacity to influence the Chinese on issues of human rights and freedom, and market liberalization.

In fact, economic engagement can strengthen our capacity to influence other countries and our trading partners on issues of rights, labour and the environment. We have seen that occur around the world where we choose to use our economic relationship to actually enhance our capacity to influence other issues.

I will be speaking about the Chinese relationship a little more in my remarks, but on the issue at hand, Canada's free trade agreement with Peru, we in the Liberal Party believe very strongly that there are opportunities for Canada in deepening our trade relationship with Peru. We believe we also have a responsibility as a Parliament to evaluate these trade agreements on an individual basis at the committee level and to study them thoroughly in a multi-partisan and, to as much of an extent as possible, a non-partisan basis to ensure that the benefits exist for Canada.

With this in mind, the Liberal Party will vote in favour of Bill C-24 at second reading so that the Canada-Peru free trade agreement can receive a careful examination in committee. We want to hear from Canadian stakeholders. We will support this free trade agreement beyond committee stage if we believe that it is, on balance, a good deal for Canadians.

We recognize and believe in the principles behind free trade in terms of providing enhanced prosperity for our citizens and for economies like Peru, but we recognize as well that there is a significant economic risk to Canada if we do not pursue free trade agreements with countries like Peru.

Peru has been aggressive in pursuing bilateral free trade agreements with a number of countries. Since 2005, Peru has concluded free trade agreements with the U.S., Chile, Thailand, the Mercosur nations, that is Argentina, Brazil Paraguay and Uruguay, and Singapore.

Peru's FTA with the United States, Canada's largest trading partner, has been approved by the U.S. Congress and came into force on February 1 of this year. Now that the U.S. FTA with Peru is in place, some American exporters enjoy a comparative advantage over Canadian exporters in the Peruvian market. For example, U.S. wheat exports now receive duty-free treatment in Peru. Canadian wheat exports on the other hand continue to face a 17% tariff.

Clearly, Canadian wheat producers are now at a disadvantage in this market compared to American competitors and wheat comprises 38% of Canada's total exports to Peru. Therefore, we could say, tongue in cheek, that not having a free trade agreement with Peru goes against the grain for Canadian interests. We need to work to close this gap with the U.S., not just for our wheat producers but in other sectors as well.

In terms of the Canada-Peru FTA, the merchandise trade between Canada and Peru was about $2.8 billion in 2008. Canadian merchandise imports from Peru were about $2.5 billion last year. Our exports to Peru totalled about $400 million in 2008. This is an 18% increase over 2007.

There is a significant growth opportunity for Canadian exporters in Peru, particularly in the supply of mining and hydroelectric transmission equipment, particularly good areas for Canadian expertise.

Peru currently maintains tariffs of 4% to 12% on Canadian exports of machinery and equipment, paper, oil, plastics and rubber. Eliminating these tariffs will help enhance Canadian competitiveness and protect and expand Canadian jobs.

There are also opportunities for Canada's financial sector in Peru. The Bank of Nova Scotia is, in fact, the third largest bank in Peru. It sees great market potential in expanding its presence in the Peruvian market.

By increasing Canada's access to foreign markets, we can help Canadian companies grow and create jobs, both here in Canada and in developing economies like Peru.

In terms of our financial sector, particularly given the relative strength of our Canadian banks and financial institutions relative to their international competitors, that stripe that is accentuated and amplified today during this global financial crisis, there is tremendous opportunity to focus on our financial sector as an area of comparative advantage where we can deepen our relationships, expand our financial sector in some of these emerging economies and capitalize on the comparative advantage that has been the strength of our Canadian financial sector.

Examining the FTA agreement that Canada signed with Peru on May 29, we see that it does protect supply management. We need to support and defend supply management for what it is. It is simply a system that ensures Canadian farmers are paid a reasonable price for what they produce, a market-based system that ensures Canadian farmers are paid fairly for their products. It is not a trade subsidy from the government. We need to counter the arguments against supply management that define it for what it is not. Often the critics of supply management define is as some sort of government subsidy. It is not. It is simply a sound pricing mechanism to ensure Canadian farmers are paid a reasonable price.

The Peru FTA also includes side agreements on labour cooperation and the environment. The agreement also contains provisions on corporate social responsibility. Both the labour cooperation agreement and the agreement on the environment include a complaints and dispute resolution process. This allows any member of the general public in Canada or Peru to request an investigation if they believe that either Canada or Peru is not living up to its commitments in this agreement.

The labour cooperation agreement also enables an independent review panel to fine the offending country up to $15 million annually if the agreement's provisions are violated.

We will work with Canadian stakeholders and experts at the committee stage to determine whether these side agreements and provisions are robust enough. We will act to make sure this FTA is good on balance for Canada. We will continue to believe that diversifying our trade relations is an important way for Canada to move forward as part of a global economic recovery.

I believe very strongly that Canada's multiculturalism can actually help us diversify our trade relationships, that our multicultural communities represent natural bridges to some of the fastest growing economies in the world. We should be capitalizing on the strength of our multicultural communities and not only consider multiculturalism as a successful social policy here in Canada, but view it for what it is today.

At a time of global economic change, multiculturalism is in fact not just a social policy today. It is an economic driver, if we harness it and if we work with the entrepreneurial leaders. Some of the most successful entrepreneurs in Canada are leaders in Canada's multicultural communities. We need to harness that multicultural entrepreneurialism and build natural bridges to these fast-growing economies.

With the Canada-Peru FTA, the Liberal Party will ensure that this is a good deal for Canada. We will continue to emphasize the need for Canada to diversify its trading relationships and we will continue to highlight training opportunities around the world.

Let me return to the issue of Canada-China trade. There are immense opportunities for Canada in the important emerging market of China. Despite concerns over the global economic downturn, China's real GDP is still expected to grow at 6% in 2009 and 7% in 2010. The Chinese government is targeting even higher figures. Regardless, these are impressive numbers compared to either Canada's or other industrialized economies where we see a shrinkage of GDP during this time of economic downturn.

The Chinese government has announced a stimulus package worth $725 billion, investments in infrastructure, transportation, environmental and energy infrastructure, a need for the commodities that Canada produces and a need for the technologies that Canada has developed and can continue to develop. For instance, in clean energy, China has a remarkable need for clean energy and for clean energy technologies. We should be deepening our relationships with China, India and Brazil to help these countries get the energy solutions they need, the technologies they need and the energy they need and at the same time protect the planet against climate change.

As the Chinese government moves forward in its commitment to improve air, soil and water quality and produce cleaner energy, China will demand and need more clean energy and green technologies. Canada can become China's clean energy and green technologies partner, as a global leader in this field. However, in China the state has a strong influence on economic activity, so Canadian businesses cannot realize these opportunities absent of a strong relationship between the Canadian and Chinese governments.

After three years of damaging Canada's relationships with China, it appears that the Conservative government is finally recognizing that the Chinese economy and the Chinese economic opportunity is important to Canada, and that relationships matter.

On Saturday in The Globe and Mail, Jeffrey Simpson said in his column:

Finally, if belatedly, the Conservatives are coming to terms with the reality of China, not the rather one-dimensional view they developed in opposition and brought with them into government. They are arriving at the elementary conclusion that had long ago dawned on all sentient observers in the world: China is hugely important.

Mr. Simpson goes on to say “the puerile partisanship of Conservative politics and their stunning ignorance of the world” has damaged the relationship between Canada and China.

The fact is it is absolutely essential that we have a strong relationship between Canada and China, both in terms of the economic opportunities that trade between Canada and China represents for both our countries and in terms of our capacity to influence Chinese human rights.

We should ask ourselves this. Did Canada have more influence over Chinese human rights three years ago, when we had a strong relationship between the Government of Canada and the government of China, or today when that relationship is in tatters?

The fact is it is self-evidence to anybody who is paying attention, including the stakeholders, the labour organizations and the business leaders, who are telling us we have lost ground over the last three years in China due to a very ideological and narrow perspective of the Prime Minister to China. We need to reverse that.

In the recent weeks the government has demonstrated a change in tone, but the Prime Minister has still not visited China. He has still not, at the top, demonstrated an absolute commitment to deepening and strengthening that relationship, to undoing some of the damage he has wrought on the Canadian-Chinese relationship over the last three years.

Our exports over the last two years barely kept pace with China's import growth. The U.S., on the other hand, has grown its export trade with China by 60% in the last two years, far outpacing China's import growth. Australia exports five times as much to China as we do. The Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, understands the importance of the Chinese economy. Prime Minister Rudd actually speaks Mandarin. We cannot even get our Prime Minister to go to China, yet the prime minister of Australia has learned Mandarin to help deepen the relationship.

The trade minister has recently been to China to re-announce some trade offices that were planned by the previous Liberal government. That is not enough. The government, any Canadian government, should be aggressively pursuing and deepening our trade relationship and expanding our opportunities with China. Canada should be aggressively pursuing a consistent agenda of trade liberalization around the world. As a trade-dependent nation, free trade is ultimately in Canada's best interests.

Canadians can compete and succeed globally given the opportunity. We do not need protectionism to defend Canadian jobs or to develop and protect Canadian prosperity. We need opportunities. The Canadian business community and Canadian entrepreneurs have every capacity to compete and succeed. We need to work with them, as partners in progress, to diversify Canada's trading relationships, to focus on Canada's comparative advantages in energy, in financial services and in commodities where we can deepen our trade relationships with some of these countries that need clean energy technologies, that need stronger financial services and strong financial institutions, that need our commodities to build their infrastructure.

We have every capacity as a nation to be a global leader in these sectors and to turn this economic crisis into a time of opportunity for Canada as we move forward. However, it requires consistency, which means that when we treat human rights and trade in one part of the world one way, we have to apply the same principles elsewhere.

The government has said, in terms of Colombia, Peru and other emerging economies, that economic engagement strengthens our capacity to influence their human rights. I agree with that. However, I wish and I want, as a Canadian citizen, for my government to apply that same principle to countries like China, particularly China, which represents such a tremendous opportunity for Canadians and for the Chinese people as we move forward in progress and building a stronger global economy.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, this discussion concerns the free trade agreement between Canada and Peru. I was glad to hear my hon. colleague say that it was his party's intention to support that agreement, certainly to look at all aspects of it but in general to support it. We appreciate that as the government. Canadians appreciate that. Canadians, especially in these darker economic times, are looking for opportunities and other places to sell Canadian goods around the world.

Not to get sidetracked on China, but China is an important trading partner. Canada has opened six consulate trade offices in China in the past couple of months. The Minister of International Trade has been in China on an extended trip. The Minister of State has been in China. We are not taking China for granted.

I agree with the hon. member that trade liberalization and economic opportunity go hand in hand and they also encourage and promote human rights. Economic opportunity will always promote human rights. When people have more money and more opportunity, they expect more for themselves and for their families. They are less likely to put up with lack of freedom of the press, lack of rights for women, lack of rights for children.

It is not just this free trade agreement with Peru, but it is other agreements that we will be signing in the Americas, other agreements that we have negotiated and the overall thrust which is a very robust free trade agenda, unlike the previous government which had a very minor free trade agenda. Does the member agree with the direction this government is taking in the Americas?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, we believe in expanding our trading relationship, and the Americas is certainly an important part of that. Clearly the Obama administration is putting forward a very different perspective on U.S. relations in the Americas and elsewhere. I think there is an opening for Canada. We do believe in diversifying our trade relations.

If we look at the trade opportunities in the Americas on an individual basis, except for some of the larger economies such as Brazil, these are still fairly small trading relationships and opportunities compared to those of China and India. I would remind Canadians that over the last three years the Conservative government has treated the Chinese relationship with contempt and the India relationship with indifference. Looking at the scale of those economies, yes certainly we should be diversifying our trade relationship and yes, the Americas represent an opportunity for us. But the huge opportunities of China and India in particular necessitate a reinvigorated approach and commitment to strengthening those relationships government to government, business to business.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's support in moving this free trade agreement forward as soon as possible.

I would like to echo the comments of the parliamentary secretary in recognition of our Minister of International Trade who has recently been to China and Japan. He was in India in January. He is working very hard to open doors throughout the Asian markets as well as the Americas, working with the Colombia free trade agreement. The Prime Minister was in Port au Prince this past weekend.

We know that time is of the essence. The member mentioned President Obama and working together with all parties. This free trade agreement needs to pass as soon as possible as the U.S. ratified its agreement a couple of months ago, and every day that goes by Canadian companies are not on a level playing field. How does the member see us moving this bill as quickly as possible through the House so Canadians can be more competitive in the world market?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, at committee stage we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to study this FTA and to ensure that the benefits are there for Canada and that it makes economic sense for Canada. We will do that which is required as responsible members of Parliament at committee to ensure that we have done our homework, that we have pursued this very seriously and have done due diligence on the FTA.

I agree with my colleague in terms of the importance of not delaying passage of the bill, but at the same time of ensuring that we study this FTA carefully and we listen to stakeholders. There are a number of stakeholders who have perspectives on this that we have not yet heard from.

Having the legislation at committee stage will give all parties an opportunity to study it effectively.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been participating on the auto committee for some time. One of the issues that continually arises is the effect of free trade on our auto industry.

Common reference is the free trade agreement with South Korea and the concern that a number of cars from South Korea are being allowed into Canada but a far fewer number of cars from Canada go to South Korea. I take to mind here the issue of free trade but also fair trade and fair trade in relation to the issue of protectionism.

While I understood the previous question was about the speed with which this trade agreement could go through, I am also concerned about substance being more important than speed.

I wonder if my friend, the member for Kings—Hants, would comment on the need for fair trade and not just free trade balanced with the issue of protectionism.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Guelph is part of the class of 2008, a very impressive class of new Liberal members of Parliament who are contributing significantly to this Parliament. They are making a real difference. He has been a tremendous leader on the auto sector.

The Korea agreement is of great concern. Free trade with Korea can only proceed if we see the non-tariff trade barriers taken down by the Korean government. When we are looking at these trade agreements we have to study not just tariff barriers but non-tariff trade barriers. There are numerous non-tariff trade barriers that prevent cars from outside Korea from being sold there and that prevent cars manufactured in Canada from being sold in Korea.

We need to ensure that the non-tariff trade barriers are brought down so that there is truly a level playing field. It is tremendously important that we look at tariff and non-tariff trade barriers. In Korea it is my understanding that the non-tariff trade barriers are significant and very punitive against any imports of automobiles from anywhere else.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-24 is the act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru. As I said earlier in a question to the Conservative member, the relative importance of trade with Peru is rather low and negligible. It would not necessarily be my choice for the cornerstone of my speech to you this afternoon. I will address other aspects of equal—if not, in the end, greater—importance than just the absolute figures of the transactions between Canada and Peru.

As I said earlier, given the figures considered, our trade deficit with Peru is fairly substantial. Involved are exports of some $300 million and imports of $2.4 billion. Proportionally, the deficit is quite substantial.

There are a number of issues with the free trade agreement with Peru, and I would like to raise a few. First, the agreement on investment protection in this agreement with Peru is almost a copy of chapter 11 of NAFTA. We know how that works and that it leads the multinationals increasingly to initiate proceedings against governments. Chapter 11 also contains the dispute resolution mechanism, which poses problems and has significant weaknesses.

The Bloc Québécois supports investment protection, as long as it is done well. Furthermore, there is the government's almost unhealthy predilection for signing bilateral agreements by the handful and as quickly as possible, ignoring of course the multilateral aspect. In recent times, the WTO is somewhat out of the picture, the Doha round is rather ineffectual and there is little progress. We all know that international trade—globalization—must be governed by rules that are the same for everyone and equal for all.

If I have time, I would also like to talk about mining companies. There are a lot of them in Peru, nearly 80. It is common knowledge that a vast number of them have their head offices in Canada, but in the end, they are foreign. Knowing that, in Canada, regulations governing mining companies abroad are very weak, they take advantage of the situation.

Earlier, a member spoke of fair trade and the various components of it, which include the environment, workers' rights and human rights. They are of prime importance in business and increasingly so. They have also been ignored by the multinationals, which have tried to globalize pretty well everywhere on the planet. We know the aim is to make money. Often, it is to the detriment of the people in the country where they have chosen to set up, because they could take advantage of various weaknesses. These are the things that must be considered increasingly to be regrettable, passé. We must look to the future and to development on a much fairer level.

As I was saying earlier, the relative importance of trade with Peru is rather small. With 0.079% of Canadian exports, Peru ranks 48^th, and 19 ^th when it comes to Canadian imports. This puts Peru in 25^th place among Canada's trading partners, but it is important to stress its minor role when it comes to our exports.

In this regard, Peru accounts for less than 1% of Canadian international trade, 0.31% to be more exact. Both Canada and Quebec have a negative trade balance with Peru. However, it should be noted that Canada imports primarily raw materials from Peru, including copper, while exporting mostly wheat and manufactured products.

As I mentioned earlier, the balance of trade for all exports is $382 million, while total imports amount to $2.458 billion, for a deficit of $2 billion. This shows the ratio of exports and imports, and the numbers speak for themselves.

In Quebec, exports amount to $50 million, while imports total $223 million, for a deficit of $173 million.

As regards agriculture, this is a typical agreement. Fortunately, supply management is not affected. Indeed, over-quota tariffs on regulated products and supplies such as dairy products, poultry, eggs and refined sugar, are exempt from tariff reductions.

The environment and labour laws are also affected by the agreement. The Canada-Peru free trade agreement is accompanied by two side agreements on labour law and on the environment. When it comes to human rights and labour law, Peru is not a problem country like Columbia. However, the standard of living is low, and we can legitimately question the ability of the Peruvian state to implement both environmental and labour law standards on its territory.

The main danger is with Canadian mining companies operating in that country. Indeed, Peru's mining potential is significant and over 80 Canadian mining companies are present in that country. Canada is the number one investor in Peru's mining sector. Given the poor track record of Canadian mining companies and a total lack of will on the part of the Canadian government to regulate their operations, protecting the additional investments of these companies through a new chapter 11 is highly questionable.

The Bloc Québécois is opposed to the Conservative government's strategy, which consists in making piecemeal agreements. Instead, we support a multilateral approach. The current economic crisis clearly shows that a market economy can work properly only if it is regulated and stabilized through an institutional, political and ethical framework. Rather than signing piecemeal agreements, Canada should work within the WTO to ensure that the rules governing international trade are the same for everyone.

The Bloc Québécois believes that trade can contribute to the prosperity of nations and, in that sense, that it can be a major social and economic development tool. However, this can only be the case if trade agreements include measures that will ensure sustainable development and that will promote the development of the populations involved.

The Canada-Peru free trade agreement includes a clause to protect investments that is patterned on NAFTA's chapter 11 and that will allow businesses to sue governments. To include a chapter protecting investments could impede Peru's social and economic development. That country is a minor trading partner for Quebec.

As I said, Quebec’s exports to Peru represent 0.14% of total exports from Quebec, and Quebec has a $174 million negative trade balance.

Canada’s main business activity in Peru is in the mining sector, and Peru’s track record on worker protection in that sector is hardly a glowing one.

In the absence of any real policy to hold Canadian mining companies accountable, ratifying this agreement will allow those companies to expand their activities without being subject to any rules or consequences when they pollute or when they flout human rights. The Bloc Québécois is therefore opposed to this bill.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA, relating to investments, allows investors from member states in the North American Free Trade Zone to claim compensation from governments of another party to NAFTA when they believe they have incurred a loss as a result of the adoption of regulatory measures that modify existing business operating conditions. The regulatory or legislative changes must, however, be such that they can be considered to be direct or indirect expropriation or a measure tantamount to an expropriation.

NAFTA is the only major free trade agreement to which Canada is a party that contains such broad provisions regarding the treatment to be granted to investors from other parties. Because the free trade agreement with Peru contains a similar clause, the Bloc Québécois believes that it is not in Quebec’s interests to adhere to the agreement and is opposed to ratifying it.

In fact, the free circulation of goods can hardly not go hand in hand with the free circulation of capital. Where specific provisions are not incorporated into free trade agreements, bilateral agreements generally provide for the protection of investments coming from the other party, and all such agreements contain substantially similar provisions, that is, a neutral arbitration procedure in the event of disputes between the foreign investor and the host state of the investment. There are currently over 1,800 bilateral agreements of this type in the world.

The provisions of chapter 11 of NAFTA governing investments have been called into question. They are the source of numerous proceedings that have been brought against various governments in Mexico, the United States and Canada. They sometimes result in several million dollars in compensation being awarded. In a nutshell, chapter 11 defines a complete scheme to govern investments. In addition, the definition of investments is very broad. Some of the provisions of that chapter, including the concept of expropriation, have generated numerous proceedings. In addition, the current trend is toward extending that concept to encompass lost profits.

There are lots of examples of lawsuits I could mention under chapter 11. They often revolve around the concept of expropriation and lost profits. The expropriation of real estate directly affects a company’s assets and operations, but something else is at stake when multinationals sue for lost profits.

So a host of lawsuits are underway. For example, there is a suit over regulations that were adopted on PCBs. The Canadian government is being sued by S.D. Myers as a result of the issuing of an interim order on the exportation of wastes containing PCBs, which was in force between November 20, 1995 and February 4, 1997. The American company alleges that this order prevented it from doing business in Canada and it wants $20 million US in compensation. According to the decision that was handed down, Canada’s temporary ban on the export of wastes containing PCBs violated two provisions of NAFTA.

Canada is still appealing this decision, of course, but we are talking here about defending the public interest and protecting the public. This decision means that foreign multinationals have legal authority over matters like this that are essential to the public and to national sovereignty.

There is another lawsuit that will show how bad the chapter 11 provisions on investment can be. Another suit stemmed from the prohibition of a toxic waste burial site. On February 19, the British Columbia Court of Appeal heard the appeal of a NAFTA panel decision awarding the American company Metalclad Corporation $16.7 million US in damages. The panel reached its decision last August after a Mexican municipality refused Metalclad a permit to operate a toxic waste burial site. Surprisingly enough, Canada will intervene in this case on Mexico’s behalf to argue that all interpretations of NAFTA must take a government’s ability to protect the public interest into account.

What I find surprising is that the government is practically copying chapter 11 in this free trade agreement. It is all the more likely and obvious, therefore, that governments will be sued by multinational companies. For example, if there is ever a major development in environmental policy in Peru, multinational mining companies from Canada that might not be used to any regulations could sue the Peruvian government in the same way.

There is also dispute settlement, as I was saying earlier. Many questions have arisen regarding the dispute resolution mechanism in this chapter. The mechanism provides that a company considering that a government has violated the investment provisions can take direct action against the government before an arbitration tribunal. The tribunals hearing the disputes are set up to hear a specific dispute. The deliberations of the arbitrators and their decisions are secret, unless both parties to the dispute decide otherwise.

While the free trade agreement with Peru has a number of improvements in terms of transparency, the Bloc Québécois feels that the resolution of disputes should be done multilaterally and in a centralized manner, rather than on a piecemeal basis between the various countries signing bilateral agreements.

In fact, the NAFTA provisions on investment are similar to those in the proposed free trade agreement with Peru. They give very broad powers to businesses and give us concern as to the ultimate sovereignty of governments and their ability to take measures to protect the health of people and the quality of the environment.

I might not have the time to conclude everything I had to say today, but I will now move to multilateralism.

The course of globalization, a phenomenon bearing both great hopes and great injustice, must be redirected. The disparity between rich and poor, the failure to respect rights and freedoms and the lack of regulations on the environment and labour give rise to despair more than anything else. Openness to trade and the establishment of international regulations to counter protectionism and protect investment are good things, which the Bloc supports. That does not mean that trade rules should have precedence over the common good and the ability of governments to redistribute wealth, to protect the environment and their culture and to offer their citizens basic public services such as health care and education.

Quebec is a trading nation. Our businesses, especially the high tech firms, could not survive in the domestic market. For the Bloc Québécois, for Quebec, international business is of almost capital importance, and we also support free trade agreements, but within a specific context. In this case, fundamental aspects of the free trade agreement with Peru prevent us from supporting it.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before we move on to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, employment insurance; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, the steel industry.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the comments of my hon. colleague who is a colleague on the international trade committee and has some expertise in these matters.

I would like the member's thoughts on the adjacent and attendant agreements, along with the free trade agreement. I think that, like me, he would have received a letter from the ambassador of Peru complimenting our governments on this. He said:

The agreement will also have a positive impact in other areas beyond the economic dimension. It will help us fight against poverty by creating new employments and fostering the development of local communities. By the same token, it will contribute to affirm the rules on corporate social responsibility and the protection of the environment, which are issues that very much concern Canada's public opinion.

I would like the hon. member to comment on that because these are two areas on which he has often expressed his own views.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could have gone into much greater detail about this in my speech, but as I said, in a perfect world, trade would benefit both parties, not bring less well-off countries down even farther.

However, trade is not a cure-all. When companies invest abroad, I do not think that their first priority is improving the standard of living of the people in the countries where they set up shop. Their priority is making money.

I am not suggesting that all multinationals are brutes, but I am sure that the first priority is making a profit. Things do not balance out automatically or magically. There must be a will to improve things. Setting up shop in places where wages are low is not enough.

Still, efforts have to be made, and this has to be set out much more clearly in free trade agreements. There are no regulations governing mining companies working abroad. I said during my speech that this is important. Many foreign mining companies have their headquarters in Canada in order to exploit other countries, knowing full well that they will be free to do more or less as they please, because those countries do not have very stringent environmental rules and the companies cannot be reprimanded by the Canadian government.

I think that regulations are needed. Mining companies are a good example. There need to be strict regulations and a code of ethics to prevent mining companies from damaging and destroying the environment in other countries and contributing to population displacement. I am not saying that would happen in Peru, but we have seen it happen in other countries. This sort of thing must not happen again.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with some of the previous member's concerns regarding free trade with Peru but does he not think that some of his concerns could be addressed by virtue of the cancellation clauses within the agreement? We are all aware that the NAFTA can be abrogated, I believe, with a 90-day notice from either side. Therefore, if he is concerned that things will not work out in a couple of years the way we think they should, why should we not just abrogate the agreement at that time?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, any way to improve a free trade agreement is a good way. We would have to see at that point. We are already debating this agreement here in the House, and we will debate it in committee if the opposition supports it. The Liberal Party seemed to support the agreement. Because of important aspects of the agreement, the opposition ought to be against it, which would put an end to it, because Bill C-24 would not be passed and the agreement could not be implemented.

However, it is crucial that the Conservative government's foreign and international trade policy be more open to multilateralism and that we work to create a level playing field for everyone. There are many players, but the rules are not the same for everyone. In my opinion, we need to move more and more in this direction in the future, to make globalization more equitable and give it a human face.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague to explain in more detail the Investment Protection Agreement in the free trade agreement with Peru. He talked about lawsuits. Under what aegis can corporations sue in relation to this agreement?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

It is relatively simple. I also talked about the term expropriation, which now refers to nearly all situations and to all intents and purposes means loss of profits. If a particular government makes regulations, for public health and environmental protection or various social purposes in its country, that prevent a multinational from making the profits it was hoping for, the corporation can sue that government for the losses it incurs.

In ordinary internal trade, that cannot be done. These are things that are not done. Why should foreign multinationals be able to do what our own corporations cannot do? Sometimes corporations are expropriated in Quebec and Canada. Of course there are evaluations done to determine how much it is worth, but that is not based on the possibility of future profits, which are often arbitrarily inflated. It is based on their true value.

Recently, in the case of 2,4-D pesticides, Dow Chemical sued the government of Quebec for losses. The curious thing is, that company sells the pesticide to farmers. It has a specific market. In the interests of public health, Quebec says that this pesticide should not be used for cosmetic purposes, that is, to beautify lawns and eliminate dandelions. As an aside, when it comes to beautiful yellow dandelions on a lovely green lawn, I have always found that to be a pretty sight, but some people do not like it. The company claims that this will cause it to lose profits. Certainly it is going to lose profits. However, what has become of the sovereignty of a country, and of Quebec, to be able to legislate in the interests of public health and based on principles of environmental precaution? At that point, those positions are not acceptable.

For that reason, the Foreign Protection Investment Agreement in connection with the free trade agreement with Peru is a copy of Chapter 11 of NAFTA and it cannot be accepted in any way.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, generally speaking, we oppose NAFTA style agreements that put big business interests before workers and the environment and that have increased inequality and decreased the quality of life for the majority of working people.

In the case of Canada-Peru, our concern is that a much larger and more developed economy will take advantage of a developing one and that large corporate interests will end up shaping the so-called free trade architecture to serve their needs and not the public interests of the two trading nations.

The most egregious aspects of the free trade agreement are similar to those found in the Canada-Colombia agreement that will be coming forward shortly.

I will begin first with labour rights. The Canada-Peru free trade agreement does not include tough labour standards. The labour provisions are in a side agreement outside of the main text and without any vigorous enforcement mechanism. Trade unions in Peru have expressed concern as Peruvian labour law is deficient in several areas.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants earlier was talking about enhancing labour rights and that free trade agreements can do that. I would like to use as a reference some comments made by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs with regard to the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement. It stated:

Despite the FTA's condition that labor standards in Peru must not be lowered, a number of President García’s recent decrees have put the country’s Public Service workers in jeopardy. [Last year, in 2008], the Inter-sectional confederation of State Workers...organized a strike in protest of legislative decrees 1025, 1026, and 1057, which, according to the union, compromise the labor rights of public employees. The new laws are designed to “modernize” the public sector through “punitive evaluations” of current employees’ work performance, as well as through a reorganization of positions and salaries. The power to implement these changes is granted to the National Civil Service Authority, omitting any possibility of collective bargaining. This leaves labor organizations with little leverage to protect the jobs of their members.

While these concerns raised by organized labor in Peru are significant, much larger problems plague a majority of the country’s population. Because unionized sectors in fact make up only a small portion of the nation’s labor force, few have the ability to collectively protest when labor laws are changed. Worse still, even the limited labor standards presently on the books are largely unable to extend their reach to a majority of working Peruvians. According to a 2007 Human Rights Report, only 9 per cent of Peru's labor force is represented by unions, and more than 70 per cent of it works in the informal sector. Thus, regulations affecting minimum wage and working conditions do not protect most Peruvians, making concern over labor laws almost a moot point.

While the national minimum wage was raised to $176 per month in October of 2007, many workers in the informal sector earn merely between $20 and $30 per month, according to the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. The Bureau also reported that the Peruvian government “often lacked the resources, capacity, or authority to enforce compliance with labor laws.” Hence, most Peruvian workers are not protected against the potentially damaging effects of the FTA, which could leave them even more vulnerable to the self-serving demands of foreign multinationals.

I will now talk briefly about the environment. By addressing the environment in the side agreement there is no effective enforcement mechanism to force Canada or Peru to respect environmental rights. The Canada-Peru agreement on the environment commits both countries to pursing environmental cooperation and to work to improve their environmental laws and policies but it can only ask both parties to enforce their domestic laws. If they do not, there is no consequence.

Let me speak briefly about investors. Copied from NAFTA's chapter 11 investor rights, the Canada-Peru free trade agreement provides powerful rights to private companies to sue governments over their public policy, enforceable through investor-state arbitration panels. We have seen through our NAFTA experience how this type of corporate rights regime undermines the legitimate role of government in protecting and improving the lives of its citizens and the environment.

The Canada-Peru agreement is a somewhat improved copy of the outdated George Bush style approach to trade, but it still puts big business before people. There is no effective enforcement of human rights and it pays lip service to environmental protection, without any real measures or dispute resolution mechanisms.

These types of NAFTA copycat agreements are meant for trade between highly industrialized and developed countries, but Peru is a developing nation. This trade deal will not help Peru grow sustainably and increase the standards of living for its citizens. Instead, it will open the country up to exploitation by multinational corporations. Canadian corporations are very active and large investors in the natural resources sector in Peru. This kind of neo-liberal trade regime is strongly opposed by civil society groups, trade unions, environmental groups and citizens from both Canada and Peru.

As the hon. member from the Bloc pointed out, Peru is not a major trading partner with Canada. Two-way merchandise trade between the two countries reached only $2.8 billion in 2008. Over $2 billion of that money was Canadian imports, of which over 50% was from Canadian gold companies operating in Peru, taking advantage in 2008 of rising gold prices.

The trade deal was negotiated in record time, which should be a cause of concern for everyone in the House, and was negotiated without any consultation with trade unions, environmental groups, civil society and citizens.

By far, the trade deal does not provide investors and labour with a level playing field. While under chapter 11 investors have the right to seek binding arbitration that they can pursue independently, a trade union in Peru does not get to pursue a case to arbitration. It can file a complaint that would lead to an investigation and report, but it is up to the government to seek remedies and damages. Our experience with the NAFTA template shows that government is unwilling to do this. Empirical evidence strongly suggests that the minister of the day will not pursue the matter.

Market access is a concern. Let me reference this by talking about, in some cases, the technical aspects of the Canada-Peru free trade agreement in relation to the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement.

Before I talk about market access, I will provide a little primer.

It eliminates the vast majority of tariffs immediately upon entry into force. For Canada, most tariffs that will not be eliminated immediately will be phased out over a three-year period, which includes things like certain types of gloves, boots, textiles and imitation leather; and over a seven-year period for boats and other floating structures.

For Peru, most tariffs that are not eliminated immediately will be gradually phased out over a 5- to 17-year period. This includes foods such as rice, and certain cuts of meat.

Canada did not make any commitments to reduce over-quota tariffs on supply-managed goods, and that is a concern. We have in Canada a supply management system, province to province and territory, that protects farmers, producers and consumers. Canada did not make any commitments to reduce over-quota tariffs on supply-managed goods such as dairy, poultry, meat and eggs. Eggs are a product that we always think of in Ontario. It did, however, commit to gradually eliminating the within-quota tariff on these products. Canada will also allow partial access to the domestic sugar market, and Peru is placing the same restriction on imports of Canadian sugar.

Canada pursued market access under the same terms as those granted to the U.S. Canada received the same tariff concessions as the U.S. for wheat, barley and pulse foods. Canada did not, however, receive the same concessions for pork and beef.

Regarding investment protection provisions, the agreement with Peru was negotiated using the 2003 template based on chapter 11 of NAFTA. In spite of the so-called improvement to chapter 11 from lessons learned, chapter 11 is built on the principle of a corporate charter of rights that overrides the democratic will of a nation and puts labour at a disadvantage.

Under the terms of the agreement, Canada and Peru commit that their labour laws respect the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. It also includes a dispute settlement process and a financial penalty should a country fail to respect ILO principles or fail to enforce domestic labour laws. The penalty for non-compliance is determined by a review panel that has the power to require the offending country to pay up to $15 million annually into a co-operation fund. Our labour allies have made the case that, although it is a step in the right direction, those side agreements are just side agreements, with no effective and vigorous enforcement mechanisms, where the last word belongs to a bureaucrat.

In the U.S.-Peru deal, the labour and environmental sections are not side agreements but chapters in the main text, chapters 17 and 18 respectively. In the U.S. agreement, the first articles of chapter 17 explicitly restate the standards and declaration. The Canadian agreement mentions the side agreements in the preamble and then makes reference to them throughout the rest of the agreement.

NAFTA just focused on the enforcement of labour standards while each partner retained full regulatory control to establish or modify its labour and employment standards. The Canada-Peru agreement is more substantive and seeks to prohibit violating core labour standards when they have an impact on trade and investment. There is, however, no empirical evidence that this kind of enforcement mechanism actually works at all.

Let me speak briefly on the environment.

The application of domestic law trumps all other considerations. The agreement on the environment does not contain a dispute settlement mechanism or specific penalties set out for non-compliance. Basically the side agreement says that the parties agree to abide by the commitment they have agreed to.

Unlike the Canada-Peru free trade agreement, the U.S. incorporates the environment and the labour side agreements right into the accord. The U.S. accord provides for a consultation process, after which the parties have access to a dispute settlement mechanism.

In fact, even though the environmental provisions appear stronger in the Peru-U.S. free trade agreement, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs has reported that the Peru-U.S. free trade agreement has provided the president with an excuse to lower environmental and labour protection standards by anticipation, through a flurry of decrees aimed at facilitating foreign ownership and the acquisition of land. About 40% of these presidential decrees were deemed unconstitutional by the Peruvian congress constitutional commission.

We in the NDP have great difficulty with this agreement, and not just the chapter 11 portions of it that are much like the chapter 11 portions in our NAFTA agreement with the United States that are causing so much trouble these days. There are a whole host of problems.

I would like to end there and I look forward to any questions that hon. members might have.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s speech with interest.

I myself have just returned from a mission of the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas to Peru, where I was in contact with parliamentarians, the government and the public. I observed that there was somewhat the same kind of distance as we have here in Canada and Quebec, between parliamentarians and the government, that is, when it comes to preparing agreements such as the one some would like to adopt today—there is perhaps not enough consultation of parliamentarians. We end up with an agreement negotiated between the two governments that contains elements that may be difficult to accept. For example, in this agreement we have the equivalent of Chapter 11 of NAFTA, which in my opinion gives corporations improper powers.

Does my colleague not believe that if we had developed a practice of prior consultation, we might have achieved a more balanced agreement with Peru, that would have precluded this kind of agreement? Essentially, it is not free trade that is bad, it is the way it is applied. Agreements are made that do not properly reflect the objectives of free trade, including bringing greater prosperity to both countries.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do agree that one of the problems with this free trade agreement is the fact that not enough consultation has taken place and not with the proper parties.

Peru has made some strides in the last number of years, just as Colombia has made some great strides in the last four or five years.

Really the question before the House in terms of consulting is, will this free trade agreement or other free trade agreements in the Americas make those countries a better place? Will they improve and promote human rights? Will they alleviate the poverty situation for the poorest of the poor and create a level playing field between the countries involved in the free trade agreement? I am not convinced that is going to happen with this free trade agreement.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. He seems to be missing some of the historic points about free trade agreements. Free trade agreements tend to raise the GDP of both countries involved, increase trade of both countries, and raise the economic status of individual workers in both countries.

Canada has a duty to help increase the rights of citizens around the world and lead by example. One of the best ways is through economic engagement. Canada needs new trading partners, not fewer.

The member seems to infer that Canadian companies would take advantage of foreign workers. I find that quite insulting, because Canadian companies are some of the most ethical companies around the world and they have a history of leading by example. They raise human rights and wages for the general population around the world through economic engagement.

This is a great opportunity for Canadians and Canadian companies. My NDP colleague does not seem to understand that the future is in greater access to foreign markets, not less.

I wonder if he could answer the question, what does the NDP have against quality Canadian companies and Canadian entrepreneurs who want to help improve the lives of workers around the world through economic engagement? We have a great history of that. Why does he think this would be different at this stage?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is an important one that we need to consider with this free trade agreement.

One of the problems with labour in the Americas, as I did point out, is that unionized labour is a very small percentage of the population. In fact in Colombia it is about 5% and it is approximately that in Peru also.

When Canadian companies are there, I am hoping the conditions will improve for the workers who work for those Canadian companies, but that is a very small portion of the population. If we can raise the standard of living for the people who work for Canadian companies, that is wonderful, but let us not forget that there should be an advantage for all the other workers in those countries, where the poor continue to get poorer and poorer. While there is some advantage to unionized labour working for Canadian companies, there is not necessarily any trickle down effect or a role model that is followed by other companies in those countries.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on an excellent presentation regarding the free trade agreement with Peru.

I would like to ask him how he would improve this agreement, what the cancellation provisions are of this agreement and how they would help alleviate concerns if we were to proceed with this agreement and we found that the agreement was not working properly in a year or two.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, when we talk about parts of a free trade agreement where there is an opt out clause, it is pretty clear that governments are loath to trigger that.

If we look at our current free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, I believe that with a six month warning we could get out of that free trade agreement. Quite frankly, people in my riding and people I deal with particularly in the forestry industry but in other industries as well put part of the blame for the situation we are in right now on NAFTA's shoulders. We have continually asked for something to happen with NAFTA, to renegotiate it. I was glad to read in the news the other day that the Liberals have decided that to renegotiate NAFTA is a good route to go. It seems people are loath to trigger that particular mechanism, so I am not confident that even though the mechanism exists in a free trade agreement, it will be used.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon to Bill C-24, Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

A free trade agreement is important for economic development. It allows us to see how two countries can do business with one another.

Before becoming a federal member of Parliament, I was into economic development support and trade financing for businesses. When it comes to economic development, it is often said that diversifying one's economy is the key. Even we, as federal members of Parliament, say so. Economic diversification is important because it allows a region to vary the sectors on which it relies, which is important in times of economic slowdown like the one we are going through. Economic diversification might have helped to a certain extent to mitigate the crisis we are dealing with.

It is the same thing with market diversification. When 75% to 80% of an economy depends on only one market we call that putting all one's eggs in one basket. In my own province of New Brunswick, about 80% of exports go to the U.S. When the American market has difficulties, our own businesses also have difficulties and our jobs are threatened.

When I worked in economic development and business support, I often repeated one thing to my clients: it is great to diversify one's economy, but the company must also try to achieve market diversification. That will allow it to react when one sector is in trouble. When one country is in trouble, the company can turn to other countries to help it get by. Today we are faced with a global crisis, one that is not limited to just one country. However, the reality is that the diversification of our market through various countries at least gives us the opportunity to identify potential markets, or a potential client or region. If it does not have the tools to identify various markets, it is difficult for an entrepreneur or a company to save jobs.

However, we have done exactly what I was talking about: we put all our eggs in one basket. In many respects, that is exactly what we did here in Canada, because we thought that was the easy route. The Americans are our closest neighbours. However, when they are in trouble, we see what happens, in other words, the current crisis. But that was an easy way. They were closest. It often represented large volumes.

Some members have said here today that that agreement gives us access to a small amount, a small market. Perhaps that is true; however, when we look at the distinctiveness of many of the provinces and many regions, we see that some of our businesses need those small markets to make a difference.

Let us look at the agreement with Peru. There was a company in my riding for which I fought a long time to ensure its survival. I am referring to Atlantic Yarns, in Atholville. That factory needed, among other things, an agreement between Canada and Peru to facilitate the export of goods to that country, and also to manufacture other goods. Earlier, I was surprised to hear some members, primarily NDP members, say that this is not a good thing. I was surprised to hear that, because when I was working with the union members of that company, they were hoping that the government would sign a free trade agreement with Peru, and they would consistently ask when such an accord would be concluded. That was urgently needed to protect their jobs.

This is now April 20, 2009. It is too late, because the government erred, and we are not seeing any concrete measures to move forward quickly.

Unions and the NDP often get close together. However, I can understand why organized labour in my riding is beginning to distance itself from the NDP, because they are finding out that New Democrats are not always there to support union workers.

I said that the government erred regarding this issue. It all began in 2006. Taking action back then may not have completely saved one of our companies, but it might have helped to some degree. From the beginning of the process, in 2006, until now, April 20, 2009, over three years have gone before we were able to move forward on this issue.

While I did speak favourably of the agreement, one must understand that, at some point, a government cannot take all the time in the world to act. Sometimes, it must move forward a little more quickly and take the initiative. If the government would stop proroguing Parliament, perhaps we would move forward more quickly on this issue. Moreover, if the government had not called an election not that long ago—when elections were supposed to be held at fixed dates in this country—perhaps we would already have made progress on this issue.

I remember hearing people say, precisely on this issue, that they did not want an election or prorogation. Instead, they needed us to implement these measures for, among others, Atlantic Yarns, in Atholville, New Brunswick, to which I referred. These are realities that affect people in my riding and elsewhere, and these are things that they need.

That being said, we nevertheless need to examine other issues. When we do business with other countries, we have to protect certain things, such as our supply management system. With regard to the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement, I was relieved and truly reassured by the fact that everything to do with supply management—the security and future of supply management—will be protected. It is rather surprising, coming from the Conservative government, because it sometimes talks out of both sides of its mouth. At times we wonder if the Conservatives simply want to get rid of supply management. At least in this document it has not been forgotten.

We will have to continue reminding them of the importance of supply management for the survival of various industries: the dairy industry and the egg and poultry industry, both chicken and turkey. These are important files. The Conservative government has at least listened to us this time and understood the importance of supply management, as clearly indicated in this bill.

We must ensure, when concluding similar agreements, that there is respect for human rights. I would like to name a few of them, five to be precise: the right to freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the abolition of forced or compulsory labour and the elimination of discrimination. These are important issues for Canadian society and citizens. Citizens want these rights to be respected. When doing business with other countries and when making free trade agreements with other countries, our citizens also want those countries to respect the values of the Canadian government and people.

Our Canadian values cannot be taken away from us. The essence of being a Canadian citizen can be taken away by few people. We live in a democracy and we worked hard to achieve that. When I say we, I am including those who came before us in this House and elsewhere, those who built this country. They fought to ensure that we could keep the freedom and democracy that we enjoy today.

Let us go back to what I mentioned earlier. If we want to move forward and prosper, we must not be content to follow. We must sometimes take the initiative. When I raised the issue of the agreement between Canada and Peru a few years ago in this House, I was motivated by our neighbours to the South, the Americans, who had previously started the process of negotiating a free trade agreement with Peru.

Now, let us look at the reality. Our population is only one tenth the population of the United States, and it is certain that our economy is much smaller in volume than the American economy. The Americans, for their part, decided that it was important to do business with that country, even though it is a small market.

When I look at this situation, I wonder why the members of this House say that it is such a small market and that it is not worth spending any time on it, although countries with markets much larger than ours and with a larger population consider it is in their interest to have a free trade agreement with Peru. As Canadians and as a government, we must not always be followers. It is sometimes important to act as leaders. To be leaders, we ought to have started the process earlier and accelerated it. Then, perhaps,we would not be among the last to act in signing such agreements.

As I have mentioned before, while the American industry was enjoying its benefits, our Canadian companies had to suffer from the inaction of the government. There were delays in moving forward with the implementation of the free trade agreement. It must be hoped that there will not be any more job losses such as the ones in my riding at Atlantic Yarns. We must look to the future. There is no choice. If the government had moved more quickly, there would have been a choice, perhaps, but today, we have no choice.

Seeing the benefits is a responsibility shared by all parliamentarians. Whatever the agreement, there can be comments more negative than others. I am repeating myself because this is important. We have been told by the workers from these plants in our area that we had to act quickly. This might therefore be some kind of lesson, or certainly a comment that some members, particularly those from the NDP, should take into account.

Textile was mentioned earlier. Things are taking a bit longer than they would like, but the fact is that things have to be put in place so that progress can be made. Going against this will mean that nothing will ever get done. Some steps can take a bit longer than others, but that is already better than doing nothing and never being able to help the workers in our communities.

Now is the time to think about market diversification so that, once out of the crisis, we can rebuild our economy and diversify our markets. This will allow us to become even stronger and do business pretty much anywhere around the world. It will allow our companies to operate around the world, which, in turn, will ensure that long-term rather than short-term jobs are created. The next time there is a crisis, we will be able to get through it, without people experiencing the dramatic situations they are currently experiencing in all Canadian industries.

We know that the Conservative government has failed to take action on several fronts with respect to plans to stimulate the economy and the forestry industry, which is a huge part of the economy where I come from. It has failed, in general, to take action. During the last federal election in September and October, the Prime Minister himself said that there was no crisis. Well, I am sorry, but the crisis in Madawaska—Restigouche started a few months—maybe even a year—before that. The Conservative government probably figured that even if that region was in crisis, it would not touch the rest of the country. That is a shame, because if it had listened to us in the first place, it would have found out about the crisis in my part of the country and we might not be going through the crisis we are going through now.

Trying to explain that to a government that refuses to see or to listen is not necessarily easy. It is even harder when that same government buries its head in the sand, convincing itself that nothing is wrong and everything is great. As a member of Parliament and a citizen, when people all around me, including my neighbours, are losing their jobs, that is no fun for anyone. When a person loses a job, it is bad for the economy because less money will flow to our regions.

Inaction hurt us all. It is still hurting us, but there comes a time when we have to take action to ensure a better future for our people.

Some companies want such measures, and the people working for those companies want such measures, so as parliamentarians, maybe we should open our eyes and our ears, pull our heads out of the sand and ask ourselves if this will make things better for our fellow citizens and workers in the near future.

Personally, I think that it will. It might be a small step, a drop in the bucket. It is a small country, but that does not mean that some of our companies and manufacturers will not benefit.

So, let us ensure the well-being of our people. Let us ensure that they have work. Let us also listen to our workers and business leaders. We have to hear from them how important free trade agreements like this one are to them.

Perhaps then, within a short time, we will be able to create what we need: wealth. Our people will be able to go back to work and start spending again, which in turn will make the economy run even better so that more people can work. Efforts will have to be made not to repeat the errors of the past, by overlooking the time frame for going forward with such a plan or implementation plan or, worse yet, failing to listen to people, parliamentarians, our fellow citizens, our workers, labour as well as management of Canadian businesses. They might have been able to move things forward faster and prevent the crises faced today.

In closing, let me just reiterate what I said earlier. We are seeking to diversify our economies. That is what we are here for and what we are preaching to anyone who will listen. In our respective regions, we are telling people that the economy has to be diversified if we want risks to be eliminated. Should one falter, the others are there for support. Let us use the same logic.

I am not saying that we should necessarily take after all countries, of course. There are surely countries around the world which are having a much harder time with what we might think are good things. But in this instance, let us make a point of working toward being able to provide what is known as market diversification. Let us allow our companies to have access to additional markets and diversify their markets. That would make it much easier to go through tough times like these.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I quite like the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche as a person but once again I think the Liberal Party is on the wrong track. Once more it is saying yes to anything the Conservatives present, especially old George Bush-style free trade deals. There is no difference between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. The Liberals always endorse the Conservative approach to everything. We saw it in the softwood lumber agreement, even though thousands of jobs were lost. It was very predictable. All the witnesses had said there would be massive job losses as a result.

Now we have tens of millions of dollars in fines that Canadian taxpayers have to pay, and the Liberal Party says yes. Just a few weeks ago, there was a bill that killed the shipbuilding industry. The Liberal Party said yes. There too, we saw that the Liberal Party says yes to anything at all.

I have a simple question for the hon. member: why does the Liberal Party not just merge with the Conservatives? There is no difference.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a clear difference: when we make decisions, we are well-informed because we listen to the people who need those decisions.

My colleague said he quite liked me. I understand his point, but there are limits. I can understand he likes me because the reality is that we are working hard for people. He should understand something else though. I would have preferred Atlantic Yarns to be still operating today. He would have had a chance to do what I personally did, that is, sit down with the union representatives and discuss the company’s future. When I say the union representatives, I am not talking about management but the employees. These employees wanted to make progress and they wanted to keep their jobs.

I think it is important for you to understand this, Mr. Speaker, and for you to pass along the message to the NDP member who just spoke. These workers wanted to make progress. Maybe they would still have their jobs today. Maybe they could have been working today and supporting their families. That was one factor among others that might have saved the company. It shows one thing: that I took the time to talk with the union representatives and review with management what was needed for the company to survive. One of the things was the implementation of this free trade agreement. Whether it suits the NDP member or not, this is what the people out in the real world wanted. This is what the workers needed to make progress with their jobs.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to light something that I read this morning. I thought it was quite interesting. It is an article by Gren Winslow in the Canadian Cattlemen magazine.

He starts out by saying that cattle producers have a reason to be thankful that the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member from the Conservative government, is at the helm. He goes on to say:

It traces right back to January 9 when [the Minister of Agriculture] accepted the Beef Value Chain Roundtable recommendation to create a market access secretariat within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada that will direct the efforts of industry, government and producers to open up new markets for agriculture commodities.

He then goes on to say that the minister jumped on a plane to test out the concept and was the head of a trade mission to India and Hong Kong, which of course is in China. Equally important is the fact that Hong Kong is the gateway to mainland China. The author of the article continues on and basically says what a positive step it is to get that first step in the door when we get into these emerging markets.

He goes on to actually say that we are actually doing so well that the U.S. Meat Export Federation President and CEO Philip Seng noted that the U.S. has some catching up to do in terms of market access in Hong Kong. He goes on to praise, obviously, the work that we have done in Jordan, basically, creating an opportunity there, where it has now spread and we have some agreements where we have some under 30-month beef going into Saudi Arabia.

Could the hon. member provide some more examples of what good policy can do when we actually create these free trade agreements? It creates a network of countries working together to improve the lives and benefits of all of their citizens.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, many things can be done to improve the lot of our businesses and workers. One thing I liked in the comments of the hon. member opposite, is when he talked about a gateway. A gateway is a means to give us access to markets and make trade easier between two countries.

As I said earlier, it may not be a big country or a major player, but there is a link with the diversification of our markets I was talking about earlier. This diversification of our markets is just as important as economic diversification within our own borders. It is the same kind of approach that can help find a way out of our problems when a market is in crisis and help our businesses take a wider perspective. True, businesses need to work hard, and spend time and energy if they are to access new markets. If they are not provided with the right tools by the government, it is hard for them to do it. But in all of this, we have to take stock of the situation. There are hard facts that should be considered. It is not all wide open, and we should be realistic and reasonable.

The supply management issue is important. Supply management must be protected. We cannot tell other countries this will be sacrificed. We have already given too much in the past. At this time, there are situations where other countries do no respect the same limits we set for ourselves. And our own people end up paying the price. Today, we must work with our people. There are numerous examples. We should be able to maintain some balance. Some things are acceptable, but there are things we should preserve for ourselves. We should make sure we fight for our important and vulnerable industries.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, we are in favour of free trade and we have always been. However, we must take into account the nature of the two countries involved. Canada is a developed country and Peru is a developing country. When we negotiate agreements, we must sit down and examine the real opportunities for both countries. In our view, the agreement that is proposed does not meet both countries' needs, particularly not those of Canada.

We must take the time needed to reach good agreements. We believe that this agreement has not been examined thoroughly enough to allow both countries to get their fair share.

I would like to hear my colleague talk about that.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the benefits of such an agreement are not immediately clear to some parliamentarians. There can be no benefits without an agreement. That much is clear. In order to move forward, we have to look to the future and see what opportunities would open up for Canadian companies to do business with a country like Peru if the agreement were implemented starting today.

We may not be talking about a huge volume of trade or a large country, the economic situation in our two countries is different and the size of the economy in our countries may be different. I realize that. However, nothing is exactly the same around the world. In doing business with other countries or companies, seldom are quantities and volumes equal.

Opportunities have to be assessed nonetheless. What opportunities will our companies have? That is what we should think about. If we do not act today, then there will not be any opportunities to enjoy tomorrow. If nothing is done today, then tomorrow's jobs will not be saved.

We have to rebuild from the mess inherited from the Conservatives and figure out how to improve the lives of Canadians and workers, and perhaps preserve the future of those plants affected by job losses because of government inaction.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Bill C-24, the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

A few weeks ago, I took part in a parliamentary mission to Peru as part of the activities of the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas. I had the opportunity to meet Peruvian parliamentarians, government representatives, representatives of the Canadian mining industry and people involved in international cooperation. I found that there were many potential affinities between the two countries and that it would be useful to develop ties with Peru.

But a red light went on in my head when the Peruvian parliamentarians invited us to take a close look at the contents of the agreement. It is a good thing to want to engage in trade and create wealth in both countries, but the Canadian government has decided to incorporate the equivalent of chapter 11 of NAFTA into this agreement. This chapter allows a company to sue a government if it is not satisfied with an application or a new law.

In this case, it is said that these regulatory or legislative amendments must be comparable to direct or indirect expropriation or a measure equivalent to expropriation.

We understand the Conservative government's rationale even better. I am somewhat surprised at the Liberals' position on this. The Conservative government wants to allow Canadian mining companies to operate in Peru with virtually no restrictions. They have financial power, and they are faced with a democratic country that wants to carve a place for itself, but does not have our abilities.

There is another argument. For example, if the Peruvian government were to decide to reorganize how the lands of the indigenous Quechua people are distributed and wanted to improve ownership for the indigenous people who have lived in Peru for centuries and were there even before the Spanish came, the agreement as written would allow a company to say that the government cannot do that without compensating it. That is a fact. I am not making anything up. NAFTA already has such a provision. The Canadian government itself, under the Liberals, was taken to court over its ban on MMT.

MMT is a gasoline additive, a known nerve toxin. The Canadian government had banned that additive. The American company went before the courts and won its case, and the Canadian government had to pay compensation to that company. That is the tail wagging the dog. Including a provision in an agreement like this one will simply ensure that republics like Peru stop putting forward protectionist measures because it could never compete with companies like we have in this country.

This visit was also an opportunity to realize how important it would be for such free trade agreements to follow consultations among parliamentarians from each country.

Had the parliamentarians in the House of Commons and their Peruvian counterparts had the chance to discuss before the drafting of the agreement between their two countries started, I think there would have been lessons to be learned and the agreement eventually signed would not have included such a provision.

It does not make much sense and does not reflect well on Canada's reputation. Canada signed an agreement with northern European countries. We supported that agreement which did not include a provision like chapter 11. These being developed countries, it was agreed that our countries would deal with one another as equals and that no increased powers would be given to companies. When signing bilateral agreements with developing countries, we take the liberty of creating a framework that is not in line with the will and development of each country.

During my visit to Peru I saw that that there was a will to change things. People also hoped that the agreement, which had been negotiated during economic good times, could survive the economic slowdown. Experts who made presentations warned us against the impacts of the agreement on agriculture in Peru and also in Quebec and Canada. The supply management system has been protected. It is not included in the agreement per se, which is a good thing, but the agriculture sector will continue to be treated as any other market sector. That is not good for the future of our agriculture and of the Peruvian agriculture.

I also had the opportunity to visit the beautiful village of Chincha Baja, which has suffered greatly from natural disasters, including an earthquake. CIDA has a house building project there. The village is on the fringe of Lima, the huge capital city with 8 million inhabitants, where we can see all levels of poverty and wealth. In the village's rural setting I could witness the importance of giving the agriculture sector in a country like Peru the opportunity to organize itself well enough to be able to access our market, but on a level playing field.

I was reminded of the situation in Africa. Some African countries produce cotton that is more expensive than the cotton they could import from the United States because of the subsidies the U.S.A. gives to its producers. Agricultural producers in Peru could find themselves in the same situation because we have a well structured agricultural sector and unions. Over the years, we have developed some tools that they do not necessarily have in Peru.

For this agreement to become acceptable, we would have to remove the clauses that are similar to NAFTA's chapter 11. Those clauses give excessive power to companies, which can sue governments if their operations are adversely affected. In this case, this is a serious matter, because we are talking about the mining sector. In Peru, Canadian companies are the main stakeholders in that sector. This agreement is going to give them more power, and that is dangerous. This comes at a time when the government itself refused to follow up on the round tables asking to adequately regulate the operations of extractive mining companies. We reached the point where a member of Parliament had to table a bill saying that the government's position was inadequate, and that we want something that reflects more closely what was proposed by the round tables. The Bloc Québécois also drafted a bill along those lines. Today, the Conservative government is going in the exact opposite direction. It is opening up the floodgates, so that mining companies can really do as they please.

Earlier, a Conservative member talked about the reputation of Canadian companies abroad. The vast majority of Canadian companies have a good reputation, but a number of them have really engaged in excessive things, and we should be able to discipline and control them. One way to do that would be to follow up on the recommendations made by the round tables. Another would be to at least ensure, in agreements such as the one before us, that we do not give them increased power, such as what the chapter similar to NAFTA's chapter 11 is going to give them.

Let us not forget that we are talking about a country that is a democracy and that is trying to move forward, but that is also experiencing difficult circumstances.The Sendero Luminoso organization, or Shining Path, is a terrorist group that is still active and that did things just last week. We must be very careful before going ahead with agreements that will exacerbate existing problems. We must provide more opportunities for these problems to subside and disappear, so that we have a much more rational and concrete reality that will achieve the desired results.

Why is the Bloc Québécois opposed to this agreement, not to mention the issue of investment protection?

Bilateral agreements often lead to agreements that put richer countries at an advantage over poorer countries. That is what is happening at this time. We would much rather see the development of multilateralism, in other words, a group of countries around the world that agree on conditions so that negotiations are more balanced. A group of developing countries could get together, thereby strengthening their bargaining power. There may be common interests shared by one developed country and one developing country that are not shared by other countries. Ultimately, this would allow for a much more balanced agreement.

A bilateral agreement like the one with Peru is not the most problematic; the one with Colombia is much more so. There are problems in Colombia related to a failure to recognize workers' rights and environmental rights. That is a part of daily life in Colombia, although it is not the case in Peru. But we hope to see that situation improve, rather than deteriorate.

The agreement signed by the Canadian government almost seems to suggest that the government is a corporation. It is looking solely at the economic advantages for Canadians in the short and medium term, but is not considering the impact it will have on the other country and is acting like an invader, which is not Canada's tradition. As members of the Bloc Québécois, we have a responsibility to hope these things will be corrected.

The problem is that a free trade agreement such as this cannot be changed. We must decide whether or not we will support it. It is an important issue. Naturally, we will debate it and show that we find it lacking. In the past, ancillary agreements have sometimes mitigated negative effects, but they do not have the same force. In this case, the agreement in its present form is unacceptable for the reasons I gave, especially on the issue of investments.

It is unfortunate because Peru is a country with abundant resources and a great deal of potential. It may not previously have developed the structures for distributing wealth such as we have in Quebec and Canada. During my stay, I was very surprised to see that it does not have any type of employment insurance or social welfare. The informal economy is very pervasive and there is no declaration of income or payment of taxes. There is barter, which does not contribute to collective wealth. Other practices should be developed in this regard.

If, in the future, we wish to sign agreements that foster globalization with a human face, they should contain provisions ensuring that both countries will agree, for example, that the developed country will help the developing country establish a better support system for the distribution of wealth and that it will provide the developing country with the expertise required to accumulate this wealth.

Peru's economic growth is presently in the order of 7% to 9%. This is a very good rate of growth that is closely tied to the mining sector. When the economy slows down, as it has in recent months, the situation becomes much more difficult. We are facing a very paradoxical situation. We are signing an agreement at a time of increased economic growth. Canadian firms and the Canadian market needed these resources, but now there is a slowdown and we find ourselves facing a new reality.

Peru, which depends heavily on exports, has signed numerous agreements of this kind. It has agreements with various countries. When I went there a few weeks ago, it was negotiating an agreement in principle with China, which wants to get natural resources by the same method. Obviously this aspect, the fact that the rules of the marketplace alone govern the situation, places an additional responsibility on the Canadian mining industry, which has a major presence there, to ensure that our corporations conduct themselves ethically and serve as a model.

This is the case for some corporations, but not for all corporations. For example, it is the case for junior mining companies that are most often involved in mining exploration. Often, the corporations do the mining themselves, but small companies that do not comply with the basic requirements are also tolerated by the system.

We would have liked to see Canada impose standards, in signing this kind of free trade agreement, that could then become a model. We hear that argument when we are being sold the free trade agreement, and we are told that with this kind of agreement we will have to fix the situation here at home. In fact, however, the provisions that govern investments and the right of corporations to bring suit will have the exact opposite effect. It will give corporations more power in relation to governments, which certainly need to be on firmer footing and be in more control.

We have seen this in Quebec. There is nothing new under the sun. Fifty or 60 years ago, as the members from Lac-Saint-Jean and the North Shore know, we frequently made very major concessions to attract businesses. It took years to try to fix that situation, and even today we can see that when companies are sold, these kinds of concessions are still being made.

They did it when Alcan was sold to Rio Tinto under secret agreements, under a Canadian law that lacked the teeth to impose conditions regarding employment. In any case, the Conservative government did not want to.

As regards Peru, a country I visited very briefly, I tell myself it should be given an opportunity to avoid this type of situation, rather than increase the risk of the same thing happening.

It was the same for trade with Costa Rica. In the present matter, even if trade between Quebec and Peru and Canada and Peru were possible and substantial, there are businesses on location there, and also some international cooperation. However, following my meetings with various international cooperation NGOs, I note that they are very careful to ensure a clear distinction between purely capitalist market-oriented companies—such as the mining sector—and aid to communities, so that no link between the two can take away their independence of action.

The Canadian government is no example. We saw it remove some countries in Africa from its aid list, in order to do business with Peru and Colombia.

Does that mean that Peru and Colombia do not need aid? No. We agree, and, in any case, the Canadian government could have done more in the area of international aid. What is unacceptable is taking aid away from Africa, which is desperate for it, in order to turn a policy of international cooperation into a policy of support for economic development rather than a true policy on international aid. The Canadian government is acting as if it managed a private company rather than a government. I do not think Canadians and Quebeckers expect this type of behaviour from their government.

I will conclude my remarks on this point. Peru is a country that deserves solid cooperation. This free trade agreement will not do it. And because the agreement as such cannot be amended during negotiations, the Bloc prefers to vote against the bill for a free trade agreement with Peru, even if it means calling on the government to redo its work to ensure that the rules of the game are clear and will benefit both countries involved—both Peru, a developing country, and Canada and Quebec.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup on his speech. I have absolutely nothing to say against the position of the Bloc Québécois and I am jubilant, since that was not the case in the past.

What we just heard from the Bloc Québécois is an important reversal. As we well know, the softwood agreement was bound to cause massive job losses in Quebec. The industry in Quebec said that it would cause job losses. The position of the Bloc Québécois was that we could not reject free trade agreements signed by the Conservative government. We know very well that that is not true. We even have the responsibility to reject agreements of this type.

When the House dealt with an agreement that targeted shipbuilding, the workers in Quebec said that it must not jeopardize those jobs in Quebec. The Bloc voted in favour of that. I congratulate the Bloc Québécois on its present position, which is against this agreement. The only question that I have is why it took so long for the Bloc to finally reach the position it did on free trade.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that the Bloc has a pragmatic rather than dogmatic approach to issues. That is often the difference between the NDP and the Bloc.

How did we come to that position? We went to Peru. We met people from Colombia when we studied an agreement with that country. As for the softwood lumber agreement, many businesses in my own riding were affected. We took part in the consultation process to see if we should support the agreement. Companies and unions told us that the agreement had to be signed and that the companies needed the money as fast as possible to avoid bankruptcy. That was the position of all regions of Quebec and not only of my own. That was a pragmatic position that took the context into account. We never said that the agreement was a great deal. We said that entrepreneurs and all other partners wanted us to support it. Unions and communities wanted us to take the position we took and so we did.

As for the agreement with Peru, I am glad to hear my colleague say that he thinks our position is interesting. Personally, I would hope that next time there are preliminary consultations so we can support agreements that are beneficial to both parties. We are not here to vote down measures, but rather to come up with good agreements. Unfortunately, in this case, the agreement is not in the best interests of Quebec and Canada, particularly when we know the impacts of chapter 11 of NAFTA, which gives private companies unacceptable rights over the power of governments to impose conditions, namely to protect the environment.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my NDP colleague, who described our positions as well thought out and balanced. I agree with what he said.

I would like to come back to investment agreements, which were included in the agreement with Peru and are similar to chapter 11 of NAFTA. Considering what we have experienced and the numerous lawsuits of various multinationals, whether concerning Mexico, the United States or Canada, I would like to ask my colleague the following question. Considering that we have asked this government repeatedly for years to ensure that these investment agreements do more to protect the businesses and individuals in the respective countries against foreigners who come in and exploit businesses, and want to have control in terms of public health and environmental precautionary principles, how can this government propose such agreements? The result is an automatic loss of sovereignty and control for each of the respective governments. I would like to ask my colleague what could possibly make a government like the Conservative government keep repeating the same mistake.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the answer to that question from a Peruvian Quechua representative, an indigenous representative. She explained to us that her people had been there for hundreds, even thousands of years before the Spanish. She said that the Quechua had organized their lands and found ways to transport water, among other things. Under this kind of agreement, if the Government of Peru decides to restore lands to indigenous peoples, companies affected by direct or indirect expropriations can submit complaints, the matter could go to court, and the company could be entitled to compensation.

What is the Government of Peru supposed to do with that? It would spell the end of social change. The Conservatives have chosen to put the interests of private companies before the common good. That is what is missing from this agreement, and that is what we are against.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I have a brief question.

I would like to know if the companies that set up shop in Peru or in neighbouring countries—mining companies, for example—will be expected to comply with Canadian laws or the laws of the country in which they are operating. I would like more information about that. What responsibilities will they have to the people in terms of the environment?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the crux of the problem. Mining companies have to comply with the existing laws in both countries. The Conservative government is saying that it will not follow the round table recommendations, that it will not give the necessary authority, that it will not appoint an ombudsman. As a result, companies will be subject only to the laws of the host country.

Developing countries do not have the structures or the strength necessary to negotiate with companies on an equal footing and therefore agree to environmental conditions or working conditions they should not agree to. We have to admit that we did the same thing in Quebec 50 or 60 years ago. This is unacceptable. We are giving companies too much latitude and an unfair advantage.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from previous speakers about the importance of securing other markets for Canadian companies during this global economic crisis. Canada is a global trading nation. It has been identified that the United States ratified an agreement with Peru a couple of months ago. Every day that passes, Canadian companies are at a disadvantage.

Is my hon. colleague not concerned about providing opportunities and a level playing field for Canadian businesses in the free and fair trade agreement that is being proposed?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for a brief reply.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about this issue. I want Canadian companies to have access to other countries under reasonable conditions, but I do not believe, for example, that we have to give those companies rights beyond the existing rights in those countries. We need to negotiate longer to make sure that there are appropriate concessions on both sides.

We know from our experience with the North American Free Trade Agreement that chapter 11 gives companies excessive power. We are making the same mistake in this case. It is inappropriate. Often it is American companies that have gone to court in Canada. We are going to find ourselves in the same situation in the case of Canada and Peru.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about an act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru.

I want to say first that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill. Although it is important to reach agreements on trade and on markets for our companies, we feel that this should not be at any price. We think that a very well organized and highly developed country like Canada should help increase the wealth of the people of a country that is less fortunate, that might be a developing country which is not so rich. Canada could become a major contributor to socio-economic development, but certainly not under the free trade agreement between Canada and Peru.

In order for this agreement to help increase the wealth of the Peruvian people, it would have to contain measures to ensure sustainable development and help the people to thrive. In addition, the free trade agreement between Canada and Peru contains a clause to protect investment that was copied from chapter 11 of NAFTA and will enable companies to sue governments. We think that this clause could impede the social and economic development of Peru.

NAFTA's chapter 11 on investment allows investors from a country in the North American free trade area to seek compensation from the government of another NAFTA country when they think they have suffered damages as a result of regulations being adopted that change the conditions under which their company operates.

For example, if a country decides to issue regulations or make changes to its legislation on health, the environment or the work done by people within its borders and there are resultant changes to the conditions under which a company operates, that company can institute legal proceedings against the government in question.

We have seen this happen in the past in the United States, in Mexico and even in Canada, and it has led to payments of millions of dollars in compensation. That means that the government itself is no longer master in its own house, is no longer master of its own territory, because of this famous clause, which is similar to the one in Chapter 11 of NAFTA. It creates a drain on the public treasury. For example, that clause is used in land expropriation cases, but it is also being used increasingly when a corporation can prove that it has lost profits. When that happens, it can bring action against the government of the country.

Chapter 11 provides a dispute settlement mechanism.

The Bloc Québécois believes that disputes should be settled openly and transparently, and that is not the case.

Very often, then, arbitrators are not familiar with the issue involved and do not necessarily have the qualifications to decide it, and so they may make mistakes and make an unfavourable decision.

We are also opposed to the free trade agreement with Peru because we believe that in terms of the environment and labour, we have no guarantee that our corporations can do business with that country and also respect human rights, labour rights and environmental rights. On that point, I would note that a rather unflattering report was made, one that was in fact disregarded by the present Conservative government. The report related to the social responsibility of Canadian corporations abroad. The social responsibility of Canadian mining companies has been a long standing issue.

Many corporations do an excellent job; they respect the environment and abide by the principles of the International Labour Organization. Some mining companies, however, are appalling, and seek to make profits at any cost. Human Rights Watch and the United Nations have pointed fingers at them. That is what the Bloc Québécois wants to avoid. This agreement provides no guarantee that the laws will be strong enough, and have enough teeth, to compel our Canadian mining companies to respect human rights and the environment.

The agreements that were recently made and that we will be discussing this week, the free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, have similarities that absolutely must be pointed out. First, Peru and Colombia are not very significant trading partners for Canada. Canadian exports to those countries account for something in the region of 0.1% to 0.7% of our exports. It is important to note, however, that our mining and oil companies make major Canadian investments in those countries. To protect those companies, we have to enter into bilateral agreements that have not been approved by parliamentarians in either country. Those agreements are quite often made by stealth and in great haste, and do not contain protection clauses. If they do, those clauses are so vague and so general that ultimately they are meaningless.

One of the main things that make Peru attractive to Canadian investors is, of course, natural resources, and mining resources in particular. The same is true of Colombia. Canadian investments in Peruvian mining hover around $5 billion. We are told that 80 Canadian mining companies are conducting mining exploration in Peru. This makes Canada the top investor in mining exploration in Peru.

Naturally, it might be tempting for Peru to do business with Canada. People are told that the mining companies will bring money, generate trade, carry out exploitation activities and give them work. Attention also has to be paid to the impact of these companies' activities. They have responsibilities. I keep coming back to the need to protect the environment, to protect human rights and to meet ILO standards.

While supposedly creating prospects for Canadian businesses, the real intention of this government is to allow Canadian mining companies to go even further. As we know, Canadian mining companies have not had to comply with any standards thus far, in terms of the appropriation of land.

In the past, the OECD has even asked Canada to put forward standards that our mining companies would have to meet in order to ensure that their operations do not harm or displace any aboriginal or other populations.

Canada never responded. Canada has always maintained that the host country, the one in which our mining companies operate, should put forward its own legislation to protect its territory. However, the host countries are not always in a position to do that, either because they lack the parliamentary resources, because they do not dare do so or because, in the case of Colombia, the government is so corrupt and so close to paramilitary organizations—and the latter can use aboriginal lands—that they will allow a Canadian mining company to set up there and operate with no accountability.

We referred to National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry, which included representatives of the extractive industry. They prepared excellent reports.

This was 12 to 18 months ago. The Government of Canada never responded. The roundtables resulted in excellent reports, with supporting evidence, and asked that a Canadian corporate social responsibility framework be established, among other things. They asked for mandatory corporate social responsibility standards that Canadian mining companies would have to respect when working abroad. They asked for punitive measures for offending companies. They asked for an independent ombudsman who would conduct impartial investigations in order to determine whether or not complaints are founded.

This government, the Conservative government, never responded to these roundtable reports. Recently, when the free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia were signed, the Minister of International Trade simply stated that the position of ombudsman would be created and that the incumbent would report to the minister.

Thus, he will not be independent and this investigator will not necessarily have the room to manoeuvre when conducting his investigations and determining if the Canadian company is an offender.

Neither the Government of Canada nor Canadian companies will ever put forward preventive measures to govern the activities of Canadian mining companies abroad. As I said earlier, all we want is for the host countries to consider barriers to uncontrolled development by Canadian companies a priority.

I would add that, when it comes to the environment and the International Labour Organization, the agreement under consideration should offer guarantees that companies will respect the environment. In Columbia, for example, Canadian mining companies polluted rivers in a certain region so badly that they turned pink because of heavy use of nitrates and other strong chemicals in the extraction process. Whole populations were poisoned because of it. In Peru, one company has already been taken to task because the level of sulphur in the air around the mine was harmful to residents.

Without such guarantees, and given that the environmental provisions of the agreement are so vague, we cannot vote in favour of it.

Since I do not have much time left, I am going to conclude by saying that, when we are doing business with a country, we must at least make sure that we are not just trying to do business at any cost, but that we do so with the protection of individuals and of the environment in mind.

Unfortunately, the agreement with Peru—as is the case with the one with Colombia—is being condemned by several environmental groups. The Peruvian civil society is also opposed to that accord. Canada is losing credibility. We are doing trade and, seemingly because we are going through a global crisis, we are promoting markets. However, we are in fact promoting the mining industry or, in the case of Colombia, the Canadian oil and gas industry.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing changes to Canada's trade attitudes. Canada must focus on creating a more level playing field. There is no policy on corporate accountability. That is unfortunate. What we have here is a philosophy that gives priority to trade, at the expense of human rights.

Some members have a skeptical look on their faces. I find it rather strange that, when we are part of a political party in Canada and when we are told bluntly that the agreement goes against human rights and the environment, we would not have the heart to check and to see what environmental groups and human rights protection groups think about the whole issue.

I would like hon. members to go and meet with the Canadian Council for International Cooperation. A nice 45 page report was published on the agreements with Peru and Colombia. This is a nice document written by lawyers and environmentalists, who are saying that Canada should be ashamed to sign such accords. I would like hon. members opposite to reflect on this and to have the heart to think about the fact that some individuals are going to lose their shirts in these dealings.

The House resumed from April 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this bill, this additional ribbon-cutting opportunity for the government and for the Minister of International Trade.

I would like to state right at the outset, as my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River stated in the House on Monday, the NDP is voting no on this agreement. I will summarize my comments before I go into the context around why this is a bad bill, not in the interest of Canada at all and certainly not in the interest of Canadian workers or ordinary Peruvians.

To get into the context, I will first mention some of the most egregious aspects of the bill. This bill does not provide for any real opportunity and growth in Canadian jobs. I will come back to the sad history of this, both from the Conservative government and the former Liberal government, in a moment.

Second, this bill replicates the chapter 11 provisions that have been so difficult for municipalities and provinces in cases where they are putting any type of legislation or action in place to improve the quality of life of their people. Whether we are talking about cities or provinces, in all cases chapter 11 has had a push-back effect, most recently with Dow Chemical challenging the pesticide ban in Quebec and threatening to the challenge the pesticide ban in Ontario that was announced today. That is an example of why chapter 11 is very bad.

I will come back to that in a moment or two, but this is what the Conservative government has chosen to replicate in the Peruvian agreement. There is no job gain. The chapter 11 provisions will hurt people in both countries who are trying to improve their quality of life. Multinationals and chief executives basically have the opportunity to override or to get compensation in the event that anything impugns upon the profit of those companies.

Just to summarize arguments before I go into more detail, there is a clause in this agreement that is essentially a carbon copy of the “kill a trade unionist, pay a fine” provisions of the Canada-Colombia trade deal. Let us imagine this for a moment. The Conservative government, despite the fact that it has completely muffed the possibility of putting more police officers on the ground in Canada and has treated police officers, quite frankly, with profound disrespect in refusing to implement the public safety officer compensation fund that was passed by Parliament, has systematically refused everything that police officers asked them to do, pretends to want to do something about crime, but what we have is a trade agreement that essentially legitimizes the killing of human rights activists and trade unionists.

That is less of a problem in Peru than it is in Colombia, but the provisions are outrageous just the same. If there are continued killings of trade unionists, essentially the governments either of Colombia or of Peru would pay a fine to themselves. Let us think about this for a moment. Does this correspond in any way with Canadian values?

If the Minister of Public Safety got up in the House and said he was going to do away with criminal sentences and if people killed somebody they would have to pay a fine, he would be laughed out of the House. Canadians would not accept that. Yet the government is proposing to do exactly that to deal with the ongoing abuse of labour rights, especially in Colombia, but to a certain extent as well, because there have been concerns raised about the context of Peruvian trade union law, it also impacts on Peru.

For those three reasons, the NDP quite legitimately is saying no to this bill.

Let us look at the broader context. We have a government that has followed along the lines of the old failed Liberal approach on economic policy. In a very real sense, Liberals and Conservatives are co-dependent. They keep doing something that is bad and inappropriate and they just cannot stop themselves.

So what we have had over the past 20 years is a complete absence of any sort of industrial strategy to create value-added products and a complete absence of an export strategy, which I will come back to in a moment. Instead, there has been a heavy reliance on ribbon-cutting ceremonies and signature of trade agreements, even when they undermine our own domestic industries and jobs.

Most recently with the government we saw it with the softwood sellout, which to date has cost 20,000 jobs. Not only that, not only is there the job loss that it has caused across the country because of the self-imposed penalties that any Canadian softwood exporter faces at the border, but in addition, these Conservative members are asking taxpayers to pick up the tab for their failure to put in place an agreement that was actually to Canada's advantage.

We had an arbitration two weeks ago. Now it is going to cost Canadian taxpayers, and each and every Conservative member is supporting this idea, $58 million, going south, because the anti-circumvention clause of the softwood sellout is so vast that the American lumber lobby can take us to court on anything. So we lost $58 million. The Canadian taxpayer is now having to pick up the tab.

But wait, we have two more arbitrations coming forward. One will be for a similar amount, probably around $60 million that these Conservative members are going to ask Canadian taxpayers to pick up for their own incompetence. And wait for it, the biggest arbitration could potentially be in the order of $400 million. That is for British Columbia and Alberta softwood producers. Either the entire industry shuts down or all the softwood workers have to take second and third jobs flipping burgers to get that paid off, or the Canadian taxpayers pick it up.

There is not a single Conservative MP, whether from northern Ontario or from British Columbia, who has stood up and said that the Conservatives made a huge mistake, that this arbitration provision and the handcuffs that are the anti-circumvention clause are a horribly bad idea because it costs jobs in Canada and it costs the Canadian taxpayers literally tens of millions of dollars, and potentially, in the coming weeks, hundreds of millions of dollars. Not a single Conservative MP has said, “We made a mistake”, not a single one.

So the softwood sellout very clearly has ignited real opposition right across the country, and I think the Conservatives will be paying the price in the next election.

It was not just that. They went from the softwood sellout to the shipbuilding sellout and brought forward an EFTA agreement that, to all intents and purposes, shuts down our shipbuilding industry. That is not me speaking, that is the actual representatives of the shipbuilding industry, from both coasts, from Atlantic Canada and from Pacific Canada, when they came and testified before the committee. They asked, “Why are you doing this? Why are you bringing in a bill that essentially forces the collapse of our shipbuilding industry, without taking any other measures?”

In this House, the NDP read letter after letter from shipyard workers from British Columbia and from Nova Scotia. We had opposition from Quebec and from Newfoundland shipyard workers. In fact, there was not a single representative either of business or of labour in the shipbuilding industry who supported that agreement.

Again, the Conservatives pushed it through with the support of their co-dependents in the Liberal Party. We had a second sellout, essentially a sellout of our shipbuilding jobs.

One might think, okay, we are selling out these industries but maybe we are gaining overall. Unfortunately, and this is the tragedy, we do not have a single Conservative member who is willing to do his or her homework and actually look at what the economic ramifications have been for the kinds of policies the government has put in place.

To be fair to the Conservatives, the Liberals largely put many of these into place and the whole approach on trade, and now we have the Conservatives following up on the same approach. We would think that, at some point, some member, whether from the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party, would actually have done his or her homework and looked at the economic results.

The NDP did. StatsCan tells us that over the last 20 years, with these ill-disguised attempts at ideology rather than an attempt at building a real economic policy that is export driven, most Canadian families are actually earning less. Some Conservatives will laugh at this because they have not actually looked at the figures, but if we ask most Canadians, they will tell us that they are earning less now than they were 5 or 10 years ago, and that they are working harder and harder.

Productivity has skyrocketed for ordinary Canadian working families. We know that Canadians work very hard and are dedicated. They love their country and are willing to contribute to their communities and their country but they have had a government that has simply pushed them aside. During this time, the poorest of Canadians have lost the equivalent of about a month and a half of income for each and every year over the last 20 years. In other words, it is like they are working on 52-week years but only getting paid for 46 weeks. A month and a half of income has simply evaporated, which is why we now have hundreds of thousands of homeless people across this country sleeping in parks and on main streets. We have seen a complete erosion of income for the poorest of Canadians.

That has continued for the middle class as well. Any middle class family could tell us that in the second and third income categories, which are the lower and upper middle classes, they have seen a loss as well of a week to two weeks of income on average. Their real income is much lower now than it was 20 years ago.

We have an overall problem when 80% of Canadian families are earning less now than they were 20 years ago. One would think that some Conservatives would realize that maybe they were making a mistake with all the sellouts. Maybe they think that if a corporate CEO is doing well, somehow that money will trickle down to the small businesses that actually pay the salaries of the Conservative members. One would think that one of them would have done his or her homework but none of them have, which is why communities are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. During this same time, the top 20% of Canadian income earners, the corporate lawyers and the corporate CEOs, have seen their incomes skyrocket. Now they take over half of all income in Canada.

When there is a complete lack of policies and the Conservatives put in place free trade agreements that essentially hand over more power to a very few at the expense of the many, what is wrong with this picture?

Most Canadian families are earning less, even though they are working harder than ever. Overtime in the same period has gone up by over a third. The average Canadian is working longer and longer weeks and often needs to work two or three part time jobs because the family sustaining jobs have been given away by the Conservatives, as they were by the Liberals before them.

The small businesses also suffer from this. When the Conservatives hand over money to the banking sector, it goes down to the Caribbean, and when they hand over money, as we know, to corporate executives in the energy sector, that money goes down to Houston, Texas, which does not benefit ordinary Canadians.The fundamental problem is that the government lacks any sort of industrial strategy.

We also have the sellouts, whether it is the softwood sellout or the shipbuilding sellout. Canadians are getting poorer and poorer under the Conservative government, as they were under the previous Liberal government. They are codependent with the same failed approach.

What does the government do? It signs these agreements. What happens with these bilateral trade agreements? In virtually every case, our exports actually went down. One would think that somebody in the Conservative or Liberal caucus would look at that and see that as a worrisome trend. When we sign bilateral Canada-Costa Rica and Canada-Chile agreements and our exports actually go down, someone must realize there is a fundamental problem and that maybe our approach is not working.

Not a single Conservative or Liberal MP actually bothered to look at the export figures. After we signed these failed agreements and gave away these things, not one member actually checked to see whether or not exports went up. Exports declined. We already talked about the fall of real income. When we are signing bilateral agreements, we are actually talking about falling exports. It is not rocket science. If our exports fall and real income falls, maybe our approach or our strategy is not working.

The NDP will continue to do its work in the House, which is why we keep growing and are now overflowing to two sides of the House. The reason we keep growing is because of the type of arrogance we see from the Conservative government.

What are other countries doing that works? One very good example is the amount of money that other countries are putting in to promote their product exports. Australia spends $500 million in product promotion support for Australian value added products. We have a situation where the Australian economy is export oriented but valued added export oriented. It is not exporting the raw logs that the Conservatives love to ship across the border with Canadian logs to create American jobs. Australia is actually promoting value added products and it is doing it with real muscle and real support.

I have another example. As we on the international trade committee know, the European Union, on its wine sector exports alone, spends $125 million in product promotion support. We have Australia on the one hand and the European Union on the other hand. We also have the United States putting real muscle behind its export industry.

What is Canada doing? What are the Conservatives doing? We found out just a couple of weeks ago how much they invest for the entire United States market, which is where over 80% of our exports go. It takes the lion's share of the support for exports that the government puts into place. Was it $500 million for Canada, a larger economy than Australia, for 80% of our exports? No, it was not. Was it $400 million, which would be certainly less but certainly in keeping with the idea of a strong approach? No, it was not. Not one Conservative would be able to answer that question even though, hopefully, some of them at the trade committee were actually listening. It was not $300 million, nor was it $200 million or $125 million like the European Union puts into product promotion support just for one industry. It was not even $100 million.

People listening to CPAC and the deliberations in the House of Commons because they have lost their jobs because of the foolishness and irresponsibility of the Conservative government would wonder whether it was $90 million. No, it was not. It was not even $80 million, $75 million, $60 million or $50 million. How low can we go? Was it $40 million, $30 million, $20 million, $10 million, $5 million or even $4 million? No, it was not. Incredibly, the Conservative government, which says that it wants to reinforce our export industries for the entire American market where over 80% of our exports go, spends $3.4 million in product promotion support.

What is wrong with this picture? We have falling incomes, falling exports and the largest trade deficit in well over 30 years, and the Conservative government hands out billions of dollars to the banks without even blinking. it just shovels money off the back of a truck. Any time a banker asks for a handout, the Conservatives just hand out money to the banks. The banks can set interest rates as high as they want on credit cards because it does not matter to the Conservatives.

For the entire American market, we spent $3.4 million. This is the absurdity of it. When we look at Canada-Peru, this is the absurdity of the approach of the government. It is interested in the ribbon-cutting and in signing an agreement that would, under chapter 11 provisions, handcuff local and regional governments from making good environmental decisions. There is no protection for labour and no export plan.

For all those reasons, that is why we in the NDP are saying that this is a completely failed approach. Canadians are becoming more and more aware of just how the government has failed.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I tried to listen to the member across the way but it was difficult to handle. Let us face it, the New Democrats will not support any free trade agreement with anyone.

I want to give the member an example of why free trade agreements are important for his home province of British Columbia. He used the example of Australia.

I will give the member an example. We in this country are producers of recreational boats. Australia has free trade agreements with a number of countries, including the United States, that have no tariffs and no barriers to pleasure craft entering their country from those other countries. Canadian manufacturers, however, must pay 5% on every boat that is delivered to Australia. It is making us uncompetitive and unable to sell our Canadian manufactured products to Australia, which is why the government is in favour of free trade agreements around the world and will continue to work on free trade agreements. They are important because they create jobs and opportunities for Canadians, which is why the NDP does not get it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Sadly, Madam Speaker, I get it and I get it because in my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster alone three softwood mills had to shut down because of the foolishness and irresponsibility of the Conservative government. That was 2,000 jobs the Conservatives lost and every Conservative MP is responsible for that completely irresponsible approach on trade.

Australia has it right. It put in place fair trade agreements. It supports its export industries and the Conservative government does not: $3.4 million for all Canadian products in the U.S. market. All Conservative members should be hanging their heads in shame. They are costing Canadian jobs. They have killed the softwood industry, the shipbuilding industry and the steel industry. They are killing sector after sector because they have as a Prime Minister somebody who never had to meet a payroll or balance the books. He got his economics from a textbook.

We can see the failure of the government. It is not economic theory. It is knowing how to put in place a strategy that works, and the government has not.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member give these anti-free trade rants now for years. In fact, I chaired the trade committee for about a year and a half when he was on the committee and he is against all free trade agreements.

The member has to answer to his constituents. When he is standing in his constituency with two friends, the three of them standing there, if he cancels out on these free trade agreements, one of those people will lose his or her job. He will need to make the decision on which one of the three of them will lose their job if we cancel out on these free trade agreements. That is the absolute reality and the truth of the situation. Thirty per cent of all of our jobs in Canada result from NAFTA, the free trade agreement with the United States alone. These other agreements add more jobs.

The hon. member claims to be speaking on behalf of workers from time to time. I know that may not be true but he claims to be. How will he explain to those workers why one in three should lose their job because of his anti-free trade stand? He has to explain that to his constituents, and good luck to him in doing so.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, what that member has to explain to his constituents in Alberta, for example, is why farmer seats in Alberta are lower than anywhere else in the country. Why have Alberta farmers been punished by the failed policies of the government?

I hope the member actually meets with farmers because the farmers in Alberta are suffering tremendously, which is why they are starting to vote NDP after--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

You would think we were in kindergarten.

I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the House to be respectful to each other in this debate. This is a dialogue between different ideals. It is not a shouting match.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, rather than shouting over the heckling of the Conservatives, I will be able to speak in a more conversational tone.

The NDP has always been for fair trade, not for chapter 11 provisions that allow pesticide bans to be overridden by chemical companies that are producing products that they know are toxic and not for people to override the kind of collective bargaining process that takes place in any sort of healthy society where workers can get together and negotiate a better wage together. The NDP has always favoured fair trade agreements.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have not put in place and have not proposed to the House a fair trade agreement. They are proposing the same kind of failed policies that did not work under the Liberals.

When we have a hemorrhaging of jobs in the softwood industry, in the steel sector and in shipyards across the country, we would expect the government to take its responsibilities and to be very thoughtful in what it presents to the House, but that is clearly not the case. The softwood sellout that has killed about one-third of the jobs in my area in the softwood industry is just one example of that.

The member who references the one in three is absolutely right. His government brought in policies that killed, in my area, one out of every three jobs in that sector, and it has been like that right across British Columbia. It was a failed policy and the government never should have signed that agreement.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the free trade agreement was first signed in 1988, so we have had 20 years to measure some of the effects of that. I remember the debate distinctly at that time. One of the promises made about free trade was that it would bring prosperity and an elevated standard of living for everybody.

I wonder if my friend could comment on what has happened to the distribution of wealth in this country since 1988, specifically on the health of our nation's children and poverty rates, and whether in fact the wealth that was created in that time has really been directed in those areas. I would like him to elucidate a bit more about the present state of health of the forestry sector in British Columbia. Could he tell us how free trade has helped that industry?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I cited earlier the fact that the real income of most Canadian families has actually gone down over the last 20 years not up. They are actually earning less now than they were over two decades ago.

That same phenomenon has actually taken place in the United States as well. That is why changing NAFTA and bringing in tougher social and environmental standards was part of the Barrack Obama campaign. Between 2001 and 2005 about 96% of Americans actually saw their real income fall. We have seen the same dynamic right across North America.

The member is right to raise the issue of income inequality. All of that money is being channelled to corporate CEOs, corporate lawyers. Essentially, we have a massive movement of wealth which means the wealthiest Canadians now take most of Canada's income. That is completely unfair. That undermines the kind of community business environment that we need to see here.

Speaking as a former business award winner, I can tell the House that prosperous small businesses in a community benefit everybody. That is why I am a member of the Burnaby Board of Trade and a member of the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce.

British Columbia has the highest rate of child poverty in the country as the member well knows. It is a tragedy throughout B.C. Many British Columbians will be voting on the basis of the shame that they feel because of what the Gordon Campbell government has done to facilitate growing poverty in British Columbia. It is a tragedy and part of it is a result of the meltdown of the softwood industry that we saw after the softwood sell-out was signed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency; the hon. member for Québec, Contaminated Water in Shannon; the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, The Environment.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will oppose this implementation act because it fails to meet a number of objectives or reflect lessons we learned from previous free trade agreements. It is important to point out that the Bloc Québécois is open to international trade, just as the Quebec nation is. Like Canada, we too are a trading nation. Because of the limited size of the Quebec market, like that of the Canadian market, we promote open markets, but obviously not with just any conditions. This is especially true when Quebeckers' quality of life is at stake or when a free trade agreement between a developed country like Canada and a developing country like Peru could give rise to exploitation.

In the interests of national solidarity in the case of Quebec, Canadian solidarity in the case of Canada and also international solidarity, we have a responsibility to condemn agreements that violate workers' rights, environmental rights, future rights and the sovereignty of our respective countries. As you know, our goal is for Quebec to become a sovereign country and carve out a place for itself on the international scene. Every time the Bloc Québécois takes part in debates such as this one, we try to determine what Quebec's interests would be as a nation, as a country. That is what we are doing in the current debate here in the House of Commons.

It is very clear to us that, unlike other agreements, this one does not meet our objectives. It is dangerous as an international trade strategy, but also in terms of the ability of states to maintain their sovereignty, the rights of workers and the environment. That is particularly true in Peru, but it is probably also true in Quebec and Canada. Given the greater vulnerability of Peru's economy, that country is the one more likely to suffer from the absence of a number of agreements in the accord, or from the presence of certain provisions.

First, we do not support this strategy as a whole, which seeks to ensure that Canada has bilateral agreements with developing countries such as Peru. That is also true for Colombia. However, in the case of Colombia, the reasons are even more obvious. There are blatant violations of human rights and union rights in that country. If Canada were to sign such an agreement, and if the House were to pass the implementation act, we would be nothing less than accomplices in a situation involving the violation of fundamental rights. Therefore, in the case of Colombia, things are very clear.

In the case of Peru, the rights situation is obviously not quite the same, but there are some serious problems, particularly in the mining sector. A number of Canadian and foreign companies are often accused, sometimes wrongly perhaps but often rightly, of displaying an extremely authoritative attitude towards the communities in which they settle, and towards the workers that they hire. In that sense, we feel that this agreement does not at all serve the best interests of the two sides and would not have been in the best interests of a sovereign Quebec.

We should focus more on a multilateral approach. In fact, that is what we have always advocated, and that is what Canada has done for a while. After World War II, the GATT agreement was put in place, and it later became the WTO-GATT.

A number of trade initiatives were taken in the best interests of all the parties to the GATT agreement, which became the GATT-WTO in 1994. That is evidenced by the fact that the number of signatories to the agreement has always increased, and by the fact that major progress was achieved in terms of opening markets. The rules were well known.

Overall, one can say that, despite the adjustments that opening up borders of necessity brings to local, regional or national economies, the bottom line is that, until 1994, all participants in the WTO-GATT agreement were able to benefit from this opening up of markets.

A number of agreements were concluded, including the North American Free Trade Agreement; that changed things completely. It is noteworthy, moreover, that in the case of the free trade agreement with the United States certain provisions were lacking, those concerning investments in particular. I imagine that the Canadian and American governments felt that it was a matter of dealing with states where the rule of law was recognized, and so there was no need for any particularly innovative provisions, on protecting investments for example. All trade agreements, bilateral and multilateral, have included provisions on protecting investments. This is all very normal, but those agreements included a dispute resolution mechanism involving the states as representatives of the companies involved, as is the case with the WTO.

To give an example: the trade dispute between Bombardier and Embraer. Bombardier is a Quebec company that is still being defended by the Canadian government for as long as we continue to be part of this political entity. Embraer has the Brazilian government behind it. Each of these states makes representations before the WTO arbitration tribunal. Rulings are made. However, there is no way that Bombardier or Embraer could bring one or the other of the countries before a WTO tribunal because it is displeased with the ruling or the policy adopted or with certain measures taken in the aerospace sector.

That was the rule. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade agreement used the same approach. When Mexico was added in around 1994—negotiations having started after 1989—we saw a chapter 11 provision on investments added, and this allowed private enterprises which felt they had been prejudiced by a state to bring proceedings directly against the state they deemed to be at fault, before specially constituted arbitration tribunals. We have seen proceedings by American companies against the Canadian government. We have seen this in connection with the environment. We have seen this in connection with public services. We have seen U.S. multinationals institute proceedings before the courts, sometimes even successfully. This was the case in Mexico with Metalclad's challenge of regional governments.

NAFTA broke new ground and completely changed the overall economy and how agreements worked. It has to be said that these provisions were introduced by the United States, but with Canada's cooperation, because it was felt that the rule of law in Mexico was not totally solid, totally present, we would say. A specific provision was created to make sure that any company that was nationalized in Mexico would receive compensation comparable to the company's actual value. In the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, there was a rather strong tendency to nationalize companies.

When the agreement was negotiated, we should have first made sure that the rule of law in Mexico had reached a point where it was respected not only in connection with foreign investment, but in Mexican society as a whole.

However a little loophole was created, one that shelters multinational corporations from the weakness of the rule of law in Mexico. Mexico has evolved considerably since 1994, but the provision concerning chapter 11 and the protection of foreign investment remains.

Worse still, in the early 1990s, around the same time that NAFTA was being negotiated, there were also talks about the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, or the MAI, at the OECD. It was an agreement to apply chapter 11 throughout the OECD. Clearly, it was a way for industrialized countries to impose this vision in the context of the WTO and GATT, in order to ensure the protection for foreign investments, similar to that in NAFTA, in the next phase of negotiations.

Unfortunately for that strategy, France foresaw the dangers involved in that approach to protecting foreign investments. The French government therefore refused to agree to that MAI. It saw the dangers involved in having the equivalent of NAFTA's chapter 11 within the OECD. So, for other European countries, as well as other countries, it was stonewalled.

The existing investment protection measures have been part of the OECD for some time. They even appear in the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States and in the agreement we discussed just a few weeks ago here in the House, the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Free Trade Association, which includes the Scandinavian countries and a few other countries from the European continent. Although it was not our preferred strategy, the Bloc Québécois believed that that agreement, which does not include chapter 11 provisions, could be beneficial for both parties, that is, good for Canada and Quebec on the one hand, and good for the European Free Trade Association on the other.

There is a special type of investment protection provisions for developed countries, where the rule of law is believed to be strong enough to ensure that disputes are settled equitably through procedures that comply with the rules of justice. But in countries like Peru, Colombia, Costa Rica, Korea or Chile, that is not so sure, hence the introduction of a special clause copied from chapter 11.

That is unacceptable. If the rule of law is good for foreign investors, it should also be good for the companies that receive these investments. We cannot accept this double standard, where multinational corporations not only enjoy privileges denied to the people who welcome them, but are also allowed to bring proceedings directly against the national government of these companies.

That is our second reason for rejecting this free trade agreement with Peru. The first one has to do with the bilateral approach in the Canada-Peru, Canada-Chile, Canada-Colombia, Canada-Costa Rica and Canada-Israel agreements. The agreement with Israel, in fact, was the second free trade agreement signed by Canada, which makes more sense politically than financially.

The point I am making is that a bilateral approach replaced the multilateral one when the Free Trade Area of the Americas initiative was stonewalled by several South American countries. That initiative was based on principles which are now described as neo- or ultra-liberal because they confer advantages on capital rather than on the receiving companies, states and people.

I clearly recall the debates held in this House at the time of the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City. At that time, the Liberals were in power, not the Conservatives. Anyway you cut it, it boils down to pretty much the same thing, and in either case, the result is unpalatable.

We have had debates in this House and the government has promoted a free trade zone with which we agreed in principle but which was also based on the principles of NAFTA and on what we had attempted to accomplish at the OECD with MAI.

I can certainly understand why Mercosur, the South American free trade zone, and a number of other countries refused the proposal put forward by North America—not just North America because Mexico is included—but basically that of the United States and Canada. Thus, it was a failure.

In view of this failure and that of the WTO, the United States and a number of industrialized countries—I am thinking of Australia, Great Britain and Canada, for example—attempted to impose this model. However, once again, there was opposition. At the Seattle summit, southern countries said they were in favour of a strategy to open up markets, but not on the basis proposed, that of ultraliberalism and neoliberalism, which has led to the financial crisis we are currently experiencing. It is a good thing that these people spoke out.

I have to acknowledge that they were not the only ones. In fact, in every industrialized society, a good part of the population also spoke out against this model for opening up markets, to the point that the term “free trade” now has a very negative connotation for many. The previous speaker provided us with an example of that. We no longer dare use this word even though, in the end, we all agree that, with a few exceptions, it is in the interest of nations to open their doors to mutual exchanges of trade and capital.

But because such a pall was cast over the concept from the early 1990s to the mid-2000s, the world has now retreated from it. Peoples throughout the world are resisting any opening up of markets. I no longer use the term “liberalization” because I am certain that it is proposed no longer part of the vocabulary acceptable to a good portion of the population.

I have one more example. The Prime Minister of Canada did not get it, but the President of the U.S. and a number of leaders of European states did. Now those countries are talking about reworking capitalism. At the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, the Prime Minister acted as if nothing had changed and there had been no financial crisis. He proposed a free trade zone. I think he did not really understand where he stood and did not understand how Brazil has developed. He did not understand that Venezuela has one resource that is the same as Canada: oil. Whether or not one likes the direction of this development, these countries, with the support of India and China, now have a say in the bases of negotiation.

Canada has therefore closed in on itself as the U.S. did under President Bush. Not in resignation, but in order to try to multiply the number of bilateral agreements, taking a page from the book of Mao Zedong's strategy of using the villages to surround and take the cities.

Once a series of free trade agreements has been concluded with small, vulnerable countries, they will try to impose this method on the southern countries that are the target markets for the developing countries. We cannot sanction this, out of both international solidarity and national interest, and by national, I mean Quebec.

As I have said, in the agreement that would suit us best, investment protection would not give any more rights to multinationals than to regular citizens and national companies. The latter protect the right of countries to work for the good of their population. To satisfy us, an agreement would contain—and this is extremely important—true agreements on respect for union rights, labour rights and environmental rights. We do not want to see parallel agreements such as we find at the moment in the agreements with Peru, Chile or Costa Rica.

For all these reasons, this agreement is unfortunately not acceptable in the eyes of the Bloc Québécois. I believe it is unacceptable for the people of Quebec and of Canada, and even less acceptable for the people of Peru. Voting against this implementation act will be doing them a service.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, we are all facing a time of hardship in Canada. Peru puts a 4% to 12% tariff on the cereal, pulp, paper, technical instruments, machinery, plastics and rubber industries. Thirty-eight percent of our exports to Peru are wheat and there is a 17% tariff now.

The United States has just signed an agreement. This could put us at quite a disadvantage. The Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Mining Association support the agreement because it would help the workers in those industries. Does the member think workers in those industries would have increased access to jobs because of the reduction of tariffs on their projects in Peru?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us not fool ourselves. Trade between Canada, Quebec and Peru is relatively slim. We are talking about a few hundred thousand dollars, except in one sector: mining. It was primarily to protect Canadian interests in the mining sector that the federal government, the Conservative government, promoted and sought out this agreement. We also have a problem with that. Had the government's response to the roundtables on corporate social responsibility in the mining sector come up to the expectations and recommendations, we could tell ourselves that, in the mining sector, Canadian companies in Peru will be operating in a socially responsible way that is acceptable both in Peru and internationally. Unfortunately, the response from the Minister of International Trade was to establish some kind of representative responsible for receiving complaints, basically an empty shell. I have no illusions in that regard. This agreement was not signed with the paper, lumber or forestry industry in mind, but for the Canadian mining sector, to give it a free hand with something similar to chapter 11 and with the federal government refusing to take its responsibilities, as requested by the roundtables.

I will conclude by saying that, thankfully—and I thank our Liberal colleagues for it—with Bill C-300, we will have the opportunity to discuss at committee this issue of corporate responsibility of Canadian companies abroad. Perhaps that extra element will ensure that the free trade agreement with Peru can eventually be made better. This would also be true of agreements with other countries which are currently smaller trading partners of Canada and Quebec.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's presentation and found it interesting. I would like to ask the hon. member a couple of questions.

First, I think the hon. member is opposing this agreement mostly because of a concern over corporate responsibility. Does the member not agree that Canadian corporations, as a group, are the most responsible corporations in the world when it comes to how they care for their investments and operations in other countries?

Second, the member seemed to dismiss the issue of an increase in export in farm commodities, particularly in grains, as a result of this agreement. The increase may be a small amount, but with ever-increasing protectionism in the United States, Canada is finding it more and more difficult to move farm commodities in particular to the United States. Any other market we can get is important.

I have a 3,000 acre farm. I rent it out on a crop share basis, but I have my share of the crop from those acres to sell. Even if it is only a relatively small amount of extra market we may gain from this agreement, to me that is important. If that is my grain, a portion of my grain or my neighbour's grain, it is important. How can the member so easily dismiss this increase in market that we would see as a result of this agreement?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member is right. Most Canadian mining companies, like all Canadian companies operating throughout the world, are generally businesses that are eager to obey local laws and to assume a number of responsibilities they have. The problem is that, whenever a rule, a standard or a convention is put in place, it is not for the majority of companies that already do what they should be doing, but for those that do not. When there are no specific rules, it is easy for a company to say that it has not broken any rules since there are none.

Right now, in Ecuador, a Canadian company is being sued for a number of wrongful acts, but it is being done within a legal framework that leaves something to be desired. If foreign investment protection is important for both Peru and Canada, how come there are no mechanisms in place to protect the rights of unions and workers as well as the environment? These mechanisms should be just as important as investment protection, if not more. I do not think the Conservative government is looking to enter into an agreement with Peru to increase trade in general with that country. I think it just wants to protect the interests of the Canadian mining sector, which is totally legitimate, as long as it is done on a reciprocal basis and with respect for the rights of all concerned.

It is also a strategy aimed at increasing the number of agreements to force countries in the southern hemisphere to accept the rules of those in the northern hemisphere. In this regard, President Obama has understood that this would lead nowhere. There are signs that he will probably revisit this strategy. Again, as the Prime Minister did in Trinidad and Tobago, he will be the only one thinking he is on planet Bush when everyone else will have understood that we are now on planet Obama.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, in listening to the members from the Bloc debate this bill, one thing that becomes very clear is that they have not taken the time to read it. They have stated, as the members in the NDP have stated, that there is nothing in this agreement for Canada. That is ridiculous. Let us take just a couple of them, such as wheat and barley. Right now the U.S. enjoys a free trade situation with Peru in wheat and barley. That same situation is going to be extended to Canada under this agreement.

As the member for Vegreville—Wainwright stated earlier, where there are tariffs attached to lentils and peas, Canadian lentils and peas will be exported to Peru on a free trade basis. Farmers have expressed an interest in establishing this trade. Perhaps the NDP and the Bloc have not heard the farmers but we in the Conservative Party have our ears close to the ground with growers in Canada.

It goes on. U.S. farm imports, equipment, machinery, pork, beef, corn, fruits, vegetables, processed products, everything that the U.S. trades with Peru will be available to Canadian producers. Why are the folks opposite opposing this bill when they have not, obviously, even read it?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot answer that question. I could quote Galbraith who said that Democrats read only Democrats, but Republicans do not read at all. I have the impression that the members of the opposition parties tend to read what suits them, but they do read. With the Conservatives it is just pure ignorance. It is obvious that this is an outdated trade strategy. We now have to move towards multilateralism and not bilateralism, as this government is currently doing.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

The vote will be deferred until tomorrow after question period.