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-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to join other members of my caucus and our party's trade critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, in voicing my strong opposition to Bill C-23.

It would be extremely irresponsible for the government to push for the passage of this free trade agreement with Colombia, a country with the worst human rights record by far in the western hemisphere and that is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for trade unionists.

The Conservatives' claim that trade will bring human rights improvements to Colombia is entirely contradicted not just by the facts I will raise in my address today, but also by the text of the agreement.

The full respect of fundamental human rights must be a precondition for any trade agreement. Before going into the facts of the argument, let us first trace the government actions that have led us to where we are today.

On November 21, 2008 Canada signed a free trade agreement and related side agreements with Colombia, the result of a year and a half of trade negotiations. The bill would legislate the implementation of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, also known as the CCFTA.

The agreement consists of three parts: the main FTA text, a labour side agreement and an environmental protection side agreement.

It is nearly identical to Bill C-24, the implementation legislation for the Canada-Peru free trade agreement.

In June of this year, the New Democrats, with the support of the Bloc members, and joined by the trade union movement and civil society, successfully prevented Bill C-23 from completing second reading.

At that time, New Democrats presented a subamendment to the Bloc motion on Bill C-23, asking that the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-23 because the government had concluded the Canada-Colombia FTA while the committee was still considering the matter.

Over the course of the debate on Bill C-23, our caucus critic has continued to work tirelessly with a large network of civil society groups, trade unions, lawyers, environmental groups, parliamentarians, members of the Colombian congress and concerned citizens to raise awareness and, ultimately, to stop this agreement.

In 2008 the critic travelled to Colombia with the standing committee to meet directly with stakeholders and opponents of this deal.

Various motions have been presented at committee to study the issue in depth and to stop this flawed deal. Petitions have been, and are being, circulated. To date our caucus has received almost 3,000 signatures from Canadians all across Canada who do not support the government's desire to put this agreement into action.

Now that we have looked at how we got here, let us go over the main flaws in the agreement and some facts about the current situation in Colombia.

The most appalling aspects of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement are the following.

First and foremost, this agreement fails due to its lack of labour rights protection. Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for trade unionists. They are regularly victims of violence, intimidation and assassination by paramilitary groups. In fact, 2,690 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia since 1986.

In 2008, the number of murders went up by 18% over the previous year. What is even more alarming, as we discuss this agreement, is that since September of this year, 27 trade unionists have been murdered.

Some important facts about the Colombian government of President Alvaro Uribe are as follows. Uribe's government has been accused by international human rights organizations of corruption, electoral fraud, complicity in extrajudicial killings by the army, links to paramilitary and right wing death squads; and of using the security forces to spy on the supreme court of Colombia, opposition politicians, government politicians and journalists.

Many government members, including ministers and members of the president's family, have been forced to resign or have been arrested in relation to many of these issues.

With this type of reality in Colombia, it is clear that the agreement, in its current form, does not include strong enough labour standards. The division of labour provisions in the main text of the agreement, in addition to not having any substantial enforcement mechanism, will do nothing to encourage Colombia to improve its horrendous human rights situation for workers.

In fact, in its current form, the agreement could justify the use of violence in many cases. For example, in the agreement, the penalty for non-compliance is currently determined by a review panel, one that has the power to require the offending country to pay up to $15 million annually into a cooperation fund. Unfortunately, this type of enforcement measure will do little to encourage the government to change its current approach to trade unionists. If and when a trade unionist is killed, under this provision, all the government is required to do is to pay into a development fund, capped at $15 million per year, essentially equating the murder of a trade unionist to paying a fine. That is shameful.

The second way in which this agreement fails is in its lack of environmental protection. Environmental issues are addressed in a side agreement, this time with no enforcement mechanism to force Canada or Colombia to respect environmental rights.

Here is a fact. Nearly 200,000 hectares of natural forest in Colombia are lost every year due to agriculture, logging, mining, energy development and construction. Another fact is that almost 4 million people in Colombia are internally displaced persons, 60% of whom have come from regions where there is a rich supply of minerals, agriculture and economic resources. In these areas, private companies and their government and paramilitary supporters have come in and forced individuals and local communities from their homes.

The side agreement process has serious flaws. In the past we have witnessed how these side agreements are unenforceable. For example, in the case of NAFTA, not a single successful suit has been brought forward under the labour side agreement.

The third major flaw in this agreement is found in the investor chapter. Copied from NAFTA's chapter 11 on investor rights, the CCFTA provides powerful rights to private companies. The provisions in this chapter give private companies the ability to sue governments, as is enforceable through investor state arbitration panels. The arbitration system set up by the investor chapter gives foreign companies the ability to challenge legitimate Canadian environmental, labour and social protections. This is not a standard that we accept.

The fourth most shameful aspect of this agreement relates to agricultural tariffs. Colombia's poverty is directly linked to agricultural development. In fact, 22% of Colombia's employment is in the agricultural sector. An end to tariffs on Canadian cereals, pork and beef will result in the flooding of the local market with cheaper products. This would ultimately lead to thousands of lost jobs and to more poverty.

In conclusion, Canada needs to set the example. It would be highly irresponsible to turn a blind eye to the Colombian situation. We cannot allow Canada to abandon its values and its support for internationally recognized human rights to gain economic advantage for our companies at the expense of millions of displaced and impoverished Colombians.

Let us remember Jorge Darío Hoyos Franco, the prominent union leader who was gunned down near his home in southeast Bogota on March 3, 2001, a year before President Uribe was elected to his first of two terms in power. In the words of his daughter, Yessika Morales, "You cannot give a reward before he”, meaning President Uribe, “fulfills his duty of improving human rights. This is like a father continuing to reward a child when he misbehaves, so that child will never change his conduct”.

I call on all parliamentarians to join me and my caucus in our strong opposition to Bill C-23.

Opposition Motion—Forestry Industry

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to this motion. This motion addresses a long overdue concern and it is certainly required in light of the government's lack of action.

To begin, I wish to get right to the point and confirm that the Liberal Party will be supporting this motion. This issue is too important to be indecisive about and to try to play politics when the viability of a whole national industry is at stake.

We must act immediately to provide the necessary resources to safeguard the thousands of jobs and expertise that the forestry industry provides our country. The government must understand that blaming world markets and sitting pretty, as it has done throughout the forestry crisis, is not the way a governing party should run our country.

Enough of blaming others. Enough of playing politics. The time to act is now. This motion provides a clear directive.

I received a copy of the motion and reviewed it carefully. Two things jumped out at me. The first is that this motion is good for Quebec. Of course, that is not surprising, as it is a Bloc Québécois motion.

As a member from Quebec, I am always looking out for my province's best interests, and this motion and its directives would most certainly help our forestry industry. The second thing that struck me was that this motion is manifestly good for Canada.

I do not think the Bloc members had this intention in mind when they drafted it, but this motion is helpful for all of Canada.

Mainly because the forestry sector is entrenched throughout the country, every corner of Canada is affected by this industry. It is one of the four founding industries of our country. It is hard to think of a Canada without a forestry industry.

As a country, we pride ourselves on natural resources. With the second largest land mass in the world, it is easy to see why. So, it is no surprise that our forestry industry is a cornerstone of our past, present and hopefully future economic greatness.

The Liberal Party understands this. The Liberal Party has tried to look at the long-term success of this industry, but the party opposite has consistently thrown roadblocks at these attempts.

On November 24, 2005, the Liberal government, together with forestry industry stakeholders, announced a concrete plan for the forestry sector known as the forest industry competitiveness strategy, with a budget of $1.5 billion over five years. The strategy included $215 million to develop new technologies to improve competitiveness, $50 million to develop bioenergy and cogeneration capability, $90 million to support forestry innovation and value-added products, $66 million to grow wood markets, $10 million to enhance professional skill levels in the forestry sector, $150 million to support economic diversification in communities that rely on the forestry industry, $800 million in loans to help forestry companies be more competitive, and $100 million in loans to help small businesses in the forestry sector.

When the Conservatives came to power in 2006, they tossed the plan out. Now Canadian forestry workers are paying the price for that decision. Instead of investing in improving technology, skills and competitiveness to strengthen the industry and save jobs, Canada is now losing tens of thousands of jobs. Canada has lost 20,000 forestry sector jobs since the Conservatives came to power.

These job losses and lack of vision on the part of the Conservative government hurt more than just the forestry industry. They hurt the people in the communities who rely on the forestry sector to survive. This is why we are here today. We are here to help the people, families and communities that rely on this industry throughout Canada for their very survival and future growth.

If we look back at the TV coverage of those critical days during the automotive collapse, the cameras often focused on the hard-working men and women walking out of the factories with long faces of despair and worry. It made a great 30 second clip on the 6 o'clock news. Now, do not get me wrong. I am not saying that the automotive industry was not in crisis and that it did not require government intervention. What I am saying is that the same thing is happening in the forestry sector. However, no one has brought to light the worried and concerned faces of the thousands of men and women facing this terrifying and unnecessary loss of a way of life.

These small rural communities do not attract the attention of the big television networks, and all we hear about are big companies that are trying to restructure financially in order to stay afloat. Small family-owned businesses and community forestry operations need our help, and they need it now.

Many people living outside these communities do not even realize that if the forestry industry ceases to exist, entire established communities will perish in turn. One feeds the other. These communities depend on the forestry industry, and if the main source of income dries up, the local restaurant will close as well, followed soon after by the corner store, which will likely be forced to close after the owner has laid off the only employee. The local grocery store, the garage and the gas station, all these small businesses will also watch as their clients leave to look for jobs elsewhere. Families will struggle to make ends meet at the end of the month, communities will struggle to keep their people, and young people will lose hope and leave to find work in major urban centres. Communities that used to be prosperous and independent will turn into ghost towns, deserted by the people who used to live there, where only a few die-hards hold out hope for renewal.

I do realize this is a worst case scenario. It is definitely doom and gloom. However, it could happen and it has happened, and all from a lack of government direction and a will to act. These stories need to be heard. These stories are the consequences of the government's lack of initiative to assist the people it represents when they are in need. The Conservatives do not want to believe that their own demagogic and narrow-minded refusal to intervene has led to this situation. They would rather blame it on all sorts of outside factors which, while real, are hardly the whole story.

The Conservatives are wrong in that they could have prevented it; they could have made a difference. Should they accept this motion as the right thing to do, they could still help these people and communities emerge from these tough economic times better positioned and better off to fight another day.

There are ways to help, there are ways to assist and there are ways to make a difference. I know that we want to make a difference for all Quebecers and all Canadians.

How can we make that difference? For starters, we have to listen to them. I am happy to say that my party has done just that. I have personally visited Quebec and British Columbia and listened to forestry sector representatives talk about what they need. I have spoken with company owners, plant supervisors, employee groups and numerous associations. I have been struck by how they have to struggle in these difficult economic times.

I have listened to their solutions for the present and their dreams for the future. My colleagues have also travelled and listened to similar stories and concerns in the Atlantic provinces and northern Ontario.

What is surprising about all these meetings, visits and consultations is that no one in the forestry sector expects the government to hand them a blank cheque. The industry has never asked for gifts or handouts. What the industry needs is tools. It has asked for these tools so that it can fight, survive, modernize operations and keep companies open and effective. That is how it is going to keep its skilled workers and keep communities viable.

The industry has asked the federal government for tools in the form of tax credits, loans and loan guarantees so that its companies would have access to the much needed capital to keep the lights on, the saws running and their employees paid. It did not ask for a free ride. It asked to have the chance to fight and that is what this motion is all about. More important, this is exactly what my party has offered the industry since 2005.

I will now go back in history somewhat and discuss the softwood lumber agreement. We all know that the government likes to rewrite history. If one stands idle a tad too long these days, history just seems to disappear from government websites.

The Liberal Party has always supported and encouraged a two-pronged approach to resolving the softwood lumber dispute: both adjudication in the courts and negotiations.

On September 19, 2006, the Liberal Party voted against the softwood lumber agreement, and on December 6, 2006, it voted against Bill C-24, the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act.

The Liberal Party wanted to make sure the Conservative government would adhere to the North American Free Trade Agreement and keep its campaign promise to recover all customs duties illegally collected by the United States.

The Liberals believe that the softwood lumber agreement is deeply flawed, for the following reasons.

It represents a reversal of the position taken by successive federal governments and supported by NAFTA and World Trade Organization trade panels, that our softwood lumber industry is not subsidized.

It jeopardizes Canada’s ability to help industries that are already in trouble by handing over part of our sovereignty over the management of our natural resources to our American competitors. The consequences of that capitulation will be felt in future disputes that will certainly arise, not only in the softwood lumber industry but also in other industries against which the same charges are levelled by their American competitors.

It creates an export tax that is in fact higher, at the current rate, than the illegal American customs duties of the past.

It strips NAFTA of any credibility as the arbitrator of trade disputes and cancels out the principles that govern this trading relationship.

It forfeits $500 million to the American forestry industry, which is using it to fund attacks on the Canadian industry in the courts and the political arena, and forfeits another $500 million to the American government.

It contains anti-fluctuation provisions that will deny the Canadian industry the flexibility it needs to deal with unforeseen circumstances such as the pine beetle infestation.

Despite our strong legal position, backed up by many decisions of international and national trade tribunals in Canada and the United States, the Conservative government rushed the negotiations by setting arbitrary deadlines to get the most political mileage out of the agreement for the Conservative Party of Canada.

The Conservatives’ campaign platform took precedence over the interests of an industry that has a major influence in all regions of Canada. The Conservative government issued an ultimatum to force the hand of Canadian producers: accept this agreement or the government will cut you loose. The loan guarantees put in place before the 2006 election were cancelled and the Conservatives made it plain to the industry that it would not get any federal aid if it decided to assert its rights in the courts instead of accepting the agreement.

What it agreed to do—and this is what the Liberal government had proposed—was to accept a negotiated settlement or continue the fully justified legal actions, which we would have supported by providing loan guarantees, reinvestment support, community and worker adjustment and assistance with legal costs.

The Conservatives claim that their softwood lumber agreement put an end to the dispute, but the United States began consultations questioning the forestry policies of Ontario and Quebec within seven months of signing the agreement.

Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Alberta face the same attacks. The $500 million the Conservatives handed over to the Americans by signing the softwood lumber agreement is what is being used to finance these attacks.

On March 4, 2008, the London Court of International Arbitration handed down its decision concerning the first lawsuits the Americans filed against Canada with respect to the softwood lumber agreement signed in 2006. The court ruled that Canada had violated the terms of the agreement by calculating the quotas incorrectly for the first six months of 2007. The court's ruling forced Canada to remedy those violations within 30 days and imposed a 10% export tax on the provinces in question, to a maximum of $68 million.

That ruling was a direct result of the fact that, in 2006, the Conservative government agreed to the imposition of quotas and taxes on the volume of wood exported to the United States, when the price of softwood lumber was generally under $355 U.S. per thousand board feet.

We have lost all credibility on the international stage. The government sold out our forestry industry for political gains and is now claiming that global markets are the cause and effect of the problem. The irony in all this is that the Conservatives now claim that the government cannot support the requested loan guarantees to forest companies because it is a violation of the softwood lumber agreement.

I am sorry to dispel their illusions but the Conservatives are being dishonest. Government lawyers are arguing as we speak in the London Court of International Arbitration that loan guarantees are not a violation of the softwood lumber agreement. They have in fact posted their legal defence on loan guarantees on the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade's website.

One could be mistaken in believing that the story ends here. However, in the spring of this year, a report from the subcommittee on industry dealing with the difficulties that numerous industrial sectors are facing concluded with the dissenting opinion of the subcommittee on the forestry industry. It says:

In relation to a recommendation on the forestry industry, the Liberal Party of Canada supports a recommendation as follows: “That the government of Canada establish a credit facility specifically for the forestry industry”.

The Liberal Party continues to work actively with the forestry sector to assist it. We also realize that this is not a new problem, unlike the government which has stuck its head in the sand in the hopes that this problem will go away.

We must do more to support this industry on behalf of the thousands of men and women affected by this crisis. We must act now. We need solutions now.

We must help an industry in crisis, and we must do so immediately, with no more excuses. It is time to get the job done, and to make this Parliament work for the well-being of our struggling industries.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber Her Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-18, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, to validate certain calculations and to amend other Acts—Chapter 13.

Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts that relate to the environment and to enact provisions respecting the enforcement of certain Acts that relate to the environment—Chapter 14.

Bill C-29, An Act to increase the availability of agricultural loans and to repeal the Farm Improvement Loans Act—Chapter 15.

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—Chapter 16.

Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Canada National Parks Act to enlarge Nahanni National Park Reserve of Canada—Chapter 17.

Bill C-41, An Act to give effect to the Maanulth First Nations Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter 18.

Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Judges Act—Chapter 19.

Bill C-33, An Act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act—Chapter 20.

[His Excellency Jorge Juan Castañeda Mendez]

I'd like to thank you for this meeting. I think it's been a very important chance for Canadian parliamentarians to receive a representative from Peru who would put forward a very objective perspective on what happened in Peru.

Unfortunately, these events have occurred at a time when the Canadian Senate is in the process of approving the Canada-Peru FTA Implementation Act. I hope the process will not be slowed down or interrupted by these events, and so I would ask the committee, if it believes that this is important, that what we have said here be passed on to the Senate committee on international trade in order that it be informed. If they invite me, I could assist them there, but it's just so that they be made aware of what has gone on in Peru.

Unfortunately, what is published in the media is not necessarily the truth. In fact, the Globe and Mail from Friday stated that in fact it was Peru's Tiananmen Square. I believe it is an exaggeration to compare Peru with Tiananmen Square, because the majority of our deaths were of police officers, and there was no genocide.

I sent a letter to them, which was not published, and I don't believe it will be, but we simply wanted to put forward the information. I believe that we need factual-based information, because the most important thing is to talk about the facts and not about any hypotheses.

I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you, and I thank you for all your questions. Thank you very much.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the NDP to participate in this debate which is about extending the hours of the House.

We heard the government House leader rise earlier and move a motion under Standing Order 27(1) to extend the hours of the House for the remaining 10 sitting days of the House, although he excluded the Fridays. So that is what we are here debating today.

Certainly, first off, I will be the first to acknowledge that the government has an opportunity to do this. We know that on the calendar, as the government House leader pointed out, there is a series of dates where this is a permissible and enabling thing that can be brought forward under the House rules to extend the hours of the House.

However, it has to be done by the will of the House. It cannot be unilaterally imposed by the government unless it is in a majority and it can get something through, but certainly in a minority Parliament situation, which is what we face today, that opportunity to extend the hours of the House has to be done with the co-operation and with the support of the opposition, or at least part of the opposition.

Therefore, what we are really debating today is whether or not there is merit in the government's motion to extend those hours. I have to say that listening to the speeches today both from the government and from the opposition members, there is a genuine reflection and a voice about whether or not there is merit, whether or not those operating hours should be extended.

It is not something that should be done lightly. The government House leader, in his remarks earlier at the beginning of the debate, said that the purpose of seeking the extension of the hours was “to set a goal each day of what we”, and that means the government, “want to accomplish”.

Then he talked about it as being a management tool. On the surface, using that very sort of diplomatic language of setting a goal each day of what the government wants to accomplish, we have to examine that and decide whether or not it is a legitimate thing that the government is requesting.

I think one has to look at that in the context of what has actually taken place in the House in this second session of the 40th Parliament, and whether or not the government has actually used the management tools that it has wisely and properly, and whether now that we are down to the last 10 days, it should be granted that opportunity to extend the hours of the House.

In speaking to that, I am looking at the merit of that request that the government has put forward this day. I want to point out some of the numbers of what we have actually dealt with. I think it is important in deciding whether or not we are now in a situation where we should be looking at extended hours.

We have seen something like 38 bills introduced by the government in this second session. If we take away the bills that have special rules, like the supply bills, then we are down to about 34 bills. Of those 34 bills, 22 have actually passed through the House of Commons. That works out to about 65%.

In actual fact, the government has accomplished a lot of its agenda already and there has been the passage of a fair amount of legislation that it has introduced.

What is also interesting is that of the bills that have been approved, about 20% of them were actually done in a fast tracked way. Some went through in a few moments, all stages of a bill; some went through in one day; some went through multiple stages in a day; about 20%.

I think that is very significant. That happened because there was discussion among the House leaders at our regular meetings and there was a sense of co-operation about what it was we thought we could take on, what matters were urgent, or they were basically things that we agreed with and we could agree that they should go through in a much faster way.

That is a significant thing. Twenty per cent of the government's bills have actually gone through the House in that kind of fast tracked way.

We know that now with the remaining 10 sitting days there are seven bills that are still in the House. Actually six of them are justice or public safety bills and probably five of them require not an extensive debate.

There are a couple of bills, some of which have been noted here today, that are very problematic certainly for the NDP and other opposition parties. If those bills come forward, we in the NDP are going to do everything we can to ensure that they are fully debated. In fact, we will try to defeat them.

The reality is that with 10 sitting days left, the hours we have for debate and what is on the legislative agenda, and as my colleague from the Bloc just pointed out a few moments it is actually a pretty thin legislative agenda, it is very likely that most of the bills that remain will go through the House and there will not be any kind of holdup.

There are other pieces of legislation that are very problematic. Certainly for us in the NDP, one of the bills that we are most concerned about and will do everything we can to defeat it is the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, Bill C-23. In fact, we were very disappointed when Bill C-24, regarding the free trade agreement between Canada and Peru, received approval, with the NDP voting against it, just a few days ago.

I will mention, in the last day or two, the violence that has taken place in Peru against indigenous people, where people have been oppressed and murdered by government forces. It has been absolutely horrific. Yet, that bill went through.

I want to put on the record that if the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement bill comes forward, which the government to this point has held back and put at the bottom of its agenda, the NDP caucus will be fighting it tooth and nail. Every single one of our members will stand to debate that bill to point out and expose what a bad trade agreement it is. We take that very seriously.

However, those are the exceptions. Most of the bills before us are bills that will not be contentious but will require debate.

I want to make the point that I find it very ironic that time and time again we have heard the government House leader or other ministers stand and allege that particularly the NDP is holding up legislation. This has really floored me. I have spoken to some of the exceptions, but on most of those occasions we were talking about debating a bill at, say, third reading for a day. Even debating a bill for a day is somehow now characterized as holding up legislation and a delaying tactic. I find this quite astounding.

In parliamentary history, in terms of the business we do, we are here to debate legislation. We are here to go through it in a serious fashion and decide whether we support it in principle, whether it requires amendments, to take it through committee, and bring it back to the House. To debate a piece of legislation at second reading, third reading or report stage for a day or less than that is certainly not a delaying tactic.

I feel very offended that the government has chosen to take the line that anything debated more than a couple of hours is somehow a stalling and delaying tactic. That is what we are sent here to do, to represent our constituents, provide the opinions and perspectives of the people of Canada, and debate legislation that has enormous impacts on the lives of not only Canadians but sometimes globally, as we saw with the Canada-Peru agreement.

NDP members are not about to forfeit their duty and responsibility to debate that legislation in a fulsome way and make sure that all of the issues we believe are important are put forward in the House of Commons, in the Canadian Parliament. That is what we were elected to do and we take it very seriously.

I will go back to the issue of the government saying that this is a management tool and that it is being ever so thorough in using it. The government says that it wants to set a goal each day to do what it wants to accomplish. It really is a blank cheque. The government wants to have its cake and eat it too, instead of using the practice we have used continually, a practice that has worked relatively well.

The government House leader acknowledged in his opening remarks that there had been co-operation with the opposition parties, that there had been agreement on any number of items. Now we see this blank cheque approach. The government will make a unilateral decision and on any given day over the next 10 days, we will discuss this bill and that bill. The government will keep the debate going until 10 o'clock at night and we will not have any input into that. It will be a government decision.

If the Conservatives see that as a management tool, then it begs the question as to how they have managed their political and legislative agenda overall. If we look at the way they manage their business, we see quite a different picture.

We are talking about a government that prorogued the House on two occasions and killed its own legislation because of short-term political expediency. We saw it just before December. The government shut down Parliament in reaction to the opposition parties working together to represent the public interest with respect to what we needed to do with regard to the recession. That was very undemocratic. From the Conservative point of view, that was an incredibly successful management tool, but it was not in the interests of Parliament or the Canadian people.

At what is now the eleventh hour in the second session of the 40th Parliament, the Conservatives need to have extended hours for debate. They have to make their case for it. In listening to the government House leader today, I do not think they have done that. They have shown us that they want to go into overdrive by using this so-called management tool to suit their own purposes. They need to recognize that they are in a minority Parliament, where co-operation should be sought and where discussion can produce a positive result.

The NDP reacts very negatively to the idea that extended hours are needed at this time, not that at some other occasion they might be needed, but that opportunity is there.

The government has failed to make the case that it needs extended hours for the next 10 days to get through the very few bills that are left. If the Conservatives are thinking of bringing back some of the other bills like the Canada-Colombia free trade bill or the matrimonial real property bill, the NDP will fight them tooth and nail on those bills. We are not prepared to let those bills come forward. They have the choice of what they want to put on the order of business each day, but they know we will fight them.

We have come to the conclusion that the motion is simply not warranted. It is that straightforward. The business we have before us can be conducted. A number of these bills deal with justice and public safety issues. The government has been trotting out these little boutique bills one Criminal Code clause at a time. There has probably been a dozen of these bills. If there had been discussion, a number of those bills could have been brought forward in an omnibus bill. The government decided, again based on its political agenda, to bring in one bill at a time, so it could make a little showcase. This is really all the government has.

The Conservatives have completely broken down when it comes to dealing with the recession. They have even failed getting their economic stimulus package into local communities. They have completely denied the will of Parliament by refusing to act on motions on EI, which came from the NDP, or on credit cards and consumers protection.

Instead, what have the Conservatives done? Their management tools, their agenda has been to move bills out one at a time to take up an inordinate amount of time in debating them. If they had wanted to, they could have had some serious discussion about how to package some of them. I know our justice critic would have been open to such a suggestion and we would have taken it seriously.

If we consider that five of the six remaining bills could have been dealt with in a different way, then we can begin to see the government really does not have a case at all. It makes one wonder why the Conservatives would even bring forward this motion.

At the meeting of the House leaders we discussed it and I think the Conservatives had an inkling it probably would not be approved. Obviously they have some kind of political agenda. Either they want to bring something forward and try to ram it through or maybe they just think it is the political optics. However, we have to examine the motion in its real substance.

As I pointed out today, if we seriously look at the legislative agenda that remains, it is very clear the Conservatives are in a good position to receive support and to get the remaining bills through in the House. Therefore, why would we consider the extension of hours?

The New Democrat members of the House take our work very seriously. Whenever there have been motions in the House to rise early or to adjourn early, we have been the party to always oppose that. For us, this is not about saying that we do not want to be here. We are here in our seats and we are in committees.

If we look at the members of the House and the activity that goes on, we will not find a harder working caucus, even though we only have one member on each parliamentary committee. Our members work hard to bring forward initiatives. Whether it is on EI, or on arts and culture, or agriculture, or food safety, the NDP members initiate those items. This issue is not about whether we are here or not. We are here. We dedicate ourselves 100% to doing our public business, working for constituents and raising these very important issues about the economy, about what is hitting working people, about the unemployment, pensions and the travesty of the EI system. We do that here day after day, whether it is in question period, or in committees, or in meetings with delegations.

We have no problem with the principle of sitting late. Whether it is for take note debates or emergency debates, we participate in all of that and we do so fully and with a great measure of substance.

However, that does not escape the need to examine the motion for extended hours. We have come to the conclusion that it is a vacuous motion. It is not built on a rationale based on the business before us. The government simply has not made the case. If it had and if there was that imperative, that rationale, we would probably see a different response.

The practice of looking at each piece of legislation brought forward at the House leaders' meeting, involving our critics, and discussing whether there is agreement to move more quickly has worked. Why would we not continue to do that in the last 10 sitting days?

We see no reason to extend the hours, so we will vote against the motion.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following motion. I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), except for Friday, June 12 and Friday, June 19, 2009, commencing on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 and concluding on Tuesday, June 23, 2009, the House shall continue to sit until 10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by stating what might be obvious to folks who watch the proceedings of Parliament closely. By and large, I would have to say that this session of Parliament has been quite amicable and cooperative. I appreciate the efforts by the opposition to help the government get its agenda through Parliament.

As I recently said at a fundraising event for the Children's Bridge Foundation, I was reflecting on this place and reflected that this truly is the house of the common people. I also reflected on that word “common”. I thought that during the time of a minority Parliament, it is important for all of us to reflect on what we have in common: the things that we share as legislators regardless of our partisan differences. Regardless of what it is we want to see for Canada, I do believe very sincerely that all legislators and parliamentarians have the best interests of the country at heart.

I think that it is important that we try to work on those things that we have in common. I believe that there have been many instances in the last five or six months in this place when we have done that. I want to begin my remarks by commending the opposition for oftentimes trying to look beyond partisan differences, look to what we have in common, and actually accomplish things for the people of Canada.

While I am pleased with the progress that we have made thus far, not only as a government but as a Parliament working collectively, there is much more that we can accomplish for Canadians. As I have been saying about this cooperative atmosphere that is sometimes prevalent here, I think that some people who watch the daily proceedings of the House of Commons would actually dispute that.

If one were to watch the 45-minute question period every day, one might be surprised to hear me say that we actually work cooperatively and quite well together. While question period serves an important purpose and is the main focus for the media, no acts are amended, no new laws are created, and no funds for important programs are approved during that period of time.

Today, for example, there are 285 minutes dedicated for government legislation and 60 minutes for private members' business. Lots of time and effort goes into these minutes each day. More importantly, they can also be productive minutes. Thus far this session, our House has passed some 25 bills, including Bill C-33, which restores war veterans allowances to Allied veterans and their families. This required all-party consent and we all agreed that this was in the best interests of not only our veterans but the country.

Bill C-14, our bill to fight organized crime, is currently before committee in the other place. Bill C-29, the agricultural loans bill, will guarantee an estimated $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and cooperatives. This is all important legislation that we worked together on to further it along the parliamentary agenda.

Our Standing Orders include a specific provision for the extension of sitting hours during the last two sitting weeks in June. In fact, I reflect on my 16 years in this place. It has often been a point of confusion when members, and especially rookie members, look at the calendar and see the last couple of weeks with asterisks beside the dates. They think that those weeks are disposable somehow, but they are not. They are that way because the government has the right to serve, without notice, the motion that I am moving today to extend hours and work into the evening.

At this point in my remarks, I also want to inject the fact that up until quite recently in parliamentary history, the House of Commons sat into the evening for debate almost every night. It has been a relatively new phenomenon that we do not have evening sittings. The only exceptions to that in the recent Parliaments have been for emergency debates or take note debates. Other than that, we do not usually sit in the evenings. It is quite a new phenomenon.

What I am moving today is not something unusual. These rules provide a mechanism to advance government business before members leave Ottawa to work in their constituencies over the summer.

We have a lot of important work to do before the House rises for the summer. After we subtract the three days for opposition supply days and the time for private members' business, we only have 33 hours and 45 minutes remaining to complete our government business before the House rises on the evening of June 23.

Extending the House sitting hours over the next two weeks would allow us to make progress on government bills, such as: Bill C-26, legislation to tackle property theft, which we expect to receive back from the justice committee this week; Bill C-34, the protecting victims from sexual offenders act, which would strengthen the national sex offender registry to provide the police with more effective tools to protect children from sexual predators; Bill C-35, the justice for victims of terrorism act; Bill C-36, which would repeal the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code so that criminals who commit first or second degree murder will no longer be able to apply for early parole; and Bill C-6, the consumer products safety bill, which was reported from committee yesterday. Adopting this bill would protect the health and safety of Canadians by allowing the recall of unsafe consumer products. I urge members to adopt that bill with the utmost speed when we call it for debate later this week.

Other bills we would like to make progress on include: Bill C-32, which cracks down on tobacco marketing aimed at youth, which received unanimous support at second reading and we hope that health committee can report the bill back shortly so that the House can consider its passage before the summer; and Bill C-23, the Colombia free trade bill.

While not unanimous, I am grateful for the support of most members opposite in enabling the House to pass Bill C-24, the Peru free trade bill. Both Bill C-24 and Bill C-23 would expand market access for Canadian companies at a difficult time. I inject that this is especially important to our farmers who will have new marketing opportunities open up for them because of these two free trade bills.

This is just some of the important work to be done on our government's commitments. It does not take into account additional new legislation that we continue to introduce every week.

I notice the justice minister is sitting here and nodding as I relay a number of justice bills. The Minister of Justice has been extremely active in bringing forward a succession of important justice reforms. This is one of the reasons that I ran for Parliament 16 years ago. I know many legislators on both sides of the House hold near and dear to their hearts the importance of protecting victims and their families and of reforming and changing the justice system in our country to ensure that criminals are held accountable for their actions.

My intent regarding this period of extension would be, and I have discussed this with the opposition House leaders and whips, to set a goal each day as to what we wanted to accomplish. When we accomplished that goal, we would adjourn for the day. Even though the motion says that we would sit until 10 o'clock Monday to Thursday, it may not be necessary to sit until 10. We could work co-operatively and collectively together. If we actually achieved our goals that day at 7 o'clock or 7:20 p.m., we would see the clock at 10 and the House would rise. I think that is reasonable.

I am asking for a simple management tool to maximize our progress with the weeks that are left, a little over two weeks. I am not asking for a shortcut. I am not asking to curtail debate. I am proposing that we work a little harder to get the job done. As I said, I believe I am making a reasonable approach of adjourning each day after we meet modest goals. All parties would agree to these goals. This is not a blank cheque. I cannot adjourn the House without support from the opposition, nor can I prevent an adjournment motion from being adopted without opposition support. The motion has co-operation built right into it.

Sitting late in June is part of the normal process, as I referred to earlier. It is one of the procedures required to make Parliament work and be more efficient. According to the Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons:

Although this Standing Order dates back only to 1982, it reflects a long-standing practice which, in its variations, has existed since Confederation. The practice has meant that in virtually every session since 1867, in the days leading up to prorogation or, more recently, to the summer adjournment, the House has arranged for longer hours of sitting in order to complete or advance the business still pending.

A motion pursuant to Standing Order 27 has only been refused once and that was last year. Even under the minority government of Paul Martin, the motion had sufficient opposition support to be adopted. There is bound to be some business that one opposition party wants to avoid, but generally there should be enough interest on the part of the opposition to get legislation passed before the summer recess.

The House leader of the official opposition is often on his feet after question period trying to get speedy passage to some of our justice bills. Here is a chance for him, and collectively Parliament, to actually get that done.

The NDP members complain that we accuse them of delaying legislation when all they want to do, or so they say, is put up a few more speakers to a bill. Here again we are giving them the opportunity to do exactly that.

I am therefore seeking the support of all members to extend our sitting hours so that we can complete work on important bills which will address the concerns of Canadians before we adjourn for the summer.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. It being 3.38 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 2, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the third reading stage of Bill C-24.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from June 2 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 third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow my learned colleague from Ottawa Centre in this debate.

Quite frankly, this is the kind of debate we need to have in the House about the government's trade agenda, which is simply a carbon copy of the Liberals' trade agenda. On its trade agenda, the government essentially has shown that it is appallingly weak in negotiating and has shown an inability to set any objectives in line with what Canadians strongly believe they need to see in trade policy. The vast majority of Canadians are fair traders. They want to see a balanced approach on trade that actually provides for improvement in environmental standards, human rights and labour rights. They also want to see a trade strategy that allows for domestic growth and jobs here at home. They get neither with this bill, tragically.

Most Canadian families earn less now than they did when the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement was implemented back in 1989. We have seen an erosion for the vast majority of Canadian families. They are earning less. The ones who have profited are chief executives and corporate lawyers. They have seen their family income increase dramatically. The wealthiest Canadians now take more than half of all income in Canada, but for most Canadians in the middle class, Canadians in the lower middle class and the poorest Canadians, they have seen a substantial erosion in their income.

We are also facing a record trade deficit. Essentially we export raw materials to create jobs in other countries and we import increasingly the manufactured products that used to be manufactured here in Canada. How does the Canada-Peru free trade agreement change this? It does not change it at all. Fundamentally, even under the former Liberal government, most of the bilateral agreements that we have signed have led to a fall in exports. We simply import more from the country of origin, often with no standards applied, no labour standards, no minimum wage standards, but our exports actually fall.

To pretend that this bill is in any way part of any sort of comprehensive economic strategy is simply false. It is not the objective of the government. The objective of the government appears to be, more than anything else, just fancy ribbon cutting. Signing a trade deal has a lot of pomp and circumstance. People put their signatures on a piece of paper. They get to come to the House to say that they are doing something, but when most bilaterals have led to a fall in exports, when most Canadian families are earning less, we have to wonder. We have to think that somebody in the Conservative government would actually look at the results, would actually monitor what is going on and take measures to put in place a more comprehensive export strategy. That has not been done.

As we have cited in the House before, the Conservative government is just as bad as the former Liberal government. It is the same old, same old. One does not change the other's strategy. We are just as bad under the Conservatives as we were under the Liberals for actually providing any sort of product promotion support outside of Canada.

For the entire United States market, where 85% of our exports go right now, the Canadian federal government has a combined product promotion budget of $3.4 million for this massive United States of America market of 300 million citizens. I will repeat that figure, because it is stunning in its cheapness, that $3.4 million is the entire federal government product promotion support budget for the entire United States of America market. Is that unbelievable? Yes it is, but it is unfortunately true.

The government has no trade strategy. It provides no product promotion support. It seems incapable of understanding even the rudimentary elements of what a fair trade strategy would be.

In the OECD countries, in the United States, the debate is increasingly on fair trade as opposed to George Bush style unregulated free trade. In election after election, fair trade is winning out. People around the world want a balanced fair trade approach and not this radical, extremist, George Bush style, unregulated free trade approach. As a result of that, we are seeing elections such as the recent one in the United States where governments are changed and that agenda is stopped.

That is the approach the government has taken until now. Let us look at the specifics of Bill C-24.

The NDP voted against the softwood sellout that killed tens of thousands of jobs in Canada. We voted against the shipbuilding sellout that every single worker, manager and owner within the shipbuilding industry implored Parliament not to pass without a carve-out. The NDP proposed the carve-out and the Liberals and the Conservatives banded together. The Liberals drove the getaway car for the Conservatives and essentially adopted a bill they knew would kill the shipbuilding industry in Canada. It is a shame. We have the longest coastline in the world and we just voted a few months ago to kill progressively our shipbuilding industry.

The NDP voted against the Canada-Colombia trade deal, an egregiously bad deal. One cannot imagine how it was conceived. That regime is connected to murderous paramilitary thugs and drug lords and the government wants to give it preferential trade access to Canada. That is absolutely absurd. We will debate that if the government ever brings it back before the House.

I think the government was as embarrassed as we in the NDP were that it even proposed such an appalling concept as rewarding a regime with massive human rights violations and connections to murderous paramilitary thugs and drug lords who killed hundreds of people last year. The president has had connections with them since his initial days as the mayor of Medellin, Colombia when the Medellin cartel ran the place. In any event, we will debate the Colombia trade deal when it comes forward.

The Peru trade deal provides no protection for the environment and no protection on labour rights. The Peruvian government has essentially refused to put its signature on International Labour Organization agreements and the government does nothing with regard to the superficial, symbolic labour side deal to address that issue.

Now we find within the Peru agreement the same chapter 11 provisions that have been rejected by every other country on earth since NAFTA was implemented. The United States moved away from it. Every other country has moved away from it.

The investor state provisions allow corporate CEOs to override democratic decision making, whether it is on the labour code or environmental standards. Corporate CEOs can actually get compensation for any public measure that is taken in the public interest. It is a cash cow. They can go to governments and get millions of dollars for nothing, simply because the government has made a decision that is in the best interests of its citizens.

In Bill C-24 there are enhanced investor state provisions that allow corporate CEOs to milk the government in Peru. We learned just last week that there was a nationwide strike among Peruvian workers because in the northeastern Amazon region of Peru, a package of laws has been passed that will open up the lands of that region to mining and drilling without consultation with local communities.

There is a chapter 11 on steroids in Bill C-24. There is no protection for environmental standards or labour standards, and now there is legislation by the Peruvian government that allows mining CEOs to override local democratic decision making. Regardless of what anyone's political stripe is, one would think that every member of the House would understand that democratic decision making is the very essence of democracy. Once we give extraordinary rights to corporate CEOs to override that and get millions of dollars in compensation for nothing, we are doing something that is profoundly unfair to the people of Peru.

For all of those reasons, the NDP is speaking out against this agreement, but we continue to press the government to actually negotiate fair trade agreements. It is not a complicated concept. It means actually raising living standards in Canada and abroad. That is done by establishing tough environmental standards, tough labour standards and human rights. The NDP will be voting no on this bill.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-24.

Many have spoken of the concerns they have around this trade agreement. I think Canadians are listening carefully to the difference between what some call free trade and what we call fair trade. There is actually a shift in the debate around trade agreements and around how trade is done globally. I think we are going to see a change in the use of the term “free trade” because of the collective experience of countries with these agreements.

When we look at the details and drill down into some of these trade agreements, the notion that there is anything free is a misnomer. When we look at the give and the take, and what we end up with at the end of these trade agreements, many people have, quite rightly, been critical. I think we are going to move toward something more in line with a sectoral approach, that we really should not be doing these massive pieces of architecture to say that we are going to be all in or all out and give certain powers to certain sectors of society over others.

When we look at the experience with NAFTA, for instance, and chapter 11, and when we look at what was given up by Canadians to allow private corporations to meddle in the affairs of our governance, it actually undermines the fundamental premise of democracy. This is not free. This is actually a change of power where we end up with less and certain entities end up with more.

It has to do with the notion of sovereignty, as well. I think that most people would agree that our Parliament should be able to pass laws that are unfettered, in terms of outside interference, and be vigilant with respect to our obligations internationally, but also provide good governance for our citizens.

That is not the case when we look at the experience of chapter 11. In fact, not just people in this corner of the House have stated that but people outside who have critiqued these agreements have said that. That is one of the problems with this trade agreement. It continues down the ill-fated path of the chapter 11 experience. If we look at it, it really puts investors' rights over the rights of citizens. The fact that private companies can sue governments, with these chapter 11 provisions over our public policy choices, is a clear indication that there is something more than a free trade or an exchange or an opening of trade. It means that we are actually laying hands on certain people and giving them rights over others; in this case, private corporations.

I want to take that observation and align it with where Canadians are at and look at what is happening right now with another bill that is before us, Bill C-300, the corporate social responsibility bill. It is interesting. When people have critiqued Bill C-300, and I have a private member's bill that is similar to it and motions have been passed on corporate social responsibility, they have been concerned that extraterritorial provisions would be given to the Government of Canada over investments abroad in the extractive industries. It is interesting because when we take a look at chapter 11, what we are actually doing is legislating the rights of extraterritorial private interests to have influence on governance here. We do not hear them talk about that.

So, on the one hand we are saying we do not want to have too many rules for corporations when we are doing business overseas because that might interfere with the conduct of the business of certain countries, and on the other hand there is this chapter 11 cheque written out and handed over to private corporations with which we do these trade deals .

I think that is an important issue. I think Canadians want to know why these facets within these trade deals are being set. Who is benefiting? Is this helping the citizens of the countries with whom we are entering into these trade deals? I suspect not. I know that it is not. I think it is important because when we look at this trade deal, it again is reinforcing that.

When we look at this trade deal and we look at the side provisions on environment and labour, they are just that. They are side agreements. The language is voluntary. We cannot have voluntary human rights. Either human rights are embedded and we have strength in terms of support to ensure that those human rights are being granted or we do not. Having voluntary human rights, we might as well not bother. It really does a disservice to the whole concept and notion of human rights.

I can only think what John Diefenbaker would say to that. We have side agreements on human rights. I suspect that he would not be in favour of that notion and I think that is important.

I suspect that because the government thought there would be a furor over the lack of environmental and human rights provisions, it would do a little political inoculation and put a side agreement in, put a ribbon on it and everyone will be happy.

We on this side of the House see through that. We either have it embedded and strengthened with legislation or we do not bother. To have it on the side, as was mentioned by my colleague from the Conservative Party earlier in his intervention, makes it voluntary. It is like the response by the government to corporate social responsibility where it has taken a very robust report from both business and civil society about how we can do corporate responsibility and turned it into a suggestion box, that if we have a concern we can put the concern in this box and perhaps the government will deal with it. That is not good enough. We need to take this issue seriously because it affects the lives of ordinary people.

The trade agreement, sadly, is putting on the altar environmental protection and human rights protection for what? For profit. For the bottom line. As I said, I think people will see through that and we certainly do.

I would also like to point out where Canadians are in their view of where Canada should be when it comes to trade agreements. I want to reference a document that recently came out called “Back on the Map”. It is a very comprehensive overview of a study that was done for a new vision for Canada in the world. It was done recently by a non-partisan group called Canada's World during a national citizen's dialogue. The director is Shauna Sylvester whom I met with recently. She was pointing out to me the research that was done on what Canadians want to see in their foreign policy and in their trade agreements. One of the things in the research report said that Canadians wanted to see good governance as it relates to promoting good governance in trade deals. The report is based on researchers talking to Canadians about what they want to see in our foreign policy and trade deals.

They want to see the Government of Canada take a leadership role in convening and facilitating the reform of international financial development agencies; promoting fair trade practices and corporate social responsibility, particularly among Canadian companies with overseas operations; supporting a stronger voice for developing countries within international institutions; investing in public diplomacy; shielding effective programs from partisan politics; and instituting a federal process to help with that

What they want to see is Canadian governance in trade deals promoting fair trade, promoting corporate social responsibility and promoting the values that are embedded in our Canadian fabric, not to hand over to certain companies and interests a blank cheque to decide what they want to do with it and undermine not only our democracy but the interests of those in the country of origin; in this case Peru.

For those reasons our party will not be supporting this trade deal. I wish that we would have the support of the Liberals to oppose this trade deal because it is not good enough.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in this debate to 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.

Part of the context of our debate today is the fact that this morning and this afternoon thousands of members of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, CEP, my old union, will be gathering here on the Hill for a national day of protest to say that forestry workers fight back for jobs, pensions and families. I was a proud member of CEP Local 232.

One of the reasons this protest has been organized is because of the failure of free trade agreements between Canada and the United States and the failure of the softwood lumber agreement between Canada and the United States to protect the jobs of Canadian workers. That is one reason why thousands of people will be here in Ottawa today to protest the failure of Canada to protect Canadian jobs and Canadian workers through these types of trade agreements. That shows why it is so crucially important that we pay attention to these agreements as we sign them and as we develop them. I am glad that we have this opportunity to debate the Canada-Peru agreement here in the House today.

As my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona said, New Democrats support trade agreements but we would support fair trade agreements. We want to ensure they meet the social, environmental and labour goals of our country and that they support our democratic vision for our country and for countries around the world. We want to ensure that any agreement we enter into supports those standards.

I do not think that makes us Boy Scouts, as the member for Mississauga South indicated. I do not think the Boy Scouts would appreciate the way he slagged their intent to be honourable citizens. It does not make us Boy Scouts or naive to want to uphold those kinds of standards in these agreements. One might ask the member for Mississauga South if he is prepared to sell his soul for a mess of potage, which may be the other end of the coin when it comes to these kinds of agreements. This is a very appropriate time to give due diligence to these agreements and ensure they do what they say they will do.

We are very concerned and we always raise the context of labour rights, of environmental protections and the investor chapters of these agreements. This Canada-Peru trade deal is no different in those regards. We believe these agreements do put the interests of big business before workers and the environment and that is one reason why we do not support the agreement. We have not learned anything from the problems with NAFTA's chapter 11 on investor rights. We continue to be concerned that this would give corporate interests the ability to override the democratically elected representatives of the people of the country when it comes to corporate relations and some training relationships. These provisions have been maintained in this Canada-Peru agreement and it is one of our key concerns with that deal.

The other contextual setting that I want to give is with what happened with the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement, how that was implemented and its effects since it was signed in December 2007. It is important to understand what happened with that deal and to look at some of the differences between what the United States negotiated with Peru and what Canada has negotiated with Peru.

Some of this information comes from an article written by Mary Tharin, a research associate with the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. She has pointed out a number of problems since the negotiation of the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement. She claims, and backs it up with evidence, unlike other members of the House who seem to have opinions but no evidence, that the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement has been used by President Garcia of Peru as an excuse to dismantle environmental and labour standards that did exist, such as they were, in Peru, and that it has also led to further economic deterioration in Peru. Ms. Tharin says that this should be taken into consideration before other free trade agreements are signed by the United States. I think that is instructive for Canada before we enter into this agreement with Peru.

She also notes that corruption is a serious issue with the Garcia government and that there is a long and continuing history of scandals in that government, especially scandals of corporate interests and the involvement of the government and leading officials with bribery and whatnot. That context is an important one for us to struggle with as well. Do we enter into agreements that cannot guarantee the force and supremacy of law and get bound up in these terrible scandals related to the development issues of their country?

The article goes on to talk about how President Garcia has been implementing and changing the legislative framework of Peru to accommodate the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement. He has been doing it by the use of legislative decrees. In fact, in the first six months after the agreement was signed, he enacted a total of 102 legislative decrees designed to harmonize national laws with the conditions laid down in the free trade agreement between Peru and the United States.

It is interesting to note that the Peruvian Constitutional Commission has recently declared about 40% of those decrees to be unconstitutional, which again brings into question the Garcia government's commitment to the constitution, law and background framework of this agreement. There has been considerable comment in Peru, via the Peruvian press as well as politicians and activists, that the government has used these decrees to the detriment of labour, the environment, the agricultural industry and indigenous rights there.

One of the most controversial of the legislative decrees was decree 1015, which was passed in May 2008. That decree was designed to facilitate the privatization and stripping away of communal lands held by indigenous and subsistence farming communities. Any of us who know anything about Peru know that communal land is essential to the Peruvian understanding and the traditional way of life in Peru.

Previously, the law in Peru required a two-thirds majority in congress to authorize any land sales from these communally held lands. However, decree 1015 lowered this requirement to a simple majority in a clear attempt to encourage those kinds of sales and subsequent exploitation of the land by foreign and domestic entrepreneurs. That is one of the key changes that came about, despite the agreement between the United States and Peru.

Another legislative decree, 1064, eliminates the ability of landowners to negotiate with oil and mining companies over the use of their land. Before that decree, companies had to reach an agreement with property owners in order to buy or rent their land for commercial use. Only if negotiations failed could companies turn to the government, specifically the ministry of mines and energy, to force owners to sell their land. Decree 1064 cuts out landowners completely, leaving the entire negotiation process in the hands of government.

Certainly, by our standards, this would be a significant backward step in how landowners and traditional communal landowners in Peru deal with the negotiations with oil and mining companies. In the context where Canadians are increasingly aware of the activities of Canadian corporations overseas and requiring stronger measures around corporate social responsibility, I do not think the lowering of this standard in Peru says good things about our ability to enter into an appropriate agreement between Canada and Peru for trade.

Another decree, 1090, is known as the forest and wildlife law. It allows President Garcia to remove barriers that protected the country's national forest. It redefines national forest patrimony and lists protections against logging and other forms of exploitation. There is considerable comment in Peru, and among opposition critics as well, that talks about how this decree reduces transparency and eliminates input from civil society.

This also all happens in a context where the environmental standards negotiated by the United States are stronger in its agreement than they are in the agreement that Canada has negotiated with Peru. That is another key reason why we should be very concerned about this agreement. It is why I and my New Democratic colleagues will not be supporting the legislation and the agreement between Canada and Peru.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to 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.

Bill C-24 is the implementation legislation for the Canada-Peru free trade agreement, which consists of three parts: the main free trade agreement text, the labour side agreement and an environmental protection side agreement. It preceded and is nearly identical to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. Bill C-24 is also structurally identical to Bill C-23, the implementation legislation for the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

Canada is following the United States, which completed the free trade agreement with Peru under the Bush administration in December 2007, in spite of strong opposition from trade unions, civil society and Democrats who viewed the deal as an expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. Free trade negotiations with Peru date back to 2002 when the Chrétien Liberals first held discussions with the Andean community. That group consists of Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia. On June 7, 2007, then minister David Emerson announced the formal launch of free trade negotiations with Peru. The Conservative government signed the bilateral agreement in May 2008.

The NDP opposes the NAFTA-style treaties that put big business interests before workers and the environment at all costs. That has increased the inequality and decreased the quality of life for the majority of working families.

In the case of the Canada-Peru agreement, 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 worst aspects of the free trade agreement are similar to those found in the Canada-Colombia agreement.

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. That is the key to this.

Trade unions in Peru have expressed concern as Peruvian labour law is deficient in several areas. By addressing the environment in a side agreement, there is no effective enforcement mechanism to force Canada or Peru to respect environmental rights.

Canada, in the recent budget, took away some of the environmental protections under the Navigable Waters Protection Act that we previously had in this country. It is not just a one-way street. In this case, we are looking at the country of Peru and saying that it is not living up to standards and it is racing to the bottom, but we have examples on our side where it could be argued that we are doing the same thing in terms of racing to the bottom.

The Canada-Peru agreement on the environment commits both countries to pursue environmental co-operation and to improve environmental laws and policies, but it can only ask both parties to enforce their domestic laws. If they do not, there is no necessary consequence.

In terms of the investment chapter, it has been a major concern of the members of the Bloc who support the NDP in voting against this bill. The investment chapter has been copied from the North American Free Trade Agreement. We have had some experience over the years with how that works. As for 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 experience with the North American Free Trade Agreement, 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. In some free trade agreements investors are essentially put on the same level as that of the state and this puts the state in a defensive position. Just yesterday, one of my colleagues mentioned some examples under the NAFTA where the government is being challenged by investors who are not happy with their treatment under the agreement.

While Parliament cannot modify the treaty itself, Bill C-24 is just enabling legislation and the final jurisdiction over treaties lies with cabinet. We would like the government to stop the bill and renegotiate the problematic parts but that, of course, is not likely to happen. That is our major concern with this legislation.

I would like to address a question asked by a member a few minutes ago.

The Americans are moving perhaps a year or two ahead of us in this area. They have passed their own free trade agreement with Peru. However, unlike the Canadian agreement, environmental and labour standards were included right in their bill. One could argue that the Americans had a better constructed bill than we have here.

Their experience so far has not been good because a race to the bottom is developing where Peru has issued decrees and has reduced its standards. Any analysis that I have read, particularly from the American point of view, shows that the agreement they signed is not working favourably for the poor people and the working people of Peru.

Surely we should learn something from the American experience. They have two years on us. They have a better agreement but it is not being enforced properly in terms of pulling both countries up. What it is doing is pulling them down, specifically Peru.

Before we go much further with this, we should direct our negotiators to at least move our agreement up to the higher standard of the American agreement and maybe get some improvements on the American agreement that would benefit the working people in Peru.

We have a number of good examples that we have accessed from people who have looked at how the U.S. free trade agreement with Peru has been working. We can take the example of teamster president, Jimmy Hoffa Jr., who has made several observations about the U.S.-Peru agreement. He has said that nothing will change for the 33,000 slave labourers cutting down the Amazonian rain forest. He has said that subsistent farmers will be forced off their land because cheap U.S. food produced by agri-business will undercut their prices. The same thing happened with the North American Free Trade Agreement which has resulted in millions of poor Mexicans leaving their farms.

How anyone in this Parliament could see it is as progress and an improvement to the country and to the world to take a group of people, who have been working on their farms for hundreds of years, and force them off their land and force them to buy subsidized imported food and get away from growing their own food, is beyond me

The previous speaker from the Liberal Party was essentially condoning the race to the bottom approach. He said that we could not question any country's practices because we will scare it off and it will not want to trade with us. I have news for him. People all over the world want to trade.

When a few protestors from my own province of Manitoba go to environmental commission hearings in Minnesota to complain about our hydro development up north, when it really is not a serious problem in my opinion, our government takes that very seriously. Why? It is because we want to keep selling power to the United States. A few protesters can have a big influence on our government policy in Manitoba. One or two people showing up at environmental commission hearings--

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, members have all received substantial input from various stakeholders and constituents about trade deals, probably more about the proposed deal with Colombia, but also about the Peru agreement. There is a form letter that starts, “I'm shocked and dismayed”, which has been going around.

Much of the debate that has taken place with regard to this particular bill, Bill C-24, the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, has been dealing with the more substantive concerns that Canadians have about entering into agreements with countries that have reputations on human rights issues that cause them concern, particularly with Colombia and the cocaine trade.

Having been a member of Parliament for some 15 years, one of the key lessons I learned from former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien was that it is very, very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve several objectives in terms of promoting Canadian values and interests at the same time. Sometimes we have to take a complex situation and deal with it separately.

Former Prime Minister Chrétien said that if we wanted him to be a boy scout, go to China and tell the Chinese what they should do about human rights, that would not do any good because then he would be out of the loop. Canada's trade relationship with China would become impaired and there would be consequences for being a boy scout where he could not do anything. He said that he would rather be at the table. He would want to be there, show them how Canada works, share the value system we have and show them we are concerned about and look for every opportunity to advocate for human rights issues, for environmental issues, for fair and free trade issues.

These bills raise all these kinds of concerns. On the Colombia deal, the Standing Committee on International Trade would probably say we should have a human rights assessment. That human rights assessment would show that there is a terrible drug trade and a lot of nastiness going on there. The human rights situation is terrible compared to Canada and this is really unacceptable.

This is a wonderful thing to do when we are talking about doing more business with that country. It rubs in its face the realities that we know. I understand it is important to keep the message in front of the world about the challenges that many countries have, whether they are human rights issues or environmental issues, or corruption, which is rampant. If we did a human rights assessment on all countries that we traded with and they did not pass the smell test, as it were, then we would say we will not trade with them.

Why do we not look at China? Would China pass a human rights assessment? Probably not. Would India pass a human rights assessment? Probably not. Would Colombia? Probably not.

How about the United States? There has been a lot of debate in this place about torture and tactics and even accusing people in this chamber who have views that in certain circumstances we need more aggressive techniques to get information from terrorists. It is totally unacceptable to many members in this place even to think that maybe there is a scenario under which more aggressive techniques should take place. I think the consensus would be that there should be no human rights abuses, no torture.

If we are to apply the same criteria that we want to apply to Peru about having a human rights assessment before we consider trading or expanding trade, that means we have to reconsider our trading relationship with our largest trading partner, the United States.

It is bizarre and it is probably a stretch, but it can be argued. I wanted to speak today because I receive so many communications from people who have been told that this is terrible and we should not be doing business with these people. Most of them unfortunately do not understand that we already have a trading relationship with all of these countries. We already do trade.

With regard to Peru itself, we have a significant trade deficit. We have $390 million in exports to Peru, including cereals, paper, technical instruments and machinery, but we import from Peru about $2.5 billion, mostly in minerals such as gold, zinc and copper ores, as well as animal feed and vegetables.

We have to ask ourselves whether or not Canada is prepared, notwithstanding the current recession and the economic climate, to sacrifice doing more business, growing our economy and creating jobs for the opportunity to say to them that the way they run their country, the laws that they have with regard to human rights, labour and the environment are the kinds of things that we have a problem with, and we would rather forgo the additional business with them because we are good boy scouts. We are the messenger. We would like to do trade with them but they have not passed our test.

That seems to be overly simplistic but if we listen to the debate that has gone on for some days now, it always comes back to the need for fair trade practices. We need responsible and fair labour practices. We need respect for the environment.

When I look at Canada's situation on the environment, who are we to lecture somebody else about our priority with regard to the environment? Who is Canada to lecture them, when our own government first of all cancelled every program that was set up to get Canadians onside to start dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and the consequences of global warming, which are horrendous?

The government also wants to set standards which tend to protect and insulate current industries and current practices. It came up with one scheme which said that they could pollute up to the same levels that they are doing right now. If they are going to produce more oil, for instance, as long as the incremental pollution and greenhouse gas emissions created are no greater than they are already averaging, then that is okay. In other words, the current level of pollution is acceptable. That is the position of the current government, to go ahead and pollute at the same levels.

Anybody who knows anything about the environment knows that at our current rate the damage is going to be tremendous. The book Sea Sick talks about phytoplankton and that the carbons being assimilated and dissolved into the water are reducing and killing the growth of phytoplankton. These are the kinds of things I wanted to raise because the seas are more sacred than the land, and if the seas go, the land is going to go right after them.

We have some serious problems on the environment, but I wanted to rise and say that we should not try to achieve all objectives every time we have a deal or relationship with another country. We do some trade now. Other countries have already entered into similar trade agreements. They have a competitive advantage over Canada. If we do not enter this deal, if we do not deal with those tariffs that we presently are facing, even the existing exports into Peru will disappear because we cannot be price competitive. That would cost jobs in Canada.

We have to think more carefully about what our objectives are.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-24, which is the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru.

First of all, I want to thank all of my NDP colleagues who have spoken so forcefully in the House over the last few days on this bill. I think the concerns we have raised in the House about this agreement very much reflect what we have heard right across the country.

I have to say that often when we debate legislation in this House, the various bills before us, sometimes there is a sense that not many people are watching what is going on, that things just go through and nobody is paying attention. On this particular issue of the trade agreement between Canada and Peru, as well as the one that is to come back to the House which is the Canada-Colombia trade agreement, there is a huge constituency out there watching what happens to this bill.

There are people who are organized both in the labour movement and in civil society, people who work on human rights, who work with NGOs in Peru, Latin America and elsewhere who are very concerned that this trade agreement is going to go through.

I would like to make that point first of all. I am very proud of the fact that the NDP caucus has stood so strongly against this bill because we understand that this trade bill, like so many other trade bills that we have seen over the years, of the so-called free trade agreements, are agreements that basically put the vested interests of multinational corporations ahead of public interest, ahead of the interests of labour rights, and ahead of the interests of strong environmental standards.

Even though we are now at the final stage, we are happy that our colleagues in the Bloc are also standing together with us to try to stop this bill. We think it is very important that we do due diligence, that we expose the flaws of this bill, and that we alert more Canadians to the fact that our government conducts these kinds of negotiations basically in secret, behind closed doors, and comes out with these free trade agreements with various other nation states that really, in the bigger picture, are not in the public interest.

I find it ironic that on the one hand we often find that these trade agreements are based on the premise that these multinational corporations want governments to have as little to do as possible with regulating and overseeing what should be done in terms of trade or labour standards or the environment or social standards, and that the underpinning of this agreement, and so many like them, whether it is the North America free trade agreement, the agreement that we had in the House a few years ago dealing with the FTA that was the subject of many demonstrations in Quebec City, is to basically transfer power from democratically elected governments to corporations.

When we see things like chapter 11, which is contained in NAFTA, being mirrored in this agreement, and of course will be included in the Canada-Colombia trade agreement, that confers nation state rights to multinational corporations, we are looking at a fundamental violation of the democratic principles of a democratically elected government.

I think that is why so many people take issue with these trade agreements. I find it ironic that while on the one hand there is so much pressure from these private interests globally, as well as here within our own country, to adopt these agreements, on the other hand we see huge corporations, like General Motors just yesterday expecting to have massive bailouts of over $10 billion Canadian. We see the Canadian government coming forward and saying “Oh, yes, of course, no question that is going to happen”.

It seems to me that there is a huge contradiction here, that on the one hand we have had this globalized regime that has been a race to the bottom, where we have seen these trade agreements undermine very basic human rights of workers and of people generally, and on the other hand those corporations want a hands-off kind of approach from government.

However, when they are in trouble, they are the first in the line-up to say that they want the government to be there with these massive line-ups. That kind of point is not lost on us.

As one of my colleagues said, it is the old adage that the former leader of the NDP, David Lewis, pointed out of the corporate welfare bums. Those kinds of contradictions exist and we are very mindful of that when we debate these trade agreements.

It is important to us in the NDP to advocate for fair trade agreements and trade agreements that do not put labour standards and environmental standards in some kind of side agreement. It used to be that they were not even mentioned at all. I can remember attending many demonstrations and forums where a huge amount of organizing was done by the Canadian Labour Congress, federations of labour across the country and by NGOs to bring forward this issue of the need to ensure that trade agreements place on par the question of labour rights, environmental rights and social rights.

Historically, those rights were not even part of the agenda. Now we are beginning to see, particularly in this one with Peru, that there are side agreements. However, when we examine this agreement that is before us, we believe that to have a side agreement is completely inadequate. There should be strong labour standards and environmental standards contained within the agreement.

I think this really speaks to the heart of the matter. We certainly support and understand that trade needs to take place between nations but the rules by which that happens and what it is that we consider to be the priorities have been completely negated and missed in the agreement that is before us.

I would also point out that the actual bill before us is enabling legislation. If we had the ability to amend the agreement, if we could send it to committee and if we could deconstruct it and make the amendments that are needed, maybe we would be looking at a different situation.

Unfortunately, with the bill that we are now debating, Bill C-24, because it is enabling legislation, it is basically a take it or leave it proposition. Therefore, we have no recourse but to say that this agreement, as it was negotiated by the Canadian government, should not be approved by Parliament.

We are glad that it has come forward and that we actually have the opportunity to vote on the agreement but, in our opinion, the agreement is very flawed. It is basically a copycat agreement of NAFTA. We feel that this mirrors the outdated George Bush style approach to trade. As the situation financially changes, as we see the global crisis in capitalism, such as the situation with General Motors, then, surely to God, what we are doing with these trade agreements should also be changing. We should be recognizing that these agreements, as they have been negotiated in the past, are not even serving the corporate interests any more. Even those corporate interests are now in trouble, but they are certainly not serving the interest of average people.

When it comes to the situation in Peru, a lot of evidence shows how workers have been disaffected and how they have minimal rights. Therefore, we are insistent that this trade agreement should put at the top of the agenda the inclusion of those labour rights. We care about workers, whether it is here in Canada, Peru or in any other country, but to have this race to the bottom where workers pay the price and Canadians lose their jobs is a situation that we find intolerable.

We are against this bill. We believe there is very strong public support to defeat this agreement, to go back to the table and to renegotiate something that is based on fair labour standards, on protection for the environment and on protection for social conditions.

The House resumed from June 1 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 third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Act

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are at the second reading stage of 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. That is the bill now before the House of Commons.

I would start by saying that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the implementation of these three agreements. The reasons why we refuse to support these bilateral agreements are as follows.

First, the Bloc Québécois disagrees with the bilateral aspect of the agreement. We prefer that multilateral agreements be entered into, for several reasons. Second, there is the fact that there are no measures to guarantee sustainable development and to ensure that the peoples affected are able to thrive. And third, the presence of an investment protection clause will enable Canadian businesses that believe their rights have been violated to sue the government of Peru, and this could plainly interfere with Peru’s social and economic development. The Bloc places greater weight on Peru’s social and economic development, and calls for constraints to be placed on businesses with economic involvement in that country.

So there is no policy to hold mining companies accountable. This is in fact Canada’s main business activity in Peru. People from various ridings have sent us postcards telling us about working conditions in the mining companies, of which there are many in Peru. That is its main economic activity.

Today, I would like to expand on two points, the first being the bilateral aspect of these agreements, as opposed to negotiating and implementing multilateral agreements. These bilateral agreements make it possible to negotiate piecemeal treaties that generally do not guarantee respect for certain fundamental rights.

I would also like to address the question of holding Canadian companies abroad accountable, and more specifically mining companies, as I said earlier.

When bilateral agreements or treaties are signed, it clearly shows that multilateralism is being abandoned in favour of bilateralism. It is much easier to achieve a bilateral agreement, because there are only two parties involved. When a country gives preference to bilateral agreements over multilateral agreements, it is easy for it to sign piecemeal agreements, based on what works to its benefit. This tactic is widely used by the United States. If you are unable to reach agreement with all of the other countries in relation to treaties and negotiations, you negotiate with each of them individually, hoping that this will enable you to derive as many benefits as possible from the agreement and make the fewest possible concessions.

Clearly, the Prime Minister's government has also decided to drop the multilateral approach in trade and is tempted to do the same in foreign affairs. The proof is that it is currently negotiating with 22 countries individually to conclude free trade agreements. Negotiating with a country individually means that agreements can be concluded piecemeal, that is, outside the institutional and international trade framework. While this type of agreement permits freer trade, it does not usually include rules to civilize that trade. And this is where the Bloc disagrees with bilateral agreements, because they do not set standards for certain companies developing business in certain countries. Often, certain environmental and human rights constraints are ignored. So, this sort of agreement, like the one before us today and the one negotiated with Colombia, totally disregards environmental, human rights and labour rights standards

The Bloc cannot accept this sort of trade, which lowers the standards for rights and the environment.

I think people can understand that. In Quebec, we are very attuned to human rights, and many environmental groups have told us about their fears over this agreement between Peru and Canada.

In addition, the violation of labour rights and human rights in these countries strikes us as a form of unfair practice. Other countries have worked hard to control certain business practices. For example, child labour and forced labour, combined with the denial of such fundamental rights as the freedom of association, make it more advantageous economically for our businesses to set up in these countries, as the labour costs are lower.

Businesses operate in other countries because they do not have all these constraints—such as freedom of association—and thus benefit from worker isolation and the fact that workers cannot defend their rights.

The member for Halifax was saying earlier that a report on labour in Peru indicated that 7% or 9% of Peruvian workers were unionized. That shows that a lot of employees are left on their own and work for companies without protection.

How can they get ahead when they are mistreated with long hours of work and certain work practices that used to be found in Quebec and Canada in the days when companies ignored human rights? Here again, these businesses, rather than operate in Quebec and Canada, head elsewhere, and Peru is not the only destination chosen by a number of Quebec and Canadian companies.

If this government were sensitive to the local population, it would first work within the WTO, the international trade structure, to ensure that the same regulations governing international trade applied to everyone according to what is commercially desirable for the two countries and not adopted piecemeal. This is why the Bloc cannot support this bill. It is just piecemeal and fails to take into account the rules governing international trade according to what is commercially desirable for both countries.

At the very least, if the government were also serious about respecting the environment and the rights of local populations, it would include clauses in its bilateral trade negotiations requiring compliance with international environmental, human rights and labour law standards. This was not done, though, in the agreement we have in this bill. The bill just implements the agreement. It therefore totally disregards these protections, which were not included in the agreement.

In order to provide a concrete example of the latitude there is in negotiating bilateral agreements and to show how important it is for certain standards on the environment, workers’ rights and human rights to be included in the treaty, I want to address a more specific aspect of the trade between Canada and Peru. It will show that these kinds of bilateral agreements do not necessarily include standards or do not include any at all.

As I mentioned earlier, the mining industry is Canada’s main commercial interest in Peru, where it exploits natural resources. Canadian investment in the Peruvian mining sector is around $5 billion, which makes Canada the largest investor in mine exploration in Peru. More than 80 Canadian companies are involved. That is an awful lot of Canadian companies active in Peru.

The Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement is far from equitable: it tends to give more protection to the Canadian companies that invest in the mining sector, to the detriment of local populations, workers and the environment. There is an obvious danger that the measures to protect investors will be disproportionately in their favour.

Environmental and human rights organizations are very worried.

I think they have reasons to be worried about this treaty, and they are not the only ones. Hundreds of people all over Quebec and in my riding among others have written to their member to voice their concern that Canadian mining companies are not being held responsible abroad, especially in Peru.

Most of them referred to a report tabled in 2007 as a result of the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive industry in Developing Countries. Civil society, the government and industry were all represented.

Although concerns were expressed about the extent to which mining companies respect human rights and the environment, a number of recommendations were also made, especially in order to create more transparent mechanisms for handling allegations of rights violations. Canada chose to ignore them. It is disgraceful that the elected government of Canada is not more sensitive to working conditions and the environment.

In fact, this is obvious here, when the government answers questions on employment insurance and on environmental issues, for example. The government's attitude is very clear. It shows complete disregard for certain consequences on the environment, or on the living conditions of many workers who are losing their jobs, who do not qualify for employment insurance, and who will have to go on welfare. As we know, the number of unemployed people is increasing. In a period of economic crisis, the government should be much more sensitive to these two realities.

As was mentioned in a document written by students from UQAM's international clinic for the defence of human rights, Canada refuses to incorporate clauses that would protect workers' rights and human rights in bilateral free trade agreements. It is not just us who are debating this issue. Civil society is also worried. It is aware of this issue. When we see the government's attitude regarding this issue, we cannot support this agreement. Canada also states that it is up to the host country, the one in which mining companies operate, to ensure that human rights are respected.

How can we leave the protection of human rights to the host country, when we know that some countries cannot provide that protection? Canada should be a leader, it should show the way to other countries, and it should not condone such practices.

This attitude and this transfer of responsibility to the host country create a problem, because in countries where violations of human rights are likely to occur, the justice system is often questionable. In the case of Peru specifically, we fear that this state may very well not have the resources or the infrastructure required to ensure the proper monitoring of mining companies operating on its territory.

Since we can obviously not presume to know how efficiently the justice system is going to work in the host country, Canada should take measures to ensure that mining companies act responsibly. We are not against mining companies doing business abroad. The problem is their behaviour. The Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of mandatory standards and accountability measures for these companies.

Even here, we often have a hard time making companies, and even the government, assume certain responsibilities. Some may act irresponsibly towards the environment, for example by dumping contaminants in lakes. The Department of National Defence itself is targeted, because of what is now considered far from acceptable behaviour, namely the contamination of water by dumping TCE into the groundwater.

This contaminated the well water in Shannon. I will come back to this issue later on this week.

With respect to the recommendations from the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries that I referred to earlier, the Bloc Québécois believes that Canada must first form an all-party committee made up of representatives from the extractive industry and others, who would advise the federal government on creating and implementing a Canadian corporate social responsibility framework for mining companies. There would be three measures.

The first measure would be mandatory corporate social responsibility standards that Canadian mining companies would have to respect when working abroad. The second would be punitive measures for offending companies. For example, they could be no longer entitled to tax breaks, loan guarantees or other forms of government aid. This would be one way to bring certain companies into line, if they are not good citizens abroad. The third measure would be an independent ombudsman who would conduct impartial investigations to determine whether or not complaints are founded.

The demands of civil society, which are the same as ours, are clear. Bilateral agreements like the one we are debating today must guarantee that these standards will be adhered to. But instead of living up to our international reputation as a defender and advocate of human rights, this government decided to make the responsibility standards for Canadian mining companies working abroad voluntary and not compulsory.

Members know what happens when we count on people to act of their own free will. A company is attracted to profits. It wants to work quickly, wants to give people a lot of work and use certain people, even children, who work cheaply. We cannot count on companies to do things voluntarily. We must make these standards compulsory and not expect that these industries will toe the line if the profit is attractive.

We have also been told that a committee has been set up, an Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor, created last March. But it is far from independent, since it reports to the minister and its capacity to investigate is extremely limited. It can investigate the complaints it receives only if the mining company agrees to such an investigation. Here again, it is clear that this will not work. Do you think that a mining corporation that flouts all of its civic obligations will want an investigation into its own case of straying from the path of responsibility? Under such conditions, the mining company will not agree to an investigation into its own wrongdoing. Given this masquerade of measures, it is clear how little this government wants to make mining companies abroad accountable, and clear how it is jettisoning its responsibility to adopt instruments and standards on the subject. Hence, it is not surprising to see that such standards do not figure in this treaty.

On this point the Bloc Québécois is categorical. In the absence of a genuine policy on mining company accountability, the ratification of this agreement will allow these corporations to extend their operations without being subject to any rule or consequences when they pollute or flout human rights.

I know I will not have time to deal with this, but I also know that with chapter 11, the companies are still being given a certain amount of latitude. They will have the right to challenge a government that has the audacity to bar their road through programs or policies, whether on the environment or other areas. A company could feel wronged by a government that does not give it the opportunity to make enough profits, or does not respect its development, out of possible concern for the fate of its population. This makes no sense. It is in chapter 11. This would permit such companies to prosecute the government. There have been many cases where governments—including the Canadian government—have been prosecuted, and been obliged to pay millions of dollars in damages to companies that felt persecuted—poor little companies— by governments that were a little bolder than the companies themselves.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-24.

Bill C-24 is an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru. There are two side agreements, the agreement on the environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru, as well as the agreement on labour cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru.

If we start with a bit of background, a little of the history of how we got to debate this bill, it is actually the implementation legislation for the Canada-Peru free trade agreement. Canada is following the United States, which completed an FTA with Peru under the Bush administration in December 2007. This was in spite of strong opposition from trade unions, from civil society and from democrats who viewed this bill as an expansion of NAFTA.

Free trade negotiations with Peru date back to 2002, when the Chrétien Liberals first held discussions with the Andean community. The Andean community is Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia.

On June 7, 2007, then minister David Emerson announced the formal launch of free trade negotiations with Peru, and this government signed the bilateral agreement in May 2008.

The NDP opposes NAFTA-style treaties that put big business interests before workers and the environment at all costs and that have increased inequality and decreased quality of life for the majority of working families.

In the case of Canada-Peru, our concern is that a larger and much more economically developed country would take advantage of a country from the global south and that large corporate interests would end up shaping the so-called free trade architecture to serve their needs and not the interests of the public or the interests of the two trading nations.

My colleagues from the NDP and from the Bloc have spoken to some of the problems with this bill. They have spoken to the problems from the labour perspective, the problems with the impact on the environment and the problems regarding human rights. I think they have spoken the truth. Their words have been eloquent, as well as compelling.

I would like to speak to a possible solution. New Democrats are not anti-trade. Trade is good, but the trade we want to see is fair trade.

In question period, I have heard the stock answers from the ministers and the Prime Minister to our questions. The Prime Minister as of late has been answering so many questions with the response that it used to be that the NDP stood for something and now it is clear that the NDP stands for nothing. If I only had a nickel for every time I have heard that answer to a question that deserves a real answer.

We do stand for something. We stand for trade that is fair, that takes into account workers and farmers, that takes into account the environment, communities, wildlife. It is fairly easy for me to talk about what fair trade would look like and not as some pie in the sky theory or some untested utopia; it is something that is real, and it is something that works.

I have an example of fair trade right in my backyard in Nova Scotia. Just Us! Coffee Roasters Co-op is Canada's first fair trade coffee roaster. It is located in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. It is not in my riding, but it is not too far away.

Actually, it is in the riding of the Liberal member for Kings—Hants. I strongly encourage this member, who happens to be the Liberal international trade critic, to go there, in his riding, to meet with the folks from Just Us! Coffee Roasters Co-op, because they will be able to present him with a different view on international trade, one that is innovative and one that works.

Just Us! has a very firm belief in people and planet before profits. That is its motto. It is a fair trade coffee roaster.

What does fair trade mean? It is an innovative model for international trade. It offers not only a fair price to the workers but respect and empowerment for global south producers.

This little coffee co-op is a great example for us to look at. It has coffee, tea, sugar and chocolate. All of its products are grown naturally, without chemicals, and they are grown to enhance the well-being of farmers, communities, the environment and wildlife.

Imagine a world where governments signed fair trade agreements that kept to these principles. Imagine a North American fair trade agreement. Imagine a Canada-Colombia fair trade agreement.

Fair trade is a trading partnership. It is based on dialogue, transparency and respect, and it seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers, especially in the global south.

Fair trade organizations, which are backed by consumers, are engaged actively in supporting producers. They are engaged actively in awareness-raising and in campaigning for change in the rules and practices of conventional international trade.

The strategic intent of fair trade is threefold: first, to deliberately work with marginalized producers and workers in order to help them move from a position of vulnerability to one of security and economic self-sufficiency; second, to empower producers and workers as stakeholders in their own organizations; and third, to actively play a wider role in the global arena to achieve greater equity in international trade.

To put it more simply, fair trade is an alliance between producers and consumers that cuts through the middlemen. In the process it empowers producers, it gives them greater dignity, and a fairer price for their product. It provides consumers with high quality products they know are sustainable from a social and ecological point of view.

I commend Just Us! for leading by example. It was the first. We are really proud that it is a Nova Scotian company. It is interesting to note that when I go around Nova Scotia, I can go to the smallest coffee shop or the biggest chain and they are all serving Just Us! coffee. I invite members to room 519 of the Confederation Building, my office, where it is always stocked with Just Us! coffee. I am very proud to support its work in ensuring fair trade for our coffee growers.

This operation is located just off the highway in Wolfville, which is outside my riding. I am in the Annapolis Valley fairly often and I always try to stop by. There is actually a fair trade museum in the shop. It is quite something to see because it tells a story of fair trade from the perspective of farmers, women, the elderly and children. It is a really innovative way of looking at history and the museum tells a wonderful story. Congratulations to Just Us! for leading by example and also for trying to educate us, for trying to make us conscious consumers, and for trying to make us conscious and conscientious trade negotiators.

Let me go back to the agreement.

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

These types of NAFTA copycat agreements are meant for trade between highly industrialized and highly developed countries, but Peru is a developing nation. We do not like to use that word, but Peru is still working on industrialization and still developing economically.

This trade deal will not help Peru grow sustainably. It will not help increase the standard of living for its citizens. Instead, it is going to open up the country to exploitation by multinational corporations like, sadly, Canadian gold companies. Canadian corporations are very active and large investors in the natural resource sector in Peru.

The fact that this trade deal will not help Peru grow sustainably and increase its standard of living implicates us. We are complicit. Not only are we not helping Peru, but we are making sure that it does not grow sustainably, that it does not advance economically.

I am sure if we talked to Canadians on the street and asked, “What do you think about free trade?” Many people are probably going to say, “Yes, trade is a good thing. I'm all for it”, but if we took the time to actually explain what the implications of these trade deals are, I am sure we would get a different answer. Canadians are compassionate to each other and they are compassionate with their international friends and partners. I am pretty sure that Canadians would support fair trade over free trade given the option.

This free trade regime is strongly opposed by civil society groups, trade unions, environmental groups, and citizens from both Canada and Peru. This trade deal was negotiated in record time without any consultations with trade unions, environmental groups, civil society or citizens.

Another issue with this free trade agreement is the structure of it. It actually is in three parts. This is a bill about all these different parts of a free trade agreement. Why are things not all in one package? Why do we have these separate parts?

There is the main text of the FTA. Then there is a labour side agreement and an environmental protection side agreement. Labour and environment I would think would be fundamental issues to any trade agreement, yet they are put in these side agreements. They are on the side. They are not central to what is happening.

The CPFTA does not include tough labour standards. The labour provisions are in the side agreement. They are outside of the main text and they are without any vigorous enforcement mechanism. Trade unions in Peru have expressed concern because Peruvian labour law and arguably human rights law is deficient in several areas.

If we look at environmental protection by addressing the environment in a 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 pursuing environmental co-operation which sounds nice and to work to improve their environmental laws and policies which sounds nice, but it can only ask their parties to enforce their own domestic law. Pretty please, will ya? If they do not, there is not necessarily a consequence. Therefore, it is hard to imagine how this actually is going to be effective.

We can look at the situation in the U.S. and learn from it. Sometimes we learn from the successes, sometimes we learn from the failures, and I would argue that this time we should be looking to the failures to try to learn.

I have a great article by a woman named Mary Tharin. She is a research associate from the Council on Hemispheric Relations. She wrote an article in October 2008 entitled “Can Free Trade be Fair? Lessons from the Peru-U.S. Free Trade Agreement”.

I would encourage members to have a look at this article because it really does take the U.S. experience and draw out the lessons on this agreement. She notes that the United States has been complicit in Peru's legal and economic deterioration. That is a fact that needs to be taken into account before any further FTAs can be signed. She said in her article:

The Peruvian government is beginning to unravel as corruption charges and scandals threaten to completely discredit the already unpopular leadership of President Alan Garcia.

She talks in this article about how Garcia's minister of mines and energy as well as other top energy and state oil folks were fired in response to allegations of favouring a foreign energy company in exchange for bribes. Garcia also has a history of putting economic growth before the welfare of the population in Peru, before the welfare of the people. For years the Garcia administration has been manipulating Peruvian law in an attempt to draw foreign investment while at the same time completely failing to alleviate domestic poverty and therefore sacrificing the government's legitimacy in the eyes of the people of Peru.

However, Ms. Tharin argues that the United States, instead of taking a stand against Garcia's mishandling of the economy--because it could do that, it could stand up and say, “No, this is not the way we conduct business and we don't want to do business with a country that behaves this way”--has actually contributed to the problem by signing trade agreements with this unpopular government.

An approval of this FTA in the U.S. had been delayed in both the senate and the house, due to concerns mostly on the part of congressional Democrats about how Peru's environmental and labour protections would be affected by the agreement. Those are just a few of the problems with this agreement.

In closing, I think it would be incumbent upon all of us in this House to vote against this bill, considering the human rights violations that have been spoken about by my colleagues, the labour issues that have been spoken about and the environmental issues. We should be looking to what has happened in the U.S. and taking our cue from the failures there with this agreement. We should be looking to the successes that we can see with fair trade right here in Canada, right there in my home province of Nova Scotia.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-24 proposes 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 will explain the position of the Bloc Québécois, which will oppose this bill to implement an agreement with the Republic of Peru.

I will first quote from the statement by the Canadian Labour Congress, Peruvian central labour organizations, the Coordination of Andean central labour organizations and the Trade Union Confederation of the Americas, or TUCA, on the free trade agreement and the agreement on labour cooperation between Canada and Peru.

I found it interesting, because we have seen the new democratic American Congress force President Bush to review the agreement he had already negotiated with Peru—not by himself, of course, but through others—because Congress wanted that agreement to provide for greater rights, particularly for workers, and a greater social safety net. That was done.

Are these amendments enough for us to support this free trade agreement? No, and I will explain why.

Here is, first, an excerpt from the statement:

Based on their collective experience of free trade and investment agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), the Free Trade Agreement between the United States of America and Peru and the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Peru, the above-mentioned organizations [the ones I mentioned a moment ago] state that they profoundly disapprove of this kind of agreements that put the rights of investors before human rights, labour law and the social, economic, cultural and democratic rights of the people. These agreements are designed to be entered into by nations with comparable levels of development—

That is why a free trade agreement served as a basis for the establishment of the European Union. The declaration continues:

—and therefore ignore existing disparities between the economies of nations like Peru and those of nations like the United States of America and Canada, whose development is a hundred times greater than that of nations like Peru.

Clearly, those who made this statement also disagree with the signing of the United States-Peru agreement.

The Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement and the Canada-Peru Agreement on Labour Cooperation were negotiated in record time, and no civil society or labour organizations were consulted, nor were any analyses conducted on the effect they would have on the sectors of production, employment, human and labour rights, and the environment of both countries.

These agreements were negotiated in record time, without any consultations or analyses of the consequences.

Experience has shown that these types of agreements compromise the democratic process by giving more power to companies than to citizens and governments. They make the creation of an unregulated free market easier and more widespread, and encourage the adoption of economic, social and labour policies that make the job situation more precarious. That increases poverty, social exclusion and negative impact on the environment, particularly in Peru. Since we are experiencing a global economic crisis, this is not an appropriate time to be signing this type of agreement.

As indicated in Labour's Platform for the Americas, which was adopted by labour organizations of the entire western hemisphere, in order to be considered acceptable, all international trade agreements must have a primary objective of creating decent jobs and sustainable development. The agreement must protect the fundamental labour standards that can be implemented in the signatory countries.

Experience suggests that it is unlikely that the labour provisions [which I spoke of earlier] in trade agreements, whether they are side deals or the main agreements, will lead to concrete improvements to the situation of workers. Trade agreements like NAFTA are not intended to improve labour standards, and there is no indication that they can become a means to ensure labour rights.

We urge the Parliament of Canada to refuse to ratify the Canada-Peru FTA until there has been a full assessment of the economic and social impacts it will likely have on capital mobility, wages, employment stability, working conditions and the environment in both countries and steps have been taken to make up for any deficiency.

The Bloc Québécois is opposed to implementing this free trade agreement not only on these grounds, but also because the Bloc Québécois is against the government's strategy of making piecemeal trade agreements. The Bloc Québécois prefers the multilateral approach. Multilateral is a word that may seem complicated, because it is not used on a daily basis, but Latin scholars will know that it means a strategy that includes all the parties, on different sides.

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. Canada should work within the International Labour Organization 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. That does not mean that trade and trade agreements automatically profit everyone. It is important to see whom these trade agreements benefit. However, ordinary people can benefit only if these trade agreements include measures that will ensure sustainable development and that will promote the development of the populations involved.

However, I must point out that 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. I will talk about this later, but I want to say that the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, which has been in force for a number of years, has promoted development in Canada and the United States. That free trade agreement included an investment clause, but it was nothing like the clause in NAFTA. It was mainly because of that investment clause that the Bloc Québécois campaigned hard against the free trade agreement of the Americas.

In fact, the presence of a chapter to protect investments such as one patterned on chapter 11 might interfere with Peru’s social and economic development rather than helping it to develop, as is hoped.

Peru is a minor trading partner for Quebec. Quebec’s exports to Peru represent only 0.14% of total exports from Quebec. It is therefore a small partner and Quebec does not stand to lose.

It must be added that Canada’s main business activity in Peru is in the mining sector. Unfortunately, Peru’s track record on worker protection in that sector is hardly a glowing one. So the agreement does not contain any real policy to hold Canadian mining companies accountable. We talk about it here and there, and the government commissioned a substantial report on the need to impose constraints on mining companies that are created in Canada and everywhere in the world.

Ratifying this agreement will enable mining companies to expand their activities without being liable to any consequences for their actions when they pollute or when they flout human rights.

In Peru, this agreement will not help the situation of people in need, and it will especially not help the Peruvians most desperate to defend their rights, the indigenous people. There are about 600,000 indigenous people in Peru, in the Amazon region, who are subject to enormous inequality, and yet they are the ones most affected by this agreement between Canada and Peru, from what I understand. The mines and the extraction companies that operate facilities in the tropical forest or in areas where the indigenous people live will destroy their habitat without offering any compensation and without consideration, as is generally the case. The indigenous people, for whom it is already difficult to defend their rights, will find themselves in an even worse situation.

Is that our business? Yes. We cannot tell the Peruvians to look after the indigenous people there. Quite the contrary. We know that various products like oil are extracted there. Other products are extracted from mines by various companies. There are also the forestry companies.

Those companies certainly do not come bearing gifts for the indigenous people; quite the contrary. The agreement, which provides for there to be a significant increase in investments, cannot help but please the government, regardless of its feelings about the people there otherwise. I do not want to meddle in this, but I simply want to point out that Canadians have a responsibility in negotiating this kind of agreement, which will enable extraction companies to displace populations who have no means to defend themselves.

To provide an idea of the situation they are in, I thought I would tell the House about some of the documentation I have seen.

There was a study, for example, on inequalities in infant mortality rates. Infants born near the national capital of Peru have first year survival rates that are more than two times higher than the national average. These are children born near the capital. Children born in the forest or the Sierra region, especially in the south, have rates that are almost two times lower than the national average. These inequalities in the infant mortality rates are the result of social inequality, which itself reflects the different rates of inclusion in the social system. This study was a few years old, but there is nothing to indicate it cannot be used today to understand the plight of the indigenous peoples.

The government and Peru's Indian communities are meeting this week in Lima, the capital, against a backdrop of mounting tensions in the northeast, where a state of emergency was decreed pursuant to indigenous demonstrations against the oil concessions granted to the Franco-British multinational, Perenco.

The president of the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Jungle, Mr. Pizango, described this decree as an act of aggression. Pizango and a number of Indian leaders are going to meet with Prime Minister Simon today, but without any apparent hope of making progress. “The government, and not just the government, has always treated us like second-class citizens”, Pizango said. His organization represents 65 different ethnic groups living in 1,350 communities with a total population of 600,000 located in the east Amazon part of Peru.

There have been blockades for a month now of roads, rivers and airports in the north to get the decrees I mentioned rescinded. According to the indigenous communities, the controls over mining, petroleum, forest and water development on their ancestral lands are being weakened. Between three and ten demonstrators were hurt on Sunday. On Monday, the International Federation of Human Rights supported the demands of the indigenous peoples and called for the withdrawal of these decrees as well.

One of the reasons I have been fighting the free trade agreement is that it allows all Canadian investors—who may be fine individuals—to pursue and to step up the exploitation of sub-surface resources in these sensitive regions, which need to be protected, along with the people who live there.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of 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 third time and passed.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in participating in the debate on 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, but I also have some serious concerns.

When we look at the debate surrounding this free trade agreement with Peru, it is clear that there are few things that are specific to this Latin American country. In other words, this agreement is part of the trade policy the federal government has been pushing in the Americas for the past few years. So, some of the criticisms I will make today will sometimes be similar to criticisms I could make of the agreement with Columbia, which we saw recently.

In both cases, the Conservative government presented Parliament with agreements that had already been signed and negotiated before Parliament even had a chance to examine them and make recommendations or changes. That is a disgrace. I participated in a mission to Columbia with the member for Sherbrooke. We met with unions, community groups, grassroots groups, business leaders and others and they made a number of important comments. If the government had really taken the time to examine this agreement and the report put out by the Standing Committee on International Trade, I am not sure that this agreement would be before the House today.

On January 28, 2008, the federal government announced that it had signed a free trade agreement with Peru, once again presenting parliamentarians with a fait accompli. As representatives of the people of Quebec and Canada, we cannot accept this sign of contempt, this negligent attitude toward democracy that the Conservative Party demonstrates when it presents us with this sort of agreement that has been signed without any substantive debate.

In my opinion, this contempt for institutions is certainly not the best way to serve democracy. I deplore the fact that the Liberals sanction such behaviour by the Conservatives. They want to take over the government in the next election, so they should know that we cannot accept this sort of thing.

That said, the Bloc Québécois is strongly opposed to this implementation bill because it does not meet a number of criteria and objectives that, in the Bloc's view, must be met before free trade agreements are signed, especially with developing countries.

In the interests of international solidarity, we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to condemn bilateral free trade agreements that go against workers' rights, the environment and even some countries' ability to maintain their sovereignty. We condemned the bill to implement the free trade agreement with Colombia, as I mentioned, and we are condemning this one as well today.

Not so long ago, I was reading a great American writer, Joseph Stiglitz, who said that the problem with bilateral agreements is that often, stronger countries exploit weaker ones. This is less likely to happen with multilateral agreements.

That is the danger of these agreements. Often, they come back to haunt us. If, during the negotiating process, Canada does not respect the rights of foreign workers and developing countries, it very often finds itself exploiting people in very difficult conditions. Companies are not always environmentally friendly. They take their operations offshore and cut jobs here at home because it is easier for them to engage in their economic activities if they do not respect certain social conditions, certain working conditions and the environment.

The Bloc Québécois has always maintained that trade can contribute to the socio-economic prosperity of nations. However, this can only be the case if trade agreements include measures that ensure sustainable development, respect for the environment and the development of the populations involved. That is particularly true when these bilateral agreements involve a developed country and a developing country, such as the treaty with Peru.

The free trade agreement with Peru 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. So, any legislation that prevents an investor from fully enjoying his investment could lead to court action and compensation. We are essentially giving the upper hand to foreign investors, who will dictate the social, economic, cultural and environmental policies of the country that welcomes them. That is not normal.

Imagine an environmental law that would prevent a polluter from enjoying his polluting investment, such as in the mining sector. The act would not be struck down because an environmental provision would allow the state to maintain it, but it could be deemed as requiring payment of compensation. Moreover, the agreement has the effect of raising the amount of compensation to be paid. Indeed, in the case of expropriation, not only does the state find itself forced to pay the value of the investment—that is the initial amount invested—but also all the revenues that the investor anticipated from his investment.

In other words, in this chapter 11, compensation also applies to lost profits. That is shameful. With such agreements, the sky is the limit. This government seems to want to promote these agreements, instead of multilateral treaties. This opens the door to court action, and the amounts involved would be so high that they would deter the state from passing any legislation that may upset multinational companies that carry on operations on its territory.

Since the Peruvian economy is the more vulnerable one, it is more likely to suffer the consequences of a clause protecting investments. In Canada, which is a developed country, the impact will not be as significant, particularly since there are not many Peruvian investments here. The situation is quite different in Peru. For example, a Canadian multinational will be able to legitimately challenge any environmental law passed by the Peruvian government, on the ground that the legislation prevents it from benefiting from its investment.

Considering that Canadian investments in Peru are primarily in the mining sector, which is a great polluter, there is cause for concern. 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 definitely not the best thing to do to improve the social, environmental and economic conditions of Peruvian workers. Moreover, I do not see how this could have a positive impact on the economy of Berthier—Maskinongé and of Quebec as a whole.

In a nutshell, we are afraid that measures to protect investments provide disproportionate protection for Canadian investors as opposed to local people and the environment. Obviously, Peru can enact legislation and make regulations to govern the activities of mining companies.

But the danger lies in the fact that the Peruvian government does not have the resources or infrastructure needed for proper oversight of the companies’ activities inside that country.

The Bloc Québécois is opposed to this agreement. We are not opposed to protecting our companies’ investments abroad, but this must not be done at the expense of the rights and needs of the local people. Because Canada’s primary interest is in investments in the mining sector, the Bloc Québécois believes we need to adopt a real policy to hold Canadian mining companies accountable. I am not talking about a disguised policy like one of the motions the Liberals introduced in the House not so long ago. They lectured us on the whole question of corporate social responsibility abroad and they vote in favour of agreements like these with Peru or Colombia. We need a real social responsibility policy, one adopted here in this House, an aggressive policy that means that when we sign bilateral agreements, that being something we are somewhat opposed to, preferring multilateral agreements, at least chapter 11 will not apply.

In 2007, the Bloc Québécois called on the federal government, as recommended in the Report of the Advisory Group for the National Roundtables, to adopt mandatory standards and accountability measures relating to the activities of mining companies abroad. This issue has been going on for a long time. Those measures should be accompanied by penalties for companies that do not comply, for example by eliminating their entitlement to tax benefits, loan guarantees and other forms of federal government assistance. Not only are these companies often operating in very particular situations, but they are also financially supported by our governments. In March, unfortunately, the Conservative government rejected a large majority of the recommendations we had made. The Conservative government has decided that social responsibility standards will be voluntary instead of mandatory.

The Liberals support the free trade agreement, in spite of all the speeches they make in this House where they say they support respect for the environment and corporate social responsibility abroad.

If we do not have an accountability policy, the mining companies will be able to expand their activities and will be subject to no rules and liable to no consequences when they pollute or they threaten human rights.

I also want to mention the dispute settlement mechanism in this agreement. The mechanism provides that a company that feels that a government has violated the investment provisions can institute proceedings directly against that government before an arbitration tribunal. We have a lot of questions about the dispute settlement mechanism in this chapter. 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. It is quite something.

Although the free trade agreement with Peru has a number of improvements in terms of transparency—this has to be said and we pointed a few of them out—the Bloc Québécois still feels that disputes should be settled on a centralized, multilateral basis involving the different countries that signed the bilateral agreements, rather than on a case-by-case basis.

We cannot accept the fact that multinational companies not only have special privileges in comparison with the host society in general but can also institute legal proceedings against a national government before special tribunals.

Our opposition to this free trade agreement is not based solely on the way investments are protected. We think that the government’s strategy of concluding individual trade agreements makes it impossible to establish a fair trading relationship that benefits everyone.

We cannot enrich ourselves by exploiting people because, as I have said, that comes back to haunt us every time.

We put downward pressure on wages in other regions. If people are kept in poverty with terrible working conditions, the downward pressure is felt by working people around the world. If companies are allowed to exploit people now, they will come back here in another form to do business and put downward pressure on the working conditions of our workers.

The government is currently negotiating free trade agreements with some 20 countries, in addition to the agreement it signed with the four countries of the European Free Trade Association. We supported this agreement. We are not against all agreements. This one was economically beneficial and respected workers’ rights and environmental legislation. It had major benefits for Quebeckers and all Canadians. For these reasons, we supported it. We are not opposed to every kind of agreement.

No studies have been done, though, showing whether these bilateral agreements are beneficial. Regardless of whether they are good or not, the Liberals and Conservatives are ready to sign more of them even though it is still impossible to determine whether they have been beneficial.

Last year, I sat as a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. We invited government experts and we asked them what the benefits would be for Quebec and Canada. We wanted to know if this agreement was fair and if workers were going to benefit from it, or if it was going to result in job losses. The government is often unable to provide an answer to that question and it signs free trade agreements with other countries, without knowing the economic, social and political consequences of these treaties. That is unbelievable.

As I mentioned, I was with the member for Sherbrooke during the discussions on the agreement with Colombia. The government spent money to send a parliamentary delegation, to meet officials in that country, and to see what was going on there in the context of this agreement. However, the agreement was signed before the government read the committee's report. That is strange. It does not matter whether the agreement is good or bad, the Liberals sign it.

In a report presented by the Standing Committee on International Trade, the Conservative government even considered signing a free trade agreement with China. Just imagine: a bilateral agreement with China. What would be the economic spinoffs here?

In my riding, the manufacturing, furniture and textile sectors have felt that impact. There was talk of a new bilateral agreement. When it comes to international trade, this government does not seem to have a clear direction, along with objectives to ensure economic viability and respect for individuals, environmental standards and workers from all over the world, and not just Quebec or Canada.

These agreements weaken the multilateral approach. Bilateral agreements with developing countries should be avoided, because they often lead to agreements that put richer countries at an advantage over poorer countries. This is not from me, but Mr. Stiglitz, a former adviser to the Clinton administration and the author of many books, who condemns these bilateral agreements. This is the situation that we are experiencing with this accord and with the one with Colombia.

Since I only have one minute left, I am going to conclude.

I do not believe that these treaties will have a major economic impact in Quebec, particularly the agreement with Peru, or the one with Colombia. Instead, we should work a lot harder to get respect from our big American partner, and we should stand up to it regarding some issues.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to voice my opposition to Bill C-24.

One of the things I was reminded of as I sat here is that in the early to mid 1980s we started a free trade agreement with the United States. I recall that a certain Conservative member said it was like sleeping with an elephant and if the elephant rolled over we would be in some difficulty.

That particular debate went on, and ultimately the free trade agreement was signed. Then the elephant rolled over and from 1988 to 1990 Canada lost 524,000 manufacturing jobs. We have progressed, some people might say, to NAFTA, and the repercussions are still being felt.

What I see as a change in this proposed agreement is that we are somewhat of a dominant partner in this one. With that dominant partner status comes a responsibility. As a nation, we could have been taking the lead on the environment and labour rights in this particular country. We know that many of the South American countries have some tremendous problems in the area of human rights. The records are disastrous down there.

Bill C-24 is a bill 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. With regard to labour cooperation, we had an opportunity to enhance the labour standards in this country by setting benchmarks that should have been in the agreement.

Nobody in this place will dispute the necessity of trade. We all understand that Canada is a trading nation. Canada has taken a leadership role in human rights in the world for many generations now, and it is highly regarded and respected. This is a lost opportunity. We had an opportunity to similarly move the benchmark forward in the negotiations around the free trade agreement with Colombia. As we know, Colombia has the worst human rights record on the face of the earth. Some will say, and I am sure they are sincere, that by having trade and having an agreement with Colombia, Peru and other countries, that this will enhance and bring forward their human rights. Personally, I believe we should have been pressing for human rights prior to even entering into negotiations.

Members may recall that there was a report prepared on the corporate and social responsibility. In fact I believe the member from Sherbrooke commented on it in his remarks. Well, that particular report never made it to this House. That report was returned to the government a year ago last November. It was talking about situations, particularly of Canadian enterprises operating in South America and other countries.

There has been a question in our communities as to why that was never tabled in this House. Why was that document not brought forward? The NGOs, the civil society and other people came together across this country to prepare it. I think the evidence is now here as to why the government would not want the corporate and social responsibility document tabled; it is because it would directly impact on these two agreements.

From time to time in our offices we are visited by guests from other countries. Just last week we had a young woman, Yessika Morales, who visited us from Colombia. Yessika's father was shot and killed by the paramilitaries in 2001. She came to us with her concerns about that particular trade agreement with Colombia.

They have a great fear in that part of the world. In no way am I suggesting Canadian companies are directly complicit, but in South America, if a corporation from any part of the world working there were to be something like King Henry when he said, “Will nobody rid me of this troublesome monk?” and Thomas Becket died, in a similar fashion, if the executive board or the executives of a mining corporation or other enterprise were to suggest that there is any kind of problem with a labour leader, that labour leader would be gone.

The example is Colombia, where 2,690 trade unionists have died since 1986. Some people ask how I know that is part of that; it's because in the same period about 17,000 people died. Amnesty International's Human Rights Watch and others have documented these cases.

We had a great opportunity with this dominant position that I referred to before to take our place as an international leader on human rights, to sustain that position and to move forward to help countries like Peru. We failed to do it.

In the particular agreement, once again, labour rights and environment rights are side agreements. I come from the labour movement, and in my time I was part of the negotiations between Bell Canada and the union, on the union side. During negotiations in 1988, and then again in 1990, we went to the employer with our list of our proposals and the employer would have a list of their proposals. It is interesting that ours were called demands and theirs were called proposals, but that is another issue. At some point in the negotiations we reached a place where we said we could not resolve this. But we had to have something. In that case, the employer wrote a letter of intent.

That was all well and good. When the collective agreement was signed and we were back in the workplace and workers' rights seemed to be impinged, we went to the union and said we wanted to grieve. The union said it was sorry it could not because that was only a letter of intent; it was not binding.

These side agreements are exactly the same thing as this letter of intent. It is a nice way of masking that we do not have any powerful, sustainable actions we can take to protect the environment in Peru, or protect the workers' rights, or the workers' lives, in many cases. It is very troubling when we look at an agreement of this nature.

I will give some credit to the government, because it has moved somewhat away from the Bush agreements of the past. We would probably find that some of those have been getting a very rough ride in the Congress of the United States, but it has moved somewhat past that. Still, it does not do what is needed to protect the workers of this country. As we demean or lower the rights of any nation in the world, it takes the rights of all nations and lowers them.

It is important to consider who will benefit from trade agreements of this nature. I will give an example of one company, the Bank of Nova Scotia, that will be moving to higher investments in Peru. I am sure that on the investment front there will be some reciprocal trade that happens, and it is to the benefit of the countries involved.

I must point out, Peru is not a major trading partner with Canada to begin with. Our two-way merchandise trade between the two countries only reached $2.8 billion in 2008, and Canadian imports were over $2 billion, of which 50% was from Canadian gold companies operating in Peru.

I go back again for a moment to corporate social responsibility. That highlights the importance of having a framework of the responsibilities we expect of Canadian companies when they operate in a nation like Peru, whether we have a trade deal or not.

With that initial trade deal, the negotiations were started as far back as 2002, under Mr. Chrétien and the Liberals at the time. They first held discussions with Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia. Our trade minister in 2007 launched the formal trade talks with Peru, and the government signed in May 2008.

There are critics around the world on trade issues and trade agreements. Mary Tharin, from the COHA, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, was talking about the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement, and she suggested the agreement has given the president of Peru the excuse to start dismantling labour rights and what regulations they do have on the environment in Peru.

From my perspective, the good news is that since the president started doing that, his approval rating has dropped or has almost vanished. However, we are not talking about a democracy like Canada when we are talking about the impact that would have on him and how that might sway him not to proceed to a greater degree of damaging those particular rights.

In the United States in 2007, there was a considerable debate and, as indicated, some compromise was made and it approved a free trade agreement with Peru designed to drastically reduce import-export tariffs, hypothetically putting an end to protectionism on both sides.

We hear the government saying that we cannot have a buy Canadian strategy because that would be protectionist in this worst of times. As the member from Winnipeg pointed out earlier in his remarks, in 1927 the United States undertook protectionism, if we want to call it that, but it was buy American where procurements of local governments and state governments were intended to spend their taxpayer money on, heaven forbid, American goods, which is, in my opinion, precisely what we should be doing in this country.

The approval for that free trade agreement in the United States has been delayed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives due to concerns, mostly on the part of the congressional democrats, I would say, about Peru's environmental and labour standards. It took quite a while for that to ultimately get resolved.

Despite the free trade agreement's conditions, which state that labour standards must not be lowered, a number of President Garcia's recent decrees have put the country's public service workers in jeopardy. In May, the Federation of State Employees got to the point where they felt desperate enough to organize a strike.

The whole problem is that these agreements are about trade at all costs. We should think about that for a moment. Yes, I said in my opening remarks that trade is important, and we all accept the necessity of trade, but Canada as a country has always been a country that took principled stands, a country that stood up for human rights and for the values that are necessary to sustain a healthy country.

Tomorrow there will be a demonstration outside of this place by a group of labour unions and labour activists. As we close in on June 6, the anniversary of D-Day, we are reminded how the veterans of this country fought in the war against Nazi Germany to have Canadians sustained and have the right to demonstrate outside of this place.

Canada has gone far and wide to protect the rights of citizens in other countries and in our own country and has done a wonderful job in doing so. However, when we move to agreements with nations with questionable human rights records and questionable records on the environment and we fail, as the dominant partner in those negotiations, to improve areas of the environment, environmental regulation, labour laws and rights, then we fail as a nation.

I am really troubled that in the two agreements, the agreement with Peru and, more particularly, the agreement with Colombia, I think our government has failed us. In the particular case of the free trade agreement with Colombia, I am quite ashamed of the fact that we would even negotiate with a government that is as tied to the drug trade as that nation is.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure and conviction that I rise again to speak to 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.

Once again, the environmental and labour issues are being dealt with in side agreements, which aim for the minimum requirements established by the country with which we are signing the agreement rather than promoting the environmental and labour rights and laws in that country. Every free trade agreement always contains a section on investment. We agree that there should be a minimum of protection for foreign investment and that it should be properly regulated. However, there must be limits on the powers given by agreements, for example NAFTA's chapter 11.

We are in an era of innovation. We must innovate not only in the sciences, social sciences and business, but also in free trade agreements. We are discussing bilateral agreements. We must be innovative and promote environmental rights, labour rights and, in some countries, human rights.

This innovation could start today, in the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, simply by our telling the government to redo its homework. The government must do it again and innovate in terms of bilateral free trade agreements, as in this case.

An aside, if I may. The Bloc Québécois strongly advocates multilateral agreements. It must be pointed out that, in this sort of agreement, the same set of rules applies to everyone. Even the WTO must protect human rights, labour rights and environmental rights. That is the end of my aside.

The government talks of liberalizing trade. An American author said that increasing the freedom of trade index by 1% could and would increase trade. Hence the mad race by all countries to establish agreements with other countries to liberalize trade. However, we must never lose sight of the fact that freedom must also rhyme with responsibility. When the government makes an agreement with another country it must be responsible for its actions and for the decisions and agreements it makes. They can create a multitude of problems for people in emerging countries who want to improve their situation.

We see this responsibility clearly in the mining sector, among others. At the moment, Canada's mining companies operating abroad cause damage to the environment and displace many people. They are responsible only under the environmental laws of the other countries. This agreement does not promote environmental rights strongly enough to ensure our mining companies are responsible. Their responsibility is voluntary, to all intents and purposes. It is why a significant number of mining companies from around the world incorporate in Canada, for then they are not responsible for their actions abroad.

Thus they can save a lot of money. But they create catastrophes as well, and they should be responsible for them. If I have the time, I will come back to the subject of mines.

In my remarks, unlike in the speeches we often hear, I would like to return to the testimony given before the Standing Committee on International Trade. This testimony was heard long after the agreement was signed and long after the parties had indicated what stands they would take on this bill.

I have notes on a number of witnesses, but not all, because I could have spent an entire day on it. A number of things were said in committee that most of the Liberal and Conservative members did not hear, unfortunately. Perhaps it would be a good idea to tell them that this might be the perfect opportunity for this agreement to become the model of agreements for Canada in the future. We oppose this agreement and hope to have the support of the majority of members in this House in order to innovate. Although we would prefer multilateral agreements, when bilateral agreements are made, they must be made in the best possible way.

For example, I will quote a witness who appeared in committee on May 7, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which is the largest agricultural association in Canada with over 200,000 producers. In Quebec, there is an expression that the witness used at the beginning of his testimony. He said that this agreement ce n'est pas le Pérou, meaning that this agreement is not perfect, it is not a cure-all for all of the current trade problems or irritants. But it is being signed with Peru.

The president said that it is obviously not perfect, far from it. But he and his producers would still like it to move forward as quickly as possible. He also criticized the negotiators. I would make a distinction. There are negotiators who negotiate. Often, the negotiators negotiate what the government asks them to negotiate. The negotiators focus on things chosen by the government. The negotiators also negotiate by leaving out some aspects, because the government has asked them to leave them out. The government asks the negotiators to sign, at any cost, almost any condition, whether or not it is favourable to the people, to entrepreneurs and to businesspeople. He criticized the negotiators because, according to him, if we compare this agreement with the one signed with the United States, the reduction was faster in the United States than in Canada. The quotas were also much larger and there was no most favoured nation clause. He said that some sectors benefited more—grains, wheat, barley and pulses. Of course, some sectors lost out. We never saw an impact study from the government or the negotiators. According to them, some sectors stand to gain, and others stand to lose. However, we have never seen an impact study and projections of these impacts, not only for the business of people who export, or for the benefit of some who import, but also for all workers in Quebec and Canada.

Impact studies would tell us what will happen in a given industry or in a given sector and what the gains and losses will be. We should also ask ourselves what our priorities are and why. We never had impact studies on free trade agreements. We are not asking anyone to tell the future by looking into a crystal ball. In fact, it is obvious that there are not too many crystal balls around. I know a government that went from a zero deficit to a $50 billion deficit in a span of a few weeks or a few months. So we do not really need a crystal ball.

There are various other products, but I will not name them.

Of course, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was aware of deficiencies with regard to labour and environmental laws. He still argues that even though our farmers do not enjoy the same treatment as American farmers and even though progress is slow, we should sign the agreement. Again, there has not been any impact studies on producers and farmers, nor on the population as a whole whose quality of life we must look to improve to a certain extent. For example, to show the difference, in the United States, the tariff on certain products, including pork, will be eliminated within five years. However, in Canada, it will take 17 years. So the difference is quite substantial.

The president of the federation told us also that the federation agreed to multilateral negotiations. That being said, he kept repeating that negotiators would have to adjust, but also that ,in turn, it would be mostly up to the government to adjust.

We heard from other witnesses, including the Canadian Wheat Board. The wheat sector is obviously among the biggest winners.

I mentioned pork. I want to show the relative importance of that agreement for Canadian pork, for instance, on international markets. Director General Jacques Pomerleau said:

Knowing that we would never get what the Americans received, our negotiators became very creative in ensuring that we would still get some benefits. They accepted a longer tariff elimination period, 17 years instead of ten, but they were able to get for us a duty-free quota that will allow our exporters to better position themselves at the very beginning. We have to admit that this quota of 325 tonnes, that will progressively extend to 504 tonnes over 10 years, is relatively small for an industry that exports over one million tonnes every year.

There are little aberrations like that. Others, like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, are very much in favour. The only thing, really, is that we do not want to be overtaken by other countries that could sign a FTA with Peru, among others. The same holds true for other agreements. Because Colombia and the United States were negotiating an agreement that did not get Congress approval, Canada raced like mad. It was intent on signing and implementing an agreement before the United States did. This was crucial to the government, even if it meant doing so at the expense of Colombia or human rights. Globally, a mad race was on, with businesses from all countries trying to globalize, as we do. Soon, every country on this planet will have bilateral free trade agreements with the 199 other countries. Naturally, variances and differences will develop. Why not focus primarily on multilateral agreements? I think it would be the most sensible way to go.

I was talking about environmental laws earlier. The Canadian Environmental Law Association was represented in evidence given before a committee on May 26, 2009. Ms. McClenaghan, executive director and counsel in that association, criticized the fact that investors can access the states. She said it was a serious problem. Particularly when we talk about investors, we must of course refer to the investment agreement that echoes chapter 11 of NAFTA whereby investors have access to the state, which could be problematic. We know that investors can sue countries for various reasons under the major heading of expropriation, which includes two elements. There is direct expropriation, that is, in the true sense of the word, and indirect expropriation, which, no matter what happens, relates to a business' loss of anticipated profits.

To give an example of such a free-trade agreement, Ms. McClenaghan referred to the agreement between Australia and the United States whereby no investors had access to the state. It was also a model of social and environmental protection. In terms of labour laws and occupational health and safety, Canadian businesses are operating in a country where little attention is paid to people's rights.

I must briefly come back to the topic of mining. Regarding mining companies and corporate responsibility, we have motion M-283, moved by the hon. Liberal member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, and Bill C-300 introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood. The Bloc Québécois supports both items—the motion and the bill—because their goal is to make mining companies accept greater responsibility in countries like Peru and Colombia. If the Liberals are to be consistent with their bill and their motion, they must also, for that reason, vote against the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I therefore call on all Liberal members, including those from Quebec, and all members to vote against this implementation act.

The House resumed from May 29 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 third time and passed.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about 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.

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.

Peru is a minor trading partner for Quebec. 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. Given the provisions of this bill, it should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to it.

The investment protection agreement in the free trade agreement with Peru is a copy of chapter 11 of NAFTA, which 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. 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 at the root of numerous proceedings that have been brought against various governments in Mexico, the United States and Canada and sometimes result in millions of 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.

I can provide a number of examples of litigation related to NAFTA chapter 11. Pope and Talbot, Inc. v. Government of Canada involved softwood lumber quotas.

The government expropriated the company.

The company claimed that its rights had been violated on five NAFTA provisions: national treatment, most favoured nations treatment, minimum standard of treatment, performance requirements and expropriation.

According to the suit, the government expropriated the company because the allocation of the quotas caused the company to lose profits. The government did not meet performance requirements because the quota system favours the provinces not affected by the system. The government did not meet the minimum standard of treatment because the allocation of quotas was unfair and inequitable, and had been done secretively.

It is clear that in Quebec, for instance, there are lumber quotas for forestry companies. Since a large part of the forest belongs to the state, the Quebec government, the quotas are allocated to the company. Once again, in this case, in an interim award in June, the tribunal determined that Canada was consistent with its obligations respecting performance requirements and expropriation, and the tribunal did not rule on the other issues.

Madam Speaker, I hear the fire alarm.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised at the interruptions from Conservatives. It is difficult to have to listen to a trade strategy that they clearly do not seem to grasp. If they had, a lot more Canadians would be at work today.

We have chapter 11 provisions. We have that reinforcement of CEOs. We do not have the labour protections. We do not have the environmental protections. That is why we are voting no to Bill C-24.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, as you know, we are at third reading of Bill C-24. Comments by members have to be relevant and very specific to the matter at hand. We are talking about Peru. The member has gone off on other tangents talking about trading relationships with other countries in Latin America and the United States. I would ask the Speaker to bring the member back to focus on the Peruvian deal that is before the House at this time.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to 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.

I would like to start with what is positive. What is positive in this agreement, and obviously most Liberals and Conservatives are completely unaware of this, is that this is an NDP-amended document that is being brought into the House today. Why is that important? It is important because certainly as long as I have been in the House, for five years, we have been hearing a litany, both from the former Liberal government and the current Conservative government that trade agreement implementation bills were unamendable.

That has been a refrain from the Liberals since time immemorial, saying we cannot touch these agreements. Even though every parliament, congress and legislature elsewhere in the world does it regularly, for five years and even longer, Madam Speaker, as you well know, given your knowledge of parliamentary history, we have had Liberals and Conservatives saying we cannot touch these bills. Most notably and most recently that was with the shipbuilding sellout bill, with EFTA, where the NDP brought forward amendments to carve out our shipbuilding sector so it could survive. With the longest coastline in the world it would be important to have a shipbuilding industry, but Conservatives and Liberals said no, we cannot amend the implementation bill.

We now have a principle today in the House, which will rest for time immemorial, that Parliament does have the right and does have the obligation to look at a trade implementation bill and to make the necessary amendments and changes. For that, I think this is an important precedent. Obviously the Conservatives may not have tried to jib the fact that the bill has been amended with what they have been saying for years, and Liberals obviously did not think about the consequences to changing their particular statements, but the reality is the bill is amended and that establishes a whole new precedent for future bills.

We went through the softwood sellout, and I was told consistently, and our caucus was told consistently, that we cannot change the softwood sellout implementation bill. We knew that it would cost thousands of jobs, hundreds of millions of dollars to Canadians, that it was an appallingly shortsighted and irresponsible bill, but we were told by Liberals and Conservatives that we cannot touch it.

More recently, with the shipbuilding sellout, the EFTA bill, the NDP fought in the House day after day, read letters from hundreds of shipyard workers in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Quebec and elsewhere, who were writing to members of Parliament to say, do not be irresponsible, do not sell out our shipbuilding industry, please carve out shipbuilding from the agreement. Liberals and Conservative said the same thing again. They said we cannot touch an implementation bill.

Today we have the answer to that. Yes, we can touch an implementation bill, and we can amend it. This will carry forward to all further debates on trade issues. Unfortunately, the Conservatives being Conservatives, and Liberals being Liberals, they did not take all the NDP amendments, including the amendment that asked for a five-year review clause. That is unfortunate. For that and a whole bunch of other reasons, as witnesses before the trade committee said very clearly, this is an inferior bill. It is an inferior treaty for Canada to what the United States negotiated with Peru and what the U.S. Congress did in changing the implementation legislation.

We have an inferior bill. That is the only word that describes it. It is inferior on labour and environmental protections to what the United States Congress put into the U.S.-Peru bill. It is inferior in terms even of access to the Peruvian market for Canadian agricultural exports. We have an inferior bill. The only really good thing we can say about it is that it is NDP-amended, establishing a precedent that will carry on forevermore. Madam Speaker, the next time a Conservative or a Liberal stands in the House and says trade implementation bills are unamendable, we have the answer. We have the precedent, and for that I am thankful.

What do we have in Bill C-24, the inferior Canada-Peru trade deal being put forward? A number of other speakers have already spoken to the inadequacies of any labour or environmental protections that were put in the side agreements. We had testimony before the international trade committee that was very clear on that. What we have is simply an attempt to draft side legislation as a sort of symbolic attempt to look at labour and environmental issues.

It is not included in the agreement. The U.S. Congress took its trade bill, toughened it up, and made it much stronger to actually protect Peruvians from the Peruvian government. It put in place the kind of ILO protections, the International Labour Organization protections, that most Canadians would want to see. We want to look at fair trade agreements that actually raise the quality of life and enhance environment protection, not push them down, for a number of reasons. One is that this is clearly an inferior bill.

Is that a problem? It is because witnesses who came forward even earlier this week to the trade committee, such as Maxwell Cameron from the University of British Columbia, said that currently, Peru is refusing to keep its obligations under the International Labour Organization treaties.

Even before this bill is implemented, we already have the Peruvian government breaking its word on other issues. It has already broken and refused to keep its commitments under the ILO. We have a government that is putting forward an exceedingly weak labour side agreement, which is essentially nothing but symbolic, and it is doing this knowing that even if it were not tougher, the Peruvian government would not be willing to keep its commitment under the ILO.

Therefore, we really have no mechanism that pushes to increase labour standards in Peru or increase environmental standards. The line of the government, up until today actually, has been, “We are really trying to do something good for the people of Peru, as well as ensure a market for our exports”. The parliamentary secretary came clean today. He said it was not important, that we are not actually looking at labour standards or the environment in this agreement. It is all about trade.

From that standpoint as well, the reason why the NDP is saying no to this inferior agreement is because the government had no intention of raising labour standards or labour rights, or raising environmental standards. The government says it is part of a broader trade strategy.

We then have to look at how our trade strategy is going so far. What has the government done on trade?

We had the egregiously bad softwood sellout, which most Canadians opposed. The Liberals and Conservatives ganged together, and I regret to say my colleagues from the Bloc as well, to vote the softwood sellout through, which instantly triggered the loss of thousands of jobs. Within the first week of implementation, 4,000 jobs were lost in the softwood sector. We immediately slammed the door on any possibility of softwood exports, and that hemorrhaging of softwood jobs continues today with tens of thousands of jobs lost.

In addition, because of the anti-circumvention clause that the NDP warned the trade committee about and warned Conservatives and Liberals about, and we warned them in the House as well, we now are facing, first, penalties of nearly $70 million that Canadian taxpayers have to cough up in fines under this ridiculously bad agreement. We now have, from testimony we heard just a few weeks ago, pending fines of over $1 billion. Assuming that we lose the next two cases, Canadian taxpayers will have to cough up $1 billion for an egregiously bad agreement that cost us thousands of jobs. One does not have to be thick-headed to understand that this was an appallingly bad agreement and that the Conservatives, with Liberal support, rammed it through.

Their first step on trade policy was an appallingly bad step that was taken by David Emerson, the former Liberal minister who crossed over to the Conservatives, and who brought with him the same stupid approach on trade. As a result, thousands of Canadian families have lost breadwinners.

What did the Conservatives bring in next? Next, they brought the shipbuilding sellout through the EFTA. They were told by every single member who participated at the trade committee, from the shipbuilding industry, whether from management or ownership or from the workers, that it would kill our shipbuilding industry, that it would undermine our shipbuilding industry, and that our shipbuilding industry would be unable to live with the clauses that were negotiated when there was no shipbuilding policy in place at all.

It is a shipbuilding sellout. The Conservatives and Liberals, again, despite the fact that there is universal condemnation of the agreement from the shipbuilding industry, rammed it through. That is strike two. On trade policy, the government has absolutely no understanding. We are talking about trade illiterates.

What we have now is what I guess we would all strike three, a clearly inferior agreement to what was negotiated between the U.S. and Peru, and what the U.S. Congress was able to do as well in terms of amending the agreement to actually enforce real and effective labour and environmental standards.

There is more. What the Conservatives want to bring forward now is a privileged trading relationship with the government of Colombia, whose president, according to U.S. defence intelligence briefings, documents that were declassified recently, was a friend of Pablo Escobar and closely linked with the Medellin cartel, drug lords.

That was not all he did. Subsequent to that, according to evidence and testimony presented just a few weeks ago, he has also been involved in the murder and massacre by paramilitaries of civilians in Colombia, and most recently involved in influence peddling scandals and overt surveillance by the secret police in Colombia of opposition leaders and judges.

We are talking about a country that has the worst human rights record on the planet, over four million displaced people, forced displacement by the paramilitaries, and the government wants to roll out the red carpet and give a special privileged trading relationship to an administration that is connected to murderous paramilitary thugs and drug lords. It is unbelievable. It would only be believable if we were to look at how egregiously bad the softwood lumber sellout was and then compare it. Then we would realize it.

We are talking about a government that has absolutely no idea what it is doing and what is worse, the Conservatives are telling their base that they want a privileged trading relationship with an administration connected to drug lords and murderous paramilitary thugs. Does anyone think any Conservative would actually want to do that? Of course not. From the membership of the--

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of 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 third time and passed.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24, the Canada-Peru free trade agreement implementation act. The bill seeks to implement the free trade agreement, the agreement on labour co-operation and the agreement on the environment entered into by Canada with the Republic of Peru on May 29, 2008.

The bill is extremely important to Canada's agriculture sector. While the agreement has potential for many of our farm products, it is critical to our wheat and durum industries, to our pulse and specialty crop industries, to beef and to pork and to potatoes. We know about the tremendous potatoes that come from the province of Prince Edward Island. I can see my colleague from Manitoba is jealous of the kind of potatoes we produce in Prince Edward Island, and I understand why.

Before I get into all the reasons why this is so important to farmers, there is a point I would like to raise on corporate social responsibility.

My colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood earlier raised the point. Peru is cited in the strategy of the Government of Canada on corporate social responsibility for the Canadian international extractive sector. Peru is also cited as a country where the Canadian International Development Agency has worked extensively with the government, mining companies and affected communities to develop and promote regulatory requirements for social and environmental management.

The Canada-Peru FTA also includes corporate social responsibility provisions encouraging the promotion of principles and of responsible business, and that is an important point to make. We feel very strongly about corporate social responsibility and we have some very grave concerns about the trade agreement with Colombia. However, on this side of the House, we believe Peru is doing much better.

On the human rights side, it is clear that some human rights issues remain in Peru. In its 2008 report, Amnesty International recognized that important steps had been taken to bring to justice those responsible for human rights violations during the years of armed conflict between 1980 and 2000. In terms of violent crime in Peru, the country's homicide rate now stands at 5.7 per hundred thousand, which is still too high, but it is among the lowest in South America. Those are some steps forward.

I know there will be some who will say that human rights are still a concern and we understand that. However, when the agreement is settled with Peru, I would encourage the Government of Canada to continue its emphasis in discussions about good human rights standards to ensure that CIDA does its part in Peru as well.

I believe we can do both. We can improve trade to the benefit of both countries, the citizens of Canada and the citizens of Peru. We can also improve human rights in the Republic of Peru for the benefit of Peru and certainly the globe.

I might mention as well that there are side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment, and that is important. I will agree with my NDP colleague, however, that it would better if they were encompassed in the agreement as a whole rather than being in side agreements, but it is a step forward. More and more we see the United States negotiating agreements that include the environment and labour as part of those agreements.

If environment and labour are not part of those agreements, we are allowing people and industries in other countries to abuse the environment. We give them a competitive advantage. We allow them to undermine labour standards and give their countries and those industries a labour, wage or benefit advantage. That is not what we want to see happen. We have to bring up the standard globally and that is what we must work toward.

There is certainly economic risk if we do not ratify this agreement, especially as it relates to the agriculture sector. Since 2005, Peru has concluded free trade agreements with the United States, Chile, Thailand, Singapore and the Mercosur region, which is Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. The United States Congress has ratified the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement. In fact, that just entered into force on February 1 of this year.

If Canada fails to implement a Canada-Peru free trade agreement, Canadian businesses will be at an economic disadvantage compared to their foreign competitors. One stark example of this concern is the export of wheat. We produce wheat in abundance in our country. We have one of the greatest selling agencies in the world, the Canadian Wheat Board, which the government hates to admit.

The wheat exports of the United States have recently benefited from the U.S.-Peru free trade agreement, immediately receiving duty-free treatment. Without a free trade agreement, Canada's exports of wheat, which comprise 38% of Canada's total exports to Peru, will continue to face a 17% tariff. This would place Canadian wheat at a very substantial disadvantage. We cannot allow those negative consequences to happen by opposing this agreement.

Let me turn to why the agreement is so important for Canadian farmers. Perhaps the best way for me to do that is to turn to the presentations that farm leaders have presented to either government or parliamentary committees.

I will turn first to a letter by Larry Hill. He is the president of the Canadian Wheat Board. In his letter to the chair of the Standing Committee on International Trade, he said:

It's important that the legislation is passed in a timely manner so as to avoid western Canadian farmers being placed at a disadvantage into this important Latin American market.

Wheat and durum are Canada's number one export to Peru. Under the agreement, Canadian wheat, durum and barley will receive tariff-free access upon implementation. While there is currently no tariff, applied tariffs have historically averaged 15%. The tariff was temporarily removed during last year's high price period, but is likely to be reinstated now that prices are declining.

Mr. Hill went on to say:

Peru is a key, fast-growing Latin American market for western Canadian farmers. CWB exports to Peru average 410,000 tonnes of wheat and 18,400 tonnes of barley annually. In 2008, Canadian sales were worth $134 million Cdn for wheat and barley farmers.

In February 2009, the U.S. and Peru implemented a Trade Promotion Agreement, resulting in guaranteed tariff-free access for American wheat and barley into Peru. Without a similar agreement, Canadian wheat and barley will be placed at a real commercial disadvantage, likely resulting in lost sales. It is imperative that the Canadian agreement be implemented prior to Peru reinstating its tariffs.

In that letter, Mr. Hill mentions how important the market is and the amount of wheat that we export into that country.

I was in Ecuador a number of years ago and spoke with the president of Bonita Bananas. Ecuador is a big importer of Canadian hard red spring wheat mainly. He told me that Ecuador imported somewhere around $72 million of Canadian wheat on average each year.

The United States signed an agreement with Ecuador and to a great extent we have been displaced from that market. We cannot afford to lose that market. Our most important market, as we consistently tell the government, is the market that we have. We have to maintain that market.

There are concerns from some agricultural producers that Canada was unable to secure the same favourable conditions in tariff reductions as the United States, particularly in beef and pork products. Still, even Canadian beef and pork producers want us to ratify the Canada-Peru FTA as they believe that imperfect tariff reductions are better than no tariff reductions at all.

Even with these concerns, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture spelled out the concerns and benefits. He did that best when he was before the Standing Committee on International Trade on May 7. I would like to quote a few of his remarks, because he sums it up certainly better than I could in my words. Laurent Pellerin, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, said:

--I would like to say that this agreement should be implemented as quickly as possible. It is not a huge achievement with regard to the objectives of agricultural producers, but some improvements are worth implementing.

We are negotiating this agreement more or less at the same time as the United States, or a bit later. We believe, however, that we must negotiate parity with the United States in future negotiations or free trade agreements and contracts with countries like Peru. Unfortunately, in the case of Peru, Canada is far from achieving the same thing as the United States. We recognize that the Peruvian market is probably more significant for the United States than it is for Canada, but all the same, parity would have been a very desirable goal.

It is too bad that the American negotiators perhaps negotiated a little tougher than our negotiators. In any event, it is a step forward. He went on to say:

In the case of Peru, the United States will have shorter tariff elimination periods, and in some cases, tariff-free access, and in others higher quotas. Even if Canada negotiated something better than our current conditions, because the Americans negotiated tariff reductions and completely free access before us, the market or business will favour American products over ours. This is something we must bear in mind.

He went on to talk about the beef industry. Again I will quote his remarks because he is the representative of the industry and his words bear merit. He talked about how important the Peruvian market is for beef and pork, but that again, the Americans have a substantial advantage. He said:

A great deal of fresh, chilled and frozen beef offal is traded between Canada and Peru. In this sector, the tariffs will be eliminated simultaneously for both Canada and the United States, but it should be noted that the quota or volume exported by the United States is twice as large as Canada's. So once again, the agreement will favour the U.S. market.

In the long term, both Canada and the United States will achieve duty-free access for pork carcasses and cuts. However, in the short and medium term, the agreement is definitely more favourable for the Americans and could seriously affect the products from Canada because there again, the tariffs on U.S. pork will be eliminated by the beginning of the 5th year, whereas for Canada they will not be eliminated until the 17th year.

He went on to state:

Still in the pork sector, the quota for cuts in the offal category, including pig fat and bellies, will start at 325 tonnes per year and increase to 504 tonnes in year 10. Once again, these are not large quantities. However, the Canadian Pork Council has told us that this agreement must be supported, since a deal with slightly increasing quotas is better than no deal at all with a risk of retaliation. They agree with these measures.

In other words, the Canadian Pork Council agrees.

Mr. Pellerin went on to say, “Canada is extremely present on the potato market as well”, an area that I am certainly most familiar with. He said, “Duty-free access strongly favours the United States over Canada, particularly during the first nine years”. I must remind my friend from Manitoba again that when I am talking about potatoes, Prince Edward Island still remains the biggest potato producer. That small province remains the biggest potato producer in this country. This is very important to us in Prince Edward Island.

Mr. Pellerin went on to say:

Tariffs on fresh and chilled potatoes, other than seed, will be eliminated immediately for the United States. As for tariffs on Canadian potatoes, they are subject to a gradual reduction and will be eliminated as of year 10. There again, our small Peruvian market may be replaced by American products, which will be more competitive because they will have duty-free access.

My point is this. Yes, the agreement is important but even with this trade agreement that the Canadian government has negotiated with Peru and the implementation act that we are talking about in the House, the Americans, it is sad to say, still have advantages in that market. Yes, it is a step forward, but it is not as big a step as we would certainly like to see.

The last point raised by Mr. Pellerin concerned frozen potatoes. He said, “I don't need to name the large Canadian companies in this sector, because you already know them”. They would be McCain, Cavendish, et cetera. He said:

Canada is very active on this market as well, and Canadian potato farmers count on this market, especially the frozen french fry market. If the agreement is signed, tariffs on frozen potatoes from the United States will be eliminated immediately, whereas the tariffs on Canadian potatoes will be eliminated gradually, reaching zero in year 10 of the agreement. This market could potentially be attractive for Canada, but you will understand that over the next 10 years, the United States will have a major competitive advantage in the potato sector, and so this is not a major gain for Canada.

All that to say, yes, certainly the agreement is important. It is very important especially to the agricultural industry in Canada, wheat and durum, beef and pork, pulse and specialty crops and certainly potatoes. But even with the agreement the Canadian government has failed to negotiate the same advantages as the Americans have negotiated. That is a sad commentary.

The Canada-Peru free trade agreement is certainly supported by a lot of the agricultural industries, and I mentioned the Canadian Wheat Board, pulse growers, et cetera. It is also supported by quite a number of business groups, such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and resource organizations such as the Mining Association of Canada.

A reduction in Peru's tariffs could certainly contribute toward increasing the competitiveness of Canadian exports, whether they are industrial goods or agricultural goods.

Therefore, the Canada-Peru free trade agreement is a step forward. As I said in the beginning, in corporate social responsibility, the safeguards are there. The labour and human rights issues are improving. For those reasons the bill is an important bill and I welcome it in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-24, the Canada-Peru free trade agreement.

As members know, our Conservative government's global commerce strategy includes a re-energized agenda of trade liberalization with our partners around the world. It will be this strategy that will help to lead Canada out of this recession that is affecting every country in the world today.

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, with a slowdown in the U.S. economy, our top commercial partner, and ongoing turbulence in international financial markets, Canadian exporters and investors will continue to be affected.

We have done a good job of riding out the storm, thanks largely to Canada's 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.

However, it is extremely clear that we must remain vigilant. Our Conservative government must continue to fight protectionist measures around the world and continue taking steps to ensure Canadian companies remain competitive, maintain their markets and have access to new opportunities.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade understand the challenge. The Prime Minister has committed to playing an active role in the Americas and to building strategic relationships with key partners in our neighbourhood.

Peru is a leader in Latin America, a lynchpin in the political and economic stability of the region. It has been an economic engine with a GDP growth rate of 9.8% in 2008, the top of Latin American countries and higher than that experienced by China or India.

Peru also has a solid outward orientation. A leader in trade liberalization, Peru is currently pursuing trade negotiations with a number of countries.

As it stands, Canadian exporters are at an immediate risk of losing markets in Peru due to the entry into force of a trade promotion agreement with the United States on February 1 of this year.

Peru has also recently completed trade negotiations with China and EFTA and is negotiating with the EU, South Korea, Mexico and Thailand.

As members can see, Peru has a very robust international trade agenda. It is an economic engine in the Americas. It is beneficial to Peru and beneficial to Canada that we see this free trade agreement go forward.

Our firms and Canadian workers deserve trade agreements that address this situation and allow them to compete in international markets on a level playing field. 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. In 2008, two-way merchandise trade between our countries totalled $2.8 billion.

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 to prosper.

Upon its implementation, Peru will eliminate tariffs on nearly all current Canadian exports, including wheat, pulses and mining equipment.

It should be noted that some opposition parties have been holding up a number of these free trade agreements. At the same time, they propose that they continue to support Canadian business and Canadian opportunity, especially Canadian exports because we are an exporting nation.

In wheat and barley alone, in two free trade agreements between Colombia and Peru, roughly $250 million of Canadian trade is at risk because these agreements have not passed through the House yet.

Perhaps the members who are intent on holding up these agreements and at the same time are saying that they support Canadian industry, should take a look at this one industry alone where a quarter of a billion dollars are at risk because of opposition shenanigans, quite frankly, in holding them up.

Upon its implementation, Peru will eliminate tariffs on nearly all Canadian exports, including wheat, pulses and mining equipment. Again, that is worth repeating. A variety of paper products, machinery and equipment will also enjoy the same benefit.

The Canada-Peru free trade agreement also provides a great opportunity to take our current trade in services to a new level in the years ahead. In 2006, the most recent year where statistics are available, Canada exported $33 million worth of commercial services to Peru. This new agreement provides a wonderful opportunity to grow this number in the years ahead and continue boosting the level of cross-border trade enjoyed by our two countries.

Canadian investors, too, have a significant presence in the Peruvian market. Even before this agreement, our countries made a firm commitment to enhancing two-way investments through a joint foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, or FIPPA, which entered into force in 2007. Canada is one of Peru's largest overall foreign investors, with an estimated $2.35 billion worth of investment stock in Peru in 2008, led by the mining and the financial sectors.

This FTA builds on the existing FIPPA and gains new ground for Canadian investors. Specifically, it includes strong obligations that will, first, ensure the free transfer of capital related to investments, protect against unlawful expropriation and provide for non-discriminatory treatment of Canadian investors. In short, we have levelled the playing field.

It also provides for an effective, binding and impartial dispute settlement mechanism. In other words, the agreement provides the security, stability and predictability that investors need. Our government procurement agreement guarantees Canadian suppliers the right to bid on a broad range of goods, services and construction contracts carried out by Peru's federal government entities.

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 that 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 relationships in the years ahead and to create new opportunities for citizens in both countries to prosper.

We have negotiated a high quality and comprehensive free trade agreement, covering everything from market access to goods to cross-border trade and services, to investment and government procurement. Canadian exporter service providers and investors will benefit, and the agreement will create new opportunities for Canadian businesses and producers in the Peruvian market.

However, an effective should do more than eliminate tariffs. It should also tackle the non-tariff barriers that keep a trade relationship from reaching its full potential. With this agreement, that is just what we have done, by including new measures to ensure greater transparency, including better predictability of 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 but this agreement is significant for other reasons as well. This agreement is also accompanied by important side agreements that demonstrate our joint commitment to corporate social responsibility, the rights of workers and preserving the natural environment.

Many Canadian companies and the Canadian government are at the forefront of efforts to ensure accountability and transparency through renewed commitments to principles of good corporate citizenship, both domestically and internationally.

The Canadian government encourages and expects Canadian companies operating abroad to respect all applicable laws and international standards and to conduct their activities in a socially and environmentally responsible manner, recognizing that responsible business conduct reinforces the positive effect that trade and investment can have on labour rights, the environment and competitiveness.

This complements the Conservative government's recently announced corporate social responsibility strategy that will increase the competitiveness of the Canadian extractive sector operating abroad by enhancing its ability to manage social and environmental risk. 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 in other areas of mutual interest, including poverty reduction and trade related co-operation. We share a belief with Peru that open markets and international trade are the best hope for fostering development of our common security in the hemisphere. In fact, this approach builds on our successful experience with free trade partners, such as the United States, Mexico, Chile and Costa Rica.

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 our Conservative government is 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.

We need to move expeditiously to help our businesses grow. As I noted, the United States already has preferred access to Peru's markets for their exports and government procurement. Canadian companies deserve to compete on a level playing field. I ask for the support of all hon. members of this place as we continue these efforts and create new opportunities for all Canadians to thrive and prosper in the global economy.

In closing, I would say that since coming to government, in 2006, we have pursued a very ambitious free trade agreement, especially in the Americas. There is a tremendous amount of Canadian direct investment abroad in the Americas. Quite frankly, this is our neighbourhood. This is the continent that Canada is part of: North America and South America. It only makes sense that we have closer ties.

Unfortunately, that was not seen as a priority by the previous government, so we have a lot of ground to make up. We have a huge opportunity. There are a number of countries throughout Central America, the Caribbean and South America that are looking to enhance ties with Canada and improve the situation they find their own countries in.

These are growing economies with some challenges, and we recognize that. For us to turn our backs on these critical relationships at this time would not be good foreign policy, it would not be good trade policy and it would indicate that we do not have a clear understanding of what is going on in Central America and South America.

The opportunity is huge and the benefits are great. The benefits are great, not just for Canada but for our partners in Central America, South America and the Caribbean. Again, I would implore all my colleagues in the House to support this agreement. It is a good agreement, one that will help carry Canada into the future and ensure and protect Canadian and Peruvian jobs and opportunities.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my colleague's questions. Before I get to his specific questions, perhaps we will revert to the more traditional response, which is to lay out the anticipated business for the week ahead.

As members know, today we completed debate at third reading stage of Bill S-2, the customs act. We will continue and hopefully complete the second reading stage of Bill C-20, Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act. Following Bill C-20, we will call at second reading, Bill C-30, Senate Ethics Act.

Tonight the House will go into committee of the whole to consider the main estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on Bill C-24, Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. The back-up bills for tomorrow will be any unfinished business left over from today.

Next week we will continue with any unfinished business from this week, with the addition of Bill C-15, drug offences, which is at report stage and third reading stage.

We will also consider Bill C-32, the bill that will crack down on tobacco marketing aimed at our youth, and Bill C-19, investigative hearings and recognizance with conditions. These bills are at second reading.

As I have been doing, I will also give priority consideration to any bills that are reported back from our standing committees.

Finally, I would like to note that on Monday, June 1, at 10 a.m., there will be a memorial service in the Senate chamber to honour the memory of parliamentarians who have passed away since April 30, 2008.

As well, in response to the specific questions, the hon. opposition House leader would know full well that we just had our House leaders meeting of all four parties and their whips. I thought I took extraordinary steps to inform my colleagues about the anticipated business that I intend to call between now and the House rising on June 23. He has all of that information. He knows as well that much of this is tentative and subject to change because we do not know exactly how fast committees will move and how long debate will take in this place. Having said that, I have tried to be as transparent and as open with my colleagues as possible.

As far as specific questions about the three remaining supply days, I will be designating them in the future, although I did indicate tentative dates for all three, and the member is well aware of that information; in fact, I think it has been made public.

International Trade

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on International Trade on 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, with amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you for getting back to the table. We're going to the order of reference here, which is 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.

To help us through clause-by-clause if there are any further questions on specific details of the bill, we have with us, from the Department of Finance, Carol Nelder-Corvari, who has been with us before, and also Dean Beyea, the senior chief, the international trade policy division. From the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we again have with us Matthew Kronby and Vernon MacKay.

Thank you again for coming here today.

I'm going to proceed right away with the bill. I think everybody would like to get through this by 11 o'clock. We do have some other business the committee could discuss if we can get this through. I don't think there's anything particularly contentious. We have a couple of amendments that we will deal with in due course.

I'm going to begin now. We'll just skip the short title for the moment and proceed to clause 2 of the bill. If people have the bill in front of them, we'll proceed to clause-by-clause, beginning with clause 2, the interpretation.

(On clause 2--Definitions)

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Julien.

[Theresa McClenaghan, Executive Director and Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association]

Good morning.

Mr. Chairman and honourable members, thank you for inviting me to appear before you this morning to speak to Bill C-24 regarding the recently signed free trade agreement between Canada and Peru.

Good day, ladies and gentlemen. I apologize for the fact that my presentation will be in English only.

My organization, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, is a federally incorporated not-for-profit NGO and an Ontario specialty legal aid clinic. We provide direct legal services to clients, including environmental precedent-setting and test cases to those who would be unable to afford a lawyer. Our mandate does include law reform, public legal education, and community outreach.

For this morning's commentary, I have drawn on the extensive background that CELA has in trade and the environment, including the work of the late Michelle Swenarchuk, formerly our director of the trade and environment program. There are three points that I want to make before you today. I would note that these comments are not necessarily unique to this particular bilateral agreement.

The first point is that the provision of the direct investor access to investor-state claims under the investment chapter is itself problematic in that it invites repeated challenges, in my opinion, of environmental health and safety regulatory action by Canada and the provinces. I'll speak to that.

The second point I want to make today is that if direct investor access is to continue to be provided, then the bilateral free trade agreements must be explicitly clarified to apply to situations of true expropriation and made explicitly inapplicable to regulatory action by Canada and the provinces in the matters of environment, health, safety, and worker protection--at least.

The third point I'd like to speak to is that the proliferation of the bilateral free trade agreements, both in Canada and by other nations, is establishing a patchwork of rules pertaining to the protection or lack thereof of the sovereign rights of Canada, the provinces, and other nations to establish environmental health, safety, and labour rights legislation and regulation as the governments see fit. The very existence of that patchwork makes the assessment of the risk of trade challenges problematic and becomes in itself a greater chill on regulatory action.

First, with respect to direct investor access to investor-state claims under the investment chapter, I would submit that it's not necessary to provide direct access to states by investors in the bilateral free trade agreements, even if one wishes to provide protection against expropriation. The trade agreements normally provide that investors are entitled to the same treatment as nationals. Accordingly, the domestic law--both common law and statutory--regarding expropriation would be available for recourse. That is what happened in the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the second bilateral free trade agreement that the U.S. negotiated with “a developed country”, as they put it in their environmental review in 2004.

The U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement gives no direct investor-state remedy, even though it does contain provisions regarding expropriation. In the final environmental review, the reviewing committee said:

In recognition of the unique circumstances of this Agreement--including...the long-standing economic ties between the U.S. and Australia, their shared legal traditions, and the confidence of their investors in operating in each others' markets--the two countries agreed not to implement procedures in this FTA that would allow investors to arbitrate disputes with governments. Government-to-government dispute settlement procedures remain available....

That agreement included provisions--which are normal--regarding expropriation, including that it be for a public purpose, that it be not discriminatory, and that prompt, reasonable compensation be provided and in accordance with due process of law. I would comment on that. I'm speculating, but by 2004, NAFTA had been the subject of some investor-state challenges and claims for compensation for regulatory action; I would speculate that the negotiators wanted to avoid those types of claims.

So rather than providing that kind of direct investor-state remedy, the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement provided a proviso for consultations, such that if they decided down the road that they wanted to provide a remedy to a particular investor, they would have consultations about how to do that. But what they settled on in the agreement was the normal expropriation rules of each country. In a case of complaint with those, they could make it the subject of the agreement's dispute resolution procedures.

Before I leave this point, I would submit that the absence of a direct investor-state procedural remedy under the U.S.-Australia agreement is itself a protection for the state parties in terms of their ability to regulate with respect to the environmental health, safety, and worker protection matters, among other things. If an investor had a true expropriation claim, then it could proceed under the normal domestic law. On the other hand, in order to garner attention for an alleged indirect expropriation based on regulatory action by the state, the investor would first have to persuade its own government that it had a legitimate complaint and that the regulatory action in question was one of those rare circumstances of indirect expropriation.

Since the U.S.-Australia parties were clearly anxious to protect their own right to carry on with high standards of environmental regulation—I point to chapter 19 of the Australia agreement—I would suggest that they would be very reluctant to pursue a complaint, and I would suggest the likelihood of that would be quite small. Democratic governments have to consider a range of competing factors, including many matters of public interest such as environmental protection, human health, safety, worker rights, as well as the social and economic impacts of their regulatory actions, and that's their prerogative.

It would be my recommendation under the first point that the right of direct access by investors to a claim against the parties be removed and that instead an approach be taken akin to the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement—in other words, provide access to the Canadian domestic procedures courts of law for cases of true expropriation and do not provide for claims of indirect expropriation. At least these would be regulatory action by Canada or the provinces for environmental health, safety, and worker protection matters.

The second point is that if there is to be direct investor-state access, contrary to the submission I've just made, it be explicitly applicable to true expropriation only. Granted, I understand that the free trade agreement has been negotiated and your decision is whether to approve the legislation putting it into effect. I would submit that the points I've been making about the regulatory impact of the direct investor access are important enough to pause at this point, especially before we continue with this agreement or any future agreements, and go back and review what has been happening vis-à-vis these indirect expropriation claims. Furthermore, certainly for any future agreements, the Australia approach is the one that should be followed.

In terms of the type of language that would restrict matters to true expropriation only, I first want to clarify that my organization has never argued against expropriation in domestic or international law in terms of appropriate compensation provisions. There are important protections of long standing, for example, including highways, transmission lines and so on, but on the other hand, we've long argued against arguments that public interest regulation amounts to expropriation or that compensation is due when activities are curtailed because of public interest regulation. Examples like that include land use decisions, facility approvals, and pollution emission controls. These are all valid regulatory actions in the public interest, even though they may impose costs on owners or preclude certain activities.

In terms of limiting claims to direct expropriation, we would suggest that language in the agreement should specifically limit the direct investor access to those claims of true expropriation. I would suggest that approach be taken instead of the case-by-case approach provided in the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement. Even though there is an attempt in that agreement to clarify that these cases do not generally amount to indirect expropriation, the very fact that the claim may be brought means there is uncertainty as to the arbitral panel's rulings and a regulatory chill may still prevail.

You've already heard testimony another day about the recent claim being brought by Dow Chemical against Canada for actions in Quebec under the pesticide code. At the time that claim was filed, as you may know, the Province of Ontario had enacted amendments to its pesticide act dealing with cosmetic use and sale of lawn and garden pesticides and was in the process of consulting with respect to the regulations under that statute. The Ontario Minister of the Environment at the time felt compelled to make public statements in the media late last year that the fact of the Dow challenge against Quebec would not cause Ontario to reconsider its approach. So in my opinion, the very fact that these claims can be brought is a problem in its potential to interfere with valid regulatory action. The potential for those claims gives greater weight or consideration to the commercial interests represented, even though the contemplated regulatory action by the government is not an expropriation in customary or domestic law. The problem extends not just to the federal government but also to the provincial and territorial governments as well.

To finish on that point, does the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement provide that explicit limitation? No, I don't think it does. The language could be perceived to be an improvement over NAFTA. However, the agreement in annex 812.1, in determining whether a measure is an indirect expropriation, states that it will be determined case-by-case. It provides several factors, including economic impact, the extent it interferes with investment-backed decisions, and the character of the measure, and then includes the provision, which I know you've reviewed before, that except in rare circumstances--when a measure or a series of measures is so severe in light of its purpose that it cannot be reasonably viewed as having been adopted and applied in good faith--non-discriminatory measures that are designed and applied to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as health, safety, and the environment, do not constitute indirect expropriation.

My concern is that, first of all, those types of provisions--this isn't the only bilateral agreement that includes that language--have only been included in bilateral trade agreements recently. I would note that the very same paragraph is found in the Australia-U.S. agreement I was referencing earlier, but they didn't find it necessary to give a direct investor claim there.

In any event, the fact that the claims may be brought case-by-case means that the tribunal would evaluate it. For instance, is this one of those rare circumstances? Is the measure severe? Was it reasonable? Was it adopted in good faith? Was it perhaps discriminatory? Was it designed to protect legitimate public welfare objectives?

Interestingly, Howard Mann, a lawyer for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, said on the Methanex NAFTA decision in 2005 that there the tribunal had drawn a bright line between what's true expropriation and what isn't. This clause in the Peru agreement actually opens that up to question.

The final point, which I've already mentioned, is that the very existence of the proliferation of bilateral free trade agreements across a range of countries, with slightly different ways of attempting to protect the right to regulate, is itself becoming a problem. Now the analysis of where the regulation is subject to challenge is becoming much more complex, and there are slight differences between them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I'm sorry for the late start.

We have a lot of conversations going on this morning, but I do want to get to our witnesses today and continue our study of Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru.

With us today from the Canadian Environmental Law Association we have Theresa McClenaghan; from the United Steelworkers, Mark Rowlinson; and as an individual, Maxwell Cameron, who is a professor at the University of British Columbia's Department of Political Science and has some familiarity, I understand, with Peru.

With that, if everyone's ready to go, I think we can go for an hour from the time we start here and then we're going to have to go to clause-by-clause. When we get that done, we have some pretty important business today, including consideration of additional witnesses, Thursday's agenda, and also the upcoming visit. That will have to be done following our witness presentations today.

With that, I would like to begin. I will ask Theresa McClenaghan, from the Canadian Environmental Law Association, to begin. We will go with five- to ten-minute opening statements from each of our witnesses and then go to questions.

Ms. McClenaghan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you to all our witnesses. I'm going to have to ask that we wrap up quickly here, because we have to go.

Thank you again for your appearance today, and thanks to all of our committee for their questions as well. Thank you very much.

I'm not going to take time to go in camera, because we have a quick motion to be dealt with here.

Mr. Keddy moves that the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-24 be completed on Tuesday, May 26, 2009, and that the bill be reported to the House at the first opportunity.

It's seconded by Mr. Cannis.

Is there any discussion? Mr. Cardin.

[Jacques Pomerleau, Executive Director, Canada Pork International]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, honourable members, let me introduce the organization that I represent here today. Canada Pork International is the export promotion and development agency of the Canadian pork industry and it brings together the hog producers, pork processors and trading companies.

I thank you for giving us the opportunity to express our views on Bill C-24 pertaining to the implementation of the free trade agreement with Peru.

From the very beginning, the Canadian pork industry has been very supportive of the negotiations to come to an agreement with Peru, even if that country has never been a significant market for Canadian pork as a result of its prevailing high import tariffs. We were and we remain more than ever convinced that population growth and dietary habits will offer significant market opportunities in Peru once tariffs are completely eliminated.

Like many other countries, Peru has always maintained high tariffs on pork and our negotiators were expecting strong opposition to getting them reduced. When they requested that Canada should get the same treatment as the United States, that is, the complete elimination of pork tariffs over a period varying between five and ten years, Peru flatly rejected it.

Knowing that we would never get what the Americans received, our negotiators became very creative in ensuring that we would still get some benefits. They accepted a longer tariff elimination period, 17 years instead of ten, but they were able to get for us a duty-free quota that will allow our exporters to better position themselves at the very beginning.

We have to admit that this quota of 325 tonnes, that will progressively extend to 504 tonnes over 10 years, is relatively small for an industry that exports over one million tonnes every year.

That being said, we have learned over the years that we need to get access to the largest possible number of countries and that some of them, which at the beginning did not look too promising, turned out to be quite significant. With such an approach, our industry, which in the 1980s was shipping more than 75% of its exports to the United States, was able, even when doubling its sales to that country, to reduce the proportion to less than 30%. In the last few years, the US has become a major pork exporter and our exports there have decreased.

You can be assured that, with the implementation of their country of origin labeling legislation, our industry is not regretting having adopted an export market diversification strategy. With the current crisis that we are experiencing, and I do not think there is a need to expand on it, could you imagine where we would be? I do not even want to think about it.

We will be back here when you review other agreements, like those that are currently being negotiated with Central America and especially with the European Union, to endorse them.

In closing, I would like, on behalf of our industry, to thank you and your colleagues of all political parties, in the House of Commons and in the Senate, for your tremendous support during this difficult period. We were very impressed that so many of you came to meet with us at the barbecue that Minister Ritz and Minister Blackburn held with our representatives. In fact, so many people showed up that we ran out of pork. Be assured that, next time, there will be more than enough.

I am ready to answer all your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We shall begin.

We have everyone except Mr. Julian....

Well, we'll have to begin. Pursuant to the orders of the day, this is meeting 18 of this session on our discussion of Bill C-24, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru.

Today we have witnesses from the agriculture community--and Mr. Brison; welcome.

[Carol Nelder-Corvari]

Thank you for introducing our team here. We're here to respond to any questions you may have about Bill C-24.

We're very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this bill, which is an act to implement the Canada-Peru trade agreement and parallel agreements on labour and environmental cooperation. This bill implements the legal framework and the legislative amendments required to deepen the economic and social relationship between Peru and Canada.

This initiative dates back to 2002, when Canada and the Andean Community countries agreed to begin discussions on a possible free trade agreement. The government carried out extensive consultations with domestic stakeholders in Canada, which revealed broad support for pursuing an FTA. Through the ensuing exploratory process, it became clear that not all of the Andean countries were prepared to move forward with a comprehensive trade agreement. Peru, however, clearly stood out as a country that was actively engaged in economic reform and seeking free trade partners with priority countries such as Canada.

This FTA is part of the government’s comprehensive efforts under its global commerce strategy to open new opportunities for Canadian businesses. It also forms part of the government’s efforts to strengthen Canada’s engagement in the Americas by fostering economic development and strengthening democracy and security.

The current global economic downturn creates an additional urgency to these efforts for both Canada and Peru--not only as an instrument to increase economic activity, but also as a means to fight trade protectionism that could seriously undermine global recovery efforts. The FTA with Peru will give Canadian exporters, investors, and service providers preferential access to a dynamic economy of approximately 28 million people that has experienced GDP growth of over 9.8% in 2008. This is higher than that experienced by China and India.

In its April 2007 report, entitled “Ten Steps to a Better Trade Policy”, this committee instructed the government to give priority to negotiating defensive FTAs to address competitive disadvantage. This FTA with Peru responds to this recommendation. As it stands, Canadian exporters are at immediate risk of losing markets in Peru due to the entry into force of the trade promotion agreement with the United States on February 1 of this year. Peru has also recently completed trade negotiations with China and EFTA and is currently negotiating with the EU, South Korea, Mexico, and Thailand. Each one of these preferential agreements will erode the competitiveness of Canadian businesses. Our firms and Canadian workers deserve FTAs that address this situation and allow them to compete in international markets on a level playing field.

In the area of market access for goods, Peru will eliminate tariffs on virtually all of Canada’s current exports, including on key products such as wheat, barley, lentils, peas, as well as wood and forestry products, cotton and other fabrics, and a range of industrial machinery. Canadian tariffs on the vast majority of imports from Peru will be eliminated immediately.

On services, the FTA will provide enhanced market access for a range of services in key sectors of interest to Canada. These include mining, energy, and professional services like engineering, architecture, and information technology. Canada’s banking, insurance, and securities sector will also enjoy greater access to the Peruvian marketplace.

The FTA also builds on the existing foreign investment promotion and protection agreements and gains new ground for Canadian investors. Strong obligations ensure the free transfer of capital related to investment, protection against expropriation without adequate and prompt compensation, and non-discriminatory treatment of Canadian investments.The investment chapter of this agreement clarifies that the parties can take non-discriminatory measures to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as health, safety, and the environment.

To compete effectively in global markets, Canadian firms must import, export, and increasingly invest abroad to improve efficiencies through global supply chains. Research shows that foreign investment facilitates improved R and D, innovation, and productivity. According to the Export Development Corporation of Canada, every dollar of investment abroad is expected to generate approximately two dollars of additional exports in emerging markets. We are seeing this demonstrated in our relationship with Peru. Our stock of investment stands at $2.4 billion and our exports have more than doubled over the last five years.

Imports from Peru are also increasing, and they are, in many cases, directly related to our mining investments. Seventy-five per cent of the imports from Peru are in the form of metals that are imported for further processing in Canadian facilities or for use in Canadian production.

Given these facts, it is important that we view these FTAs holistically. They are not just about exports; the success of Canadian firms and jobs in Canada is also linked directly to investment and imports. This is the nature of the globally integrated trade. Canadian direct investment abroad connects Canada to global operating platforms that are critical to our competitiveness. These investments need to be protected or they place our companies and Canadian workers at risk. In this regard, the investment provisions of the Canada-Peru FTA, like our many FIPAs, are intended to provide such protection.

On government procurement, the FTA guarantees Canadian suppliers the right to bid on a broad range of goods, services, and construction contracts carried out by Peru’s federal government entities. Opening up government procurement ensures that benefits negotiated in other chapters, such as tariff cuts, are not eroded by barriers behind the border, such as procurement policies that favour domestic suppliers or other trading partners.

Accessing the government market in Peru represents a significant opportunity for Canadian exporters. The total value of government contracts in Peru was approximately $5.6 billion U.S. in 2006. This is projected to increase to $9.8 billion U.S. for 2009. In addition, in response to the current economic downturn, approximately $3 billion U.S. has been set aside for stimulus spending on infrastructure in Peru. American suppliers already have preferential access to this market; our firms deserve the same.

This FTA also includes new provisions on trade-related cooperation and commitments to support corporate social responsibility and prevent corruption. These commitments complement Canada’s broader efforts, which include the following:

First, CIDA has helped to create, and continues to support, the Peru Office of the Ombudsman, which monitors the rule of law and protects human rights.

Second, the government’s new CSR strategy will enhance the ability of Canadian mining, oil, and gas companies to meet and exceed their social and environmental risks while operating abroad by creating a new office of the extractive sector CSR counsellor to assist in dispute resolution; developing a new CSR centre of excellence to provide information to companies; offering continuing CIDA assistance for capacity-building in developing countries; and promoting internationally recognized guidelines for CSR performance and reporting.

Third, the development of Peru’s mining tool kit for aboriginal communities–adapted from the Canadian version–is an example of cooperation between Canada and Peru on CSR activities that involved over 60 stakeholders. The tool kit attempts to help communities get a better grasp of the risks and opportunities of extractive industries and, in so doing, help mitigate social conflict;

Fourth, Canada is also supporting Peru’s implementation of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, or EITI, through the Multi Donor Trust Fund. The EITI is a global initiative that supports improved revenue transparency through the verification and full publication of company payments and government revenues from oil, gas, and mining.

Fifth, the Prime Minister’s announcement at the Summit of the Americas to commence a five-year technical assistance program to assist our free trade partners in the Americas is also supportive of our CSR efforts. This is essential to ensure that both Peru and Canada can fully access the benefits of the FTA.

Canadian companies operating in Peru have made CSR a key objective and have been leaders in Peru’s foreign investment community. For example, Canadian mining companies provided transport and machinery as emergency assistance immediately following the August 2007 earthquake in Peru.

Moreover, Canadian companies, such as Scotiabank, invest in communities in Peru by supporting poor children and women through housing, nutrition, and health initiatives. Export Development Canada reinforces these efforts through its own commitment to CSR, which includes regular review of its human rights processes and ongoing engagement of stakeholders, including Canadian companies and civil society.

The Labour Cooperation Agreement will also help strengthen labour rights and the protection of workers. Peru has committed to ensuring that its laws respect high standards of labour rights, including the International Labour Organization’s 1998 declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work. This declaration covers the right to freedom of association, collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of compulsory labour, and the elimination of discrimination.

The labour agreement opens up new pathways for cooperation. Canada is offering its resources and expertise to help Peru fully implement this agreement, and the government has announced a $1 million labour-related cooperation program.

With respect to the environment, both countries have committed to pursuing high levels of environmental protection. Special focus is being given to corporate social responsibility and the preservation of biodiversity, which is an important issue for Peru, given that it is home to some of the world’s most diverse biological resources. Canada is committed to working with Peru and Canadian companies to help protect and conserve these resources.

Mr. Chair, I’d like to conclude by noting that Peru has achieved remarkable economic progress in recent years. This success has reinforced social progress with a decline in poverty rates, a halving of infant mortality rates, and a significant advancement of the role of women in the workplace and in political office.

Even in the face of the current economic crisis, Peru is still expected to grow by 3.5% this year. We have a growing and mutually beneficial relationship with Peru, and this FTA will deepen and solidify these benefits. This agreement has the support of key exporters and investors across Canada and responds directly to this committee’s call for the negotiation of defensive FTAs in a timely manner.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Ladies and gentlemen, we will begin the 16th meeting of this session of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Today we're going to begin our review of 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.

We're going to start our review of this bill by having a review with department officials who have been particularly involved with this and can give members some background and answer questions. I understand we're going to have just one opening statement. Is that right, Carol?

We're very pleased to have back to the committee a number of people who have been here before. I'll just read them out.

First of all, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we have Matthew Kronby, director general, trade law bureau; Cameron MacKay, director, regional trade policy division, Americas; and Vernon MacKay, director, investment trade policy division. From the Department of Finance, we have Dean Beyea, who has been with us before. And from the Department of the Environment, we have Dean Knudson. And I see Pierre Bouchard as well.

I have saved Carol Nelder-Corvari for last, because I think you were with trade the last time you were here as the chief negotiator of this agreement. Now with the Department of Finance, we have Carol Nelder-Corvari, who will open with some remarks.

The House resumed from April 22 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.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, today, Bill S-3, the energy efficiency bill, was read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Just before question period, we were debating Bill C-13, the Canada Grain Act, but it appears the coalition of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc has been revived and it is supporting a motion that, if adopted, will defeat that bill. It is proposing to kill the bill before it even gets to committee. It is unfortunate that the coalition's first act is to abdicate its role as legislators by denying close scrutiny and study of a bill at a committee.

After my statement, the government will be calling Bill C-5, Indian oil and gas, followed by Bill C-18, the bill respecting RCMP pensions, which is at second reading.

Tomorrow, we will continue with the business that I just laid out for the remainder of today.

When the House returns on April 20, after two weeks of constituency work, we will continue with any unfinished business from this week, with the addition of Bill C-25, the truth in sentencing bill, Bill C-24, the Canada-Peru free trade agreement, Bill C-11, human pathogens and toxins and Bill C-6, consumer products safety. We can see we have a lot of work to do yet. All of these bills are at second reading, with the exception of Bill C-11, which will be at report stage.

During the first week the House returns from the constituency weeks, we expect that Bill C-3, the Arctic waters bill will be reported back from committee. We also anticipate that the Senate will send a message respecting Bill S-2, the customs act. If and when that happens, I will be adding those two bills to the list of business for that week.

Thursday, April 23, shall be an allotted day.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)