Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2011
House of Commons Hansard #123 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was information.
Topics
- Question Period
- House of Commons
- Committees of the House
- National Public Transit Strategy Act
- Committees of the House
- Petitions
- Questions on the Order Paper
- Points of Order
- Strengthening Aviation Security Act
- Canada-Panama Free Trade Act
- Foreign Affairs
- Entrepreneurs in the Kedgwick Area
- Gaëtane Verna
- The Internet
- The Budget
- Taxation
- World Cancer Day
- Patro Laval and Centre Durocher
- Super Bowl
- National Suicide Prevention Week
- Wiarton Willy Festival
- Health Care
- Lunar New Year
- National Suicide Prevention Week
- Dubai
- The Economy
- Canada-U.S. Relations
- National Defence
- Foreign Affairs
- Conservative Party of Canada
- Pensions
- Child Care
- Haiti
- Canada-U.S. Border
- Taxation
- Human Resources
- Public Safety
- The Environment
- Harmonization of Sales Taxes
- Telecommunications Industry
- Canada-U.S. Relations
- The Economy of Quebec's Regions
- Infrastructure
- The Environment
- Transport
- The Economy
- Public Safety
- Business of the House
- Points of Order
- Canada-Panama Free Trade Act
- Federal Spending Power Act
Strengthening Aviation Security Act
Government Orders
1 p.m.
NDP
Strengthening Aviation Security Act
Government Orders
1 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
Strengthening Aviation Security Act
Government Orders
1 p.m.
NDP
Strengthening Aviation Security Act
Government Orders
1 p.m.
Some hon. members
Yea.
Strengthening Aviation Security Act
Government Orders
1 p.m.
NDP
Strengthening Aviation Security Act
Government Orders
1 p.m.
Some hon. members
Nay.
Strengthening Aviation Security Act
Government Orders
1 p.m.
NDP
The Acting Speaker Denise Savoie
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The recorded division is deferred until Monday, February 7, immediately after private members' business.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
Speaker's Ruling
Canada-Panama Free Trade Act
Government Orders
February 3rd, 2011 / 1 p.m.
NDP
The Acting Speaker Denise Savoie
There are four motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-46. Motions Nos. 1 to 4 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 4 to the House.
Motions in Amendment
Canada-Panama Free Trade Act
Government Orders
1 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
moved: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-46 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-46 be amended by deleting Clause 10.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-46 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-46 be amended by deleting Clause 63.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the NDP amendments to take out certain key portions of Bill C-46, which is the implementation legislation on the free trade agreement with Panama.
The reason why the NDP is opposing this agreement, as many of the witnesses who came before the standing committee can attest, is because this is just another symbol of what has been a pretty dysfunctional trade strategy from the government.
Over the last 20 years, the middle class has been gutted. We have seen reduced incomes for most Canadian families and increasing inequality. Inequality in Canada is at the same level as it was in the 1920s. A lot of this is due to a series of bad right-wing economic policies that have been put forward, first, by the Liberal government and continued by the Conservative government. One of the components within that is how the Conservative government approaches trade strategy.
We will hear Conservatives in the House talk about how this is a fantastic opportunity and that Canadians will prosper. Canadians have heard that line in agreement after agreement. The government said the same thing about the softwood lumber sellout. It said the same thing about the ship building sellout. It said the same thing about the buy America sellout.
However, we have seen the contrary. We have seen middle class incomes eroding, poor Canadians getting less and struggling harder to make ends meet. In part, it is because the government signs these agreements without due thought to the consequences.
This may be surprising, but the Conservative government does not even do impact studies before it signs these agreements. It just goes ahead from the back of a napkin, hoping and praying that everything will turn out right.
It is fascinating to actually look, in real terms, at the export figures. Every time we have signed a bilateral trade agreement, our exports to those markets have actually gone down and not up.
We will hear some bafflegab from Conservatives later today and they will use a very clever trick. Instead of using real dollars, they will use current dollars. As we know, if we use current dollars, we can throw out anything and show that people are earning more money because the inflation rate and devaluation that takes place is not taken into consideration in that purchasing power. It is the same thing with exports. In real terms, in constant dollars comparing apples to apples in the markets that the Conservative government has signed these bilateral trade agreements, our exports have gone down. That is a statement of fact.
The Conservatives will try a lot of bafflegab, but a real reason why their trade strategy is so dysfunctional is because they have not done their homework and checked the figures. In fact, the NDP did the research through the Library of Parliament because, after asking DFAIT month after month, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade was unable to give the actual real-term constant dollar value of our exports to those markets.
I will cut to the chase. We have a dysfunctional Conservative government with a dysfunctional trade strategy. The government is making most Canadians poorer because it is not giving due thought to the impacts of what these trade agreements are and has a rabidly right-wing approach on trade agreements generally.
We have signed a trade agreement with Panama, but what is the problem with Panama? In a study from the Internal Revenue Service of the United States, tax havens and criminality are mentioned as well as what happens in Panama because of its encouragement to launder dirty money. The study says that 75% of all sophisticated drug trafficking operations use offshore secrecy havens like Panama.
I will cite from Tax Havens: How Globalization Really Works by Ronen Palan. He states, “It is evident to all who have studied the offshore banking business that its growth has been fuelled by the phenomenal increase in cash from the U.S. drug trade”.
The IRS states that of the investigations it has conducted, 45% involved illegal transactions derived from legal income and about 55% of cases actually dealt with illegal income from drug trafficking. The IRS cites the offshore money laundering havens where this takes place, which is very interesting. Leading them all is Panama and the Cayman Islands. The sites named by the IRS account for 85% of all cases involving transactions of illegal income.
It is not simply a process of signing a trade agreement with just any country. We are talking about the leading money laundering dirty drug money tax haven in all of the world tied with the Cayman Islands. The the government has a trade agreement with it.
I will not have time today to go into the labour violations, environmental standards or treatment of aboriginal people in Panama. However, I know my NDP colleagues will be mentioning this over the next few hours and days of debate. Instead I will focus on the issue of the money laundering of dirty drug money.
The Conservatives know full well the fundamental issue that has come up and stopped Congress in the United States from moving forward with a trade agreement with Panama. It apparently has higher standards than the Conservative government. One would think the Conservative government would then say that it would negotiate hard on behalf of Canadians, that it would put a stop to the money laundering of dirty drug money and that it would demand a tax information exchange agreement with the Panamanian government. It did not do that.
It sent a letter last year and the Panamanian government did not deign to respond for a long time. However, because the Conservatives are soft on the crime of money laundering dirty drug money decided they wanted to move ahead with the trade agreement, despite the fact it had absolutely no commitment from the Panamanian government to clean up the mess.
What response did they get? We will hear Conservatives say that they got a commitment from the Panamanian government to clean up all the money laundering of dirty drug money that takes place in Panama. That is what they will tell parliamentarians and the public, but they do not have a tax information exchange agreement. Even something minor like a double taxation agreement only deals with legal funds. It does not deal with the money laundering of dirty drug money that takes place in Panama as I speak.
The Conservatives did not get any of those assurances. However, there is a clause in the bill. What does the clause in the trade agreement actually say? It says that nothing should impede the transfer of funds in or out of the country. I guess what the Conservatives are saying is that not only is having a tax haven okay, which they are fine with as they are soft on the money laundering of dirty drug money, but it also says that they cannot stop the flow. If the Hells Angels decides it wants to money launder in Panama, I guess that means the trade agreement says that is okay, too.
These are the fundamental points about which people who voted for the Conservatives in the past should be concerned. We are not talking about economic development or progress. This dysfunctional trade policy has actually put the lie to those pretensions.
We would not be seeing most family incomes and exports to those bilateral markets go down in real terms, despite the bafflegab where the Conservatives try to magically produce, on the basis of current dollars, some kind of magical formula that does not take into consideration the fact that exports have gone down because the export strategy, pretty pathetically, is dysfunctional and failed. It is not just that. The agreement itself allows that protection and comfort for the money laundering of dirty drug money.
This is fundamentally hypocritical. It is appalling to me that a Conservative government that is so soft on white collar crime and so soft on the laundering of dirty drug money, if it is trying to push an election at the same time, would actually bring this bill forward. Over the next days of course we are going to be raising these issues, and of course Conservative voters would be the most concerned about this hypocrisy from the Conservative government.
Motions in Amendment
Canada-Panama Free Trade Act
Government Orders
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech made by my NDP colleague. I think that he highlighted the problem with this free trade agreement. He talked about money laundering, whether it is being done by drug dealers or people who launder illegally obtained money. The public often wonders why our laws are not harsh enough for cases like that. But here we are talking about an agreement with a country that is a tax haven and that encourages such practices. These examples show the public how it is possible for regular people and criminals to do this right in front of the police, because it is allowed. These people can do this in countries like that.
I would like my colleague to expand on that.
Motions in Amendment
Canada-Panama Free Trade Act
Government Orders
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain for his question.
He understood correctly. The witnesses we heard in committee were very clear about this. There is absolutely nothing to prevent the money laundering that is still happening in Panama. Moreover, if past practices are any indication, Panama is one of the worst offenders in the world in this regard.
I was surprised. I thought that the Department of International Trade would hold a press conference with Mom Boucher to promote this bill. However, as understand it, Mom Boucher is not available at the moment. I find this type of situation absurd: if you are a drug dealer, criminal or money launderer, then you have a friend in the Conservatives. They are proposing an agreement that will serve only to increase money laundering and illegal drug operations.
Motions in Amendment
Canada-Panama Free Trade Act
Government Orders
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Madam Speaker, since my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas raised the issue of his party having done an impact study, and also because he and I both served on the transport committee, I wonder whether he would be prepared to share with us what impact the development of the Panama Canal would have on the transportation routes resident in our Pacific gateway strategy, most specifically with the ports in the Lower Mainland, and with some of the commerce that flows from that.
I wonder if he would share with us whether his impact study would give us an indication that the free trade agreement would compensate for the loss of the transportation services that would accrue to the Pacific gateway ports.
Motions in Amendment
Canada-Panama Free Trade Act
Government Orders
1:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Madam Speaker, I did not say that the NDP had done an impact study. I would like to state for the record and for the member for Eglinton—Lawrence that what I was saying was that it was surprising to me that the Conservative government, regardless of the agreement it tossed on the floor of the House of Commons, never does its due diligence. The Conservative government never does its homework. It never does the homework that is required to actually present the case to Canadians.
Now the Conservatives will do a lot of cheerleading. We will hear it this afternoon. We know exactly what they are going to say, that It is all about economic prosperity. However, hard-working Canadians who are working harder and harder for less and less are seeing jobs going overseas. They are seeing the kinds of deals that actually encourage the laundering of dirty drug money. I think those Canadians are very skeptical now about the kind of vacuous cheerleading we hear from the Conservatives on this.
The Liberals are not obliged to support the Conservatives on this, and we hope the Liberals will be on board with voting against this bad deal.
