Bill C-24 (Historical)

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

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

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

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement 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.