This bill is from the 40th Parliament, 2nd session, which ended in December 2009.
Stockwell Day Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-24s:
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.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to what my colleague across the aisle had to say. I found it quite stunning to hear what he said.
I have communities that are very impacted by the softwood lumber agreement. They have said that they are grateful for it, that it has helped save the few jobs that are there.
As we look at opening trade opportunities internationally, my community is very thankful, during these difficult times, that we are looking at opportunities to expand trade and exports.
How can the hon. member possibly face his constituents when he consistently votes against job and trade opportunities that will help service his community?
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Madam Speaker, I love Kamloops and I will be going there very shortly when the next announcement of penalties levied against Canada under the softwood lumber sell-out are announced. It could be in the range of $400 million.
I will be very glad to go to Kamloops and talk with the member's constituents about why they are coughing up that money because of the irresponsibility of the government.
That is exactly the problem. The hemorrhaging of jobs we have seen and the loss of jobs right across the country is because Conservatives do not understand the connection between a very strong trade strategy and economic growth as opposed to ribbon cutting.
I know, having been in Kamloops a number of times, that the people in Kamloops have suffered as much from the softwood lumber sell-out as the people in Burnaby—New Westminster. In our case, three mills have closed and 2,000 jobs have been lost because the government has been incredibly irresponsible in signing trade agreements without any understanding of the implications.
Therefore, I will be very glad to go to Kamloops and talk with her constituents about why they will have to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars in fines, in addition to the jobs they have lost, because the government has been so irresponsible.
John Rafferty NDP Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Madam Speaker, my hon. friend continually talked about an inferior trade deal. Was there any possibility at any time to make this a superior trade deal?
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Madam Speaker, the member is terrific and energetic and one of the top rookies in the House.
Absolutely there was an opportunity to make this a superior trade deal. That takes two things. The first is to put in place a fair trade agenda, rather than this George Bush style free trade agenda. In fact, we have the only government in the western world that still relies on the old George Bush free trade rhetoric. We know how well that went over in the United States. Millions of jobs were lost and there was a strong reaction to what the George Bush Republican administration put in place for free trade. A fair trade agenda would have meant stronger negotiating.
We also have to get New Democrats negotiating these agreements. As the hon. member knows, New Democrats are very tough negotiators. They do not sell out Canada. They do not simply want to sign and cut the ribbon. In any labour negotiations we know full well that we get better deals for ordinary Canadians when the NDP pushes at the table.
If we have an NDP administration pushing for fair trade agreements, we can get superior agreements that lead to economic development, increased trade and a pulling up of labour standards and environmental standards, which is what the vast majority of Canadians want to see, not this old rhetoric from the Conservatives and Liberals of George Bush style Republican free trade.
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.
Suspension of SittingCanada-Peru Free Trade AgreementGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Denise Savoie
We will suspend the business of the House for a few moments because of the fire alarm. We will resume as soon as possible.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1:20 p.m.)
(The House resumed at 1:43 p.m.)
Sitting ResumedCanada-Peru Free Trade AgreementGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Denise Savoie
It being 1:43 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
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.
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.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke. I work a lot with him on the Standing Committee on International Trade. I am happy of course with the Bloc position. The same cannot unfortunately be said for the softwood lumber agreement and the sellout agreement on shipbuilding. The Bloc unfortunately voted in favour of these two bills, which led and is leading to job losses in Quebec. It is too bad, but it does not matter, the Bloc is on the same wavelength as the NDP now and everyone can be glad.
I do in fact have a question for my colleague from Sherbrooke. He spoke eloquently on the subject of labour rights. As we all know, Peru is unable at the moment even to honour all its WTO obligations. Agreements already signed to permit unionized labour, to entitle people to organize under the protection of a collective agreement, all these protections, which should exist internationally, have been ignored by the Peruvian government. We heard that in testimony before the committee. It is unfortunate. It undermines the credibility of this agreement. If it provides no protection and if the Peruvian government is in the process of rejecting all the agreements it has signed, questions need to be asked. What real protection does the agreement provide?
I wanted to put these questions to my colleague from Sherbrooke. Does he see any sort of protection at all in this agreement for people seeking the protection of a collective agreement?
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do indeed work with the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. We are not, obviously, going to start quibbling over who follows whom or who is on the same wavelength as whom. We agree on some fundamental principles and considerations, but not others. Overall, however, as regards this agreement, this implementation legislation, we oppose this free trade agreement.
Naturally, as we have criticized it and will continue to do so, this is not the right approach. This is a time for innovation and not for including these side agreements. And they are just that, off on the side, separate. So they will never be part of the main agreement. They must be included in the main agreement along with clear aims and obligations. Good intentions are set out in the side agreements and warrant a response at least. Is there agreement with the ILO principle and international environmental rights? Who can say not? No one. And yet, when ask ourselves whether these agreements will enable us to improve legislation on labour in Colombia or on human or environmental rights, obviously everyone—at least half of the members on this side of the House—believes we should not proceed because labour and environmental rights along with the agreements on investments would not improve the situation in the country we are doing business with. With a good trade or economic agreement, both sides emerge as winners, especially their peoples.
Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech on the Canada-Peru agreement, which is somewhat similar to the Canada-Colombia agreement. The agreement allows mining to occur in situations where, often, neither the country nor the investors respect human or environmental rights or labour standards. This bilateral agreement also includes chapter 11, which protects investors from future policies that could help workers in countries with mining activity.
This morning, the House considered Bill C-306, and the Liberals and Conservatives spoke against it. That bill would have created jobs here at home, in our regions. The bill would have strengthened our position vis-à-vis free trade agreements with the United States, but they were against it anyway.
I would like my colleague to comment on the corporate social responsibility motion moved by a Liberal Party member and supported by the Liberals. Why does he think the Liberals voted for a foreign corporate social responsibility motion, then turned around and voted for bills that do not respect workers' rights?
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is perfectly right. There is indeed a discrepancy. There is a problem and I would even say that it is a serious problem. That is where we find more or less the same direction followed by government negotiators in free trade agreements and, let us face it, that direction comes from the government.
Whether we are talking about side agreements on labour or environmental laws or about the chapter on investment, they are just good intentions that hide a huge possibility of wrongdoing and abuse.
There is a fundamental problem if the Liberal Party wants, on one hand, to make mining companies and oil and gas companies accountable with its bill and, on the other hand, to vote in favour of implementing the free trade agreement with Peru. There is the truth, and then there is make-believe. Right now, there is every indication that, both in the motion and in the bill, it is just make-believe. We know full well that they think they will form the government, which means that they must also please large corporations.
So there is a significant gap between what is the truth and what is make-believe. If the Liberals bring forward a motion on mining companies and oil and gas companies and a bill to make them accountable, then accountability must also be included in this free trade agreement. The time has come to step away from what the Canadian government has done historically in free trade agreements. I strongly suggest to the Liberal Party to vote against this agreement if it wants to follow its own motion and its own bill.