This bill was last introduced in 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.
Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I have a brief question.
I would like to know if the companies that set up shop in Peru or in neighbouring countries—mining companies, for example—will be expected to comply with Canadian laws or the laws of the country in which they are operating. I would like more information about that. What responsibilities will they have to the people in terms of the environment?
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is the crux of the problem. Mining companies have to comply with the existing laws in both countries. The Conservative government is saying that it will not follow the round table recommendations, that it will not give the necessary authority, that it will not appoint an ombudsman. As a result, companies will be subject only to the laws of the host country.
Developing countries do not have the structures or the strength necessary to negotiate with companies on an equal footing and therefore agree to environmental conditions or working conditions they should not agree to. We have to admit that we did the same thing in Quebec 50 or 60 years ago. This is unacceptable. We are giving companies too much latitude and an unfair advantage.
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Mr. Speaker, we have heard from previous speakers about the importance of securing other markets for Canadian companies during this global economic crisis. Canada is a global trading nation. It has been identified that the United States ratified an agreement with Peru a couple of months ago. Every day that passes, Canadian companies are at a disadvantage.
Is my hon. colleague not concerned about providing opportunities and a level playing field for Canadian businesses in the free and fair trade agreement that is being proposed?
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for a brief reply.
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about this issue. I want Canadian companies to have access to other countries under reasonable conditions, but I do not believe, for example, that we have to give those companies rights beyond the existing rights in those countries. We need to negotiate longer to make sure that there are appropriate concessions on both sides.
We know from our experience with the North American Free Trade Agreement that chapter 11 gives companies excessive power. We are making the same mistake in this case. It is inappropriate. Often it is American companies that have gone to court in Canada. We are going to find ourselves in the same situation in the case of Canada and Peru.
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about an act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru.
I want to say first that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill. Although it is important to reach agreements on trade and on markets for our companies, we feel that this should not be at any price. We think that a very well organized and highly developed country like Canada should help increase the wealth of the people of a country that is less fortunate, that might be a developing country which is not so rich. Canada could become a major contributor to socio-economic development, but certainly not under the free trade agreement between Canada and Peru.
In order for this agreement to help increase the wealth of the Peruvian people, it would have to contain measures to ensure sustainable development and help the people to thrive. In addition, the free trade agreement between Canada and Peru contains a clause to protect investment that was copied from chapter 11 of NAFTA and will enable companies to sue governments. We think that this clause could impede the social and economic development of Peru.
NAFTA's chapter 11 on investment allows investors from a country in the North American free trade area to seek compensation from the government of another NAFTA country when they think they have suffered damages as a result of regulations being adopted that change the conditions under which their company operates.
For example, if a country decides to issue regulations or make changes to its legislation on health, the environment or the work done by people within its borders and there are resultant changes to the conditions under which a company operates, that company can institute legal proceedings against the government in question.
We have seen this happen in the past in the United States, in Mexico and even in Canada, and it has led to payments of millions of dollars in compensation. That means that the government itself is no longer master in its own house, is no longer master of its own territory, because of this famous clause, which is similar to the one in Chapter 11 of NAFTA. It creates a drain on the public treasury. For example, that clause is used in land expropriation cases, but it is also being used increasingly when a corporation can prove that it has lost profits. When that happens, it can bring action against the government of the country.
Chapter 11 provides a dispute settlement mechanism.
The Bloc Québécois believes that disputes should be settled openly and transparently, and that is not the case.
Very often, then, arbitrators are not familiar with the issue involved and do not necessarily have the qualifications to decide it, and so they may make mistakes and make an unfavourable decision.
We are also opposed to the free trade agreement with Peru because we believe that in terms of the environment and labour, we have no guarantee that our corporations can do business with that country and also respect human rights, labour rights and environmental rights. On that point, I would note that a rather unflattering report was made, one that was in fact disregarded by the present Conservative government. The report related to the social responsibility of Canadian corporations abroad. The social responsibility of Canadian mining companies has been a long standing issue.
Many corporations do an excellent job; they respect the environment and abide by the principles of the International Labour Organization. Some mining companies, however, are appalling, and seek to make profits at any cost. Human Rights Watch and the United Nations have pointed fingers at them. That is what the Bloc Québécois wants to avoid. This agreement provides no guarantee that the laws will be strong enough, and have enough teeth, to compel our Canadian mining companies to respect human rights and the environment.
The agreements that were recently made and that we will be discussing this week, the free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, have similarities that absolutely must be pointed out. First, Peru and Colombia are not very significant trading partners for Canada. Canadian exports to those countries account for something in the region of 0.1% to 0.7% of our exports. It is important to note, however, that our mining and oil companies make major Canadian investments in those countries. To protect those companies, we have to enter into bilateral agreements that have not been approved by parliamentarians in either country. Those agreements are quite often made by stealth and in great haste, and do not contain protection clauses. If they do, those clauses are so vague and so general that ultimately they are meaningless.
One of the main things that make Peru attractive to Canadian investors is, of course, natural resources, and mining resources in particular. The same is true of Colombia. Canadian investments in Peruvian mining hover around $5 billion. We are told that 80 Canadian mining companies are conducting mining exploration in Peru. This makes Canada the top investor in mining exploration in Peru.
Naturally, it might be tempting for Peru to do business with Canada. People are told that the mining companies will bring money, generate trade, carry out exploitation activities and give them work. Attention also has to be paid to the impact of these companies' activities. They have responsibilities. I keep coming back to the need to protect the environment, to protect human rights and to meet ILO standards.
While supposedly creating prospects for Canadian businesses, the real intention of this government is to allow Canadian mining companies to go even further. As we know, Canadian mining companies have not had to comply with any standards thus far, in terms of the appropriation of land.
In the past, the OECD has even asked Canada to put forward standards that our mining companies would have to meet in order to ensure that their operations do not harm or displace any aboriginal or other populations.
Canada never responded. Canada has always maintained that the host country, the one in which our mining companies operate, should put forward its own legislation to protect its territory. However, the host countries are not always in a position to do that, either because they lack the parliamentary resources, because they do not dare do so or because, in the case of Colombia, the government is so corrupt and so close to paramilitary organizations—and the latter can use aboriginal lands—that they will allow a Canadian mining company to set up there and operate with no accountability.
We referred to National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry, which included representatives of the extractive industry. They prepared excellent reports.
This was 12 to 18 months ago. The Government of Canada never responded. The roundtables resulted in excellent reports, with supporting evidence, and asked that a Canadian corporate social responsibility framework be established, among other things. They asked for mandatory corporate social responsibility standards that Canadian mining companies would have to respect when working abroad. They asked for punitive measures for offending companies. They asked for an independent ombudsman who would conduct impartial investigations in order to determine whether or not complaints are founded.
This government, the Conservative government, never responded to these roundtable reports. Recently, when the free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia were signed, the Minister of International Trade simply stated that the position of ombudsman would be created and that the incumbent would report to the minister.
Thus, he will not be independent and this investigator will not necessarily have the room to manoeuvre when conducting his investigations and determining if the Canadian company is an offender.
Neither the Government of Canada nor Canadian companies will ever put forward preventive measures to govern the activities of Canadian mining companies abroad. As I said earlier, all we want is for the host countries to consider barriers to uncontrolled development by Canadian companies a priority.
I would add that, when it comes to the environment and the International Labour Organization, the agreement under consideration should offer guarantees that companies will respect the environment. In Columbia, for example, Canadian mining companies polluted rivers in a certain region so badly that they turned pink because of heavy use of nitrates and other strong chemicals in the extraction process. Whole populations were poisoned because of it. In Peru, one company has already been taken to task because the level of sulphur in the air around the mine was harmful to residents.
Without such guarantees, and given that the environmental provisions of the agreement are so vague, we cannot vote in favour of it.
Since I do not have much time left, I am going to conclude by saying that, when we are doing business with a country, we must at least make sure that we are not just trying to do business at any cost, but that we do so with the protection of individuals and of the environment in mind.
Unfortunately, the agreement with Peru—as is the case with the one with Colombia—is being condemned by several environmental groups. The Peruvian civil society is also opposed to that accord. Canada is losing credibility. We are doing trade and, seemingly because we are going through a global crisis, we are promoting markets. However, we are in fact promoting the mining industry or, in the case of Colombia, the Canadian oil and gas industry.
The Bloc Québécois is proposing changes to Canada's trade attitudes. Canada must focus on creating a more level playing field. There is no policy on corporate accountability. That is unfortunate. What we have here is a philosophy that gives priority to trade, at the expense of human rights.
Some members have a skeptical look on their faces. I find it rather strange that, when we are part of a political party in Canada and when we are told bluntly that the agreement goes against human rights and the environment, we would not have the heart to check and to see what environmental groups and human rights protection groups think about the whole issue.
I would like hon. members to go and meet with the Canadian Council for International Cooperation. A nice 45 page report was published on the agreements with Peru and Colombia. This is a nice document written by lawyers and environmentalists, who are saying that Canada should be ashamed to sign such accords. I would like hon. members opposite to reflect on this and to have the heart to think about the fact that some individuals are going to lose their shirts in these dealings.
The House resumed from April 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this bill, this additional ribbon-cutting opportunity for the government and for the Minister of International Trade.
I would like to state right at the outset, as my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River stated in the House on Monday, the NDP is voting no on this agreement. I will summarize my comments before I go into the context around why this is a bad bill, not in the interest of Canada at all and certainly not in the interest of Canadian workers or ordinary Peruvians.
To get into the context, I will first mention some of the most egregious aspects of the bill. This bill does not provide for any real opportunity and growth in Canadian jobs. I will come back to the sad history of this, both from the Conservative government and the former Liberal government, in a moment.
Second, this bill replicates the chapter 11 provisions that have been so difficult for municipalities and provinces in cases where they are putting any type of legislation or action in place to improve the quality of life of their people. Whether we are talking about cities or provinces, in all cases chapter 11 has had a push-back effect, most recently with Dow Chemical challenging the pesticide ban in Quebec and threatening to the challenge the pesticide ban in Ontario that was announced today. That is an example of why chapter 11 is very bad.
I will come back to that in a moment or two, but this is what the Conservative government has chosen to replicate in the Peruvian agreement. There is no job gain. The chapter 11 provisions will hurt people in both countries who are trying to improve their quality of life. Multinationals and chief executives basically have the opportunity to override or to get compensation in the event that anything impugns upon the profit of those companies.
Just to summarize arguments before I go into more detail, there is a clause in this agreement that is essentially a carbon copy of the “kill a trade unionist, pay a fine” provisions of the Canada-Colombia trade deal. Let us imagine this for a moment. The Conservative government, despite the fact that it has completely muffed the possibility of putting more police officers on the ground in Canada and has treated police officers, quite frankly, with profound disrespect in refusing to implement the public safety officer compensation fund that was passed by Parliament, has systematically refused everything that police officers asked them to do, pretends to want to do something about crime, but what we have is a trade agreement that essentially legitimizes the killing of human rights activists and trade unionists.
That is less of a problem in Peru than it is in Colombia, but the provisions are outrageous just the same. If there are continued killings of trade unionists, essentially the governments either of Colombia or of Peru would pay a fine to themselves. Let us think about this for a moment. Does this correspond in any way with Canadian values?
If the Minister of Public Safety got up in the House and said he was going to do away with criminal sentences and if people killed somebody they would have to pay a fine, he would be laughed out of the House. Canadians would not accept that. Yet the government is proposing to do exactly that to deal with the ongoing abuse of labour rights, especially in Colombia, but to a certain extent as well, because there have been concerns raised about the context of Peruvian trade union law, it also impacts on Peru.
For those three reasons, the NDP quite legitimately is saying no to this bill.
Let us look at the broader context. We have a government that has followed along the lines of the old failed Liberal approach on economic policy. In a very real sense, Liberals and Conservatives are co-dependent. They keep doing something that is bad and inappropriate and they just cannot stop themselves.
So what we have had over the past 20 years is a complete absence of any sort of industrial strategy to create value-added products and a complete absence of an export strategy, which I will come back to in a moment. Instead, there has been a heavy reliance on ribbon-cutting ceremonies and signature of trade agreements, even when they undermine our own domestic industries and jobs.
Most recently with the government we saw it with the softwood sellout, which to date has cost 20,000 jobs. Not only that, not only is there the job loss that it has caused across the country because of the self-imposed penalties that any Canadian softwood exporter faces at the border, but in addition, these Conservative members are asking taxpayers to pick up the tab for their failure to put in place an agreement that was actually to Canada's advantage.
We had an arbitration two weeks ago. Now it is going to cost Canadian taxpayers, and each and every Conservative member is supporting this idea, $58 million, going south, because the anti-circumvention clause of the softwood sellout is so vast that the American lumber lobby can take us to court on anything. So we lost $58 million. The Canadian taxpayer is now having to pick up the tab.
But wait, we have two more arbitrations coming forward. One will be for a similar amount, probably around $60 million that these Conservative members are going to ask Canadian taxpayers to pick up for their own incompetence. And wait for it, the biggest arbitration could potentially be in the order of $400 million. That is for British Columbia and Alberta softwood producers. Either the entire industry shuts down or all the softwood workers have to take second and third jobs flipping burgers to get that paid off, or the Canadian taxpayers pick it up.
There is not a single Conservative MP, whether from northern Ontario or from British Columbia, who has stood up and said that the Conservatives made a huge mistake, that this arbitration provision and the handcuffs that are the anti-circumvention clause are a horribly bad idea because it costs jobs in Canada and it costs the Canadian taxpayers literally tens of millions of dollars, and potentially, in the coming weeks, hundreds of millions of dollars. Not a single Conservative MP has said, “We made a mistake”, not a single one.
So the softwood sellout very clearly has ignited real opposition right across the country, and I think the Conservatives will be paying the price in the next election.
It was not just that. They went from the softwood sellout to the shipbuilding sellout and brought forward an EFTA agreement that, to all intents and purposes, shuts down our shipbuilding industry. That is not me speaking, that is the actual representatives of the shipbuilding industry, from both coasts, from Atlantic Canada and from Pacific Canada, when they came and testified before the committee. They asked, “Why are you doing this? Why are you bringing in a bill that essentially forces the collapse of our shipbuilding industry, without taking any other measures?”
In this House, the NDP read letter after letter from shipyard workers from British Columbia and from Nova Scotia. We had opposition from Quebec and from Newfoundland shipyard workers. In fact, there was not a single representative either of business or of labour in the shipbuilding industry who supported that agreement.
Again, the Conservatives pushed it through with the support of their co-dependents in the Liberal Party. We had a second sellout, essentially a sellout of our shipbuilding jobs.
One might think, okay, we are selling out these industries but maybe we are gaining overall. Unfortunately, and this is the tragedy, we do not have a single Conservative member who is willing to do his or her homework and actually look at what the economic ramifications have been for the kinds of policies the government has put in place.
To be fair to the Conservatives, the Liberals largely put many of these into place and the whole approach on trade, and now we have the Conservatives following up on the same approach. We would think that, at some point, some member, whether from the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party, would actually have done his or her homework and looked at the economic results.
The NDP did. StatsCan tells us that over the last 20 years, with these ill-disguised attempts at ideology rather than an attempt at building a real economic policy that is export driven, most Canadian families are actually earning less. Some Conservatives will laugh at this because they have not actually looked at the figures, but if we ask most Canadians, they will tell us that they are earning less now than they were 5 or 10 years ago, and that they are working harder and harder.
Productivity has skyrocketed for ordinary Canadian working families. We know that Canadians work very hard and are dedicated. They love their country and are willing to contribute to their communities and their country but they have had a government that has simply pushed them aside. During this time, the poorest of Canadians have lost the equivalent of about a month and a half of income for each and every year over the last 20 years. In other words, it is like they are working on 52-week years but only getting paid for 46 weeks. A month and a half of income has simply evaporated, which is why we now have hundreds of thousands of homeless people across this country sleeping in parks and on main streets. We have seen a complete erosion of income for the poorest of Canadians.
That has continued for the middle class as well. Any middle class family could tell us that in the second and third income categories, which are the lower and upper middle classes, they have seen a loss as well of a week to two weeks of income on average. Their real income is much lower now than it was 20 years ago.
We have an overall problem when 80% of Canadian families are earning less now than they were 20 years ago. One would think that some Conservatives would realize that maybe they were making a mistake with all the sellouts. Maybe they think that if a corporate CEO is doing well, somehow that money will trickle down to the small businesses that actually pay the salaries of the Conservative members. One would think that one of them would have done his or her homework but none of them have, which is why communities are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet. During this same time, the top 20% of Canadian income earners, the corporate lawyers and the corporate CEOs, have seen their incomes skyrocket. Now they take over half of all income in Canada.
When there is a complete lack of policies and the Conservatives put in place free trade agreements that essentially hand over more power to a very few at the expense of the many, what is wrong with this picture?
Most Canadian families are earning less, even though they are working harder than ever. Overtime in the same period has gone up by over a third. The average Canadian is working longer and longer weeks and often needs to work two or three part time jobs because the family sustaining jobs have been given away by the Conservatives, as they were by the Liberals before them.
The small businesses also suffer from this. When the Conservatives hand over money to the banking sector, it goes down to the Caribbean, and when they hand over money, as we know, to corporate executives in the energy sector, that money goes down to Houston, Texas, which does not benefit ordinary Canadians.The fundamental problem is that the government lacks any sort of industrial strategy.
We also have the sellouts, whether it is the softwood sellout or the shipbuilding sellout. Canadians are getting poorer and poorer under the Conservative government, as they were under the previous Liberal government. They are codependent with the same failed approach.
What does the government do? It signs these agreements. What happens with these bilateral trade agreements? In virtually every case, our exports actually went down. One would think that somebody in the Conservative or Liberal caucus would look at that and see that as a worrisome trend. When we sign bilateral Canada-Costa Rica and Canada-Chile agreements and our exports actually go down, someone must realize there is a fundamental problem and that maybe our approach is not working.
Not a single Conservative or Liberal MP actually bothered to look at the export figures. After we signed these failed agreements and gave away these things, not one member actually checked to see whether or not exports went up. Exports declined. We already talked about the fall of real income. When we are signing bilateral agreements, we are actually talking about falling exports. It is not rocket science. If our exports fall and real income falls, maybe our approach or our strategy is not working.
The NDP will continue to do its work in the House, which is why we keep growing and are now overflowing to two sides of the House. The reason we keep growing is because of the type of arrogance we see from the Conservative government.
What are other countries doing that works? One very good example is the amount of money that other countries are putting in to promote their product exports. Australia spends $500 million in product promotion support for Australian value added products. We have a situation where the Australian economy is export oriented but valued added export oriented. It is not exporting the raw logs that the Conservatives love to ship across the border with Canadian logs to create American jobs. Australia is actually promoting value added products and it is doing it with real muscle and real support.
I have another example. As we on the international trade committee know, the European Union, on its wine sector exports alone, spends $125 million in product promotion support. We have Australia on the one hand and the European Union on the other hand. We also have the United States putting real muscle behind its export industry.
What is Canada doing? What are the Conservatives doing? We found out just a couple of weeks ago how much they invest for the entire United States market, which is where over 80% of our exports go. It takes the lion's share of the support for exports that the government puts into place. Was it $500 million for Canada, a larger economy than Australia, for 80% of our exports? No, it was not. Was it $400 million, which would be certainly less but certainly in keeping with the idea of a strong approach? No, it was not. Not one Conservative would be able to answer that question even though, hopefully, some of them at the trade committee were actually listening. It was not $300 million, nor was it $200 million or $125 million like the European Union puts into product promotion support just for one industry. It was not even $100 million.
People listening to CPAC and the deliberations in the House of Commons because they have lost their jobs because of the foolishness and irresponsibility of the Conservative government would wonder whether it was $90 million. No, it was not. It was not even $80 million, $75 million, $60 million or $50 million. How low can we go? Was it $40 million, $30 million, $20 million, $10 million, $5 million or even $4 million? No, it was not. Incredibly, the Conservative government, which says that it wants to reinforce our export industries for the entire American market where over 80% of our exports go, spends $3.4 million in product promotion support.
What is wrong with this picture? We have falling incomes, falling exports and the largest trade deficit in well over 30 years, and the Conservative government hands out billions of dollars to the banks without even blinking. it just shovels money off the back of a truck. Any time a banker asks for a handout, the Conservatives just hand out money to the banks. The banks can set interest rates as high as they want on credit cards because it does not matter to the Conservatives.
For the entire American market, we spent $3.4 million. This is the absurdity of it. When we look at Canada-Peru, this is the absurdity of the approach of the government. It is interested in the ribbon-cutting and in signing an agreement that would, under chapter 11 provisions, handcuff local and regional governments from making good environmental decisions. There is no protection for labour and no export plan.
For all those reasons, that is why we in the NDP are saying that this is a completely failed approach. Canadians are becoming more and more aware of just how the government has failed.
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Madam Speaker, I tried to listen to the member across the way but it was difficult to handle. Let us face it, the New Democrats will not support any free trade agreement with anyone.
I want to give the member an example of why free trade agreements are important for his home province of British Columbia. He used the example of Australia.
I will give the member an example. We in this country are producers of recreational boats. Australia has free trade agreements with a number of countries, including the United States, that have no tariffs and no barriers to pleasure craft entering their country from those other countries. Canadian manufacturers, however, must pay 5% on every boat that is delivered to Australia. It is making us uncompetitive and unable to sell our Canadian manufactured products to Australia, which is why the government is in favour of free trade agreements around the world and will continue to work on free trade agreements. They are important because they create jobs and opportunities for Canadians, which is why the NDP does not get it.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Sadly, Madam Speaker, I get it and I get it because in my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster alone three softwood mills had to shut down because of the foolishness and irresponsibility of the Conservative government. That was 2,000 jobs the Conservatives lost and every Conservative MP is responsible for that completely irresponsible approach on trade.
Australia has it right. It put in place fair trade agreements. It supports its export industries and the Conservative government does not: $3.4 million for all Canadian products in the U.S. market. All Conservative members should be hanging their heads in shame. They are costing Canadian jobs. They have killed the softwood industry, the shipbuilding industry and the steel industry. They are killing sector after sector because they have as a Prime Minister somebody who never had to meet a payroll or balance the books. He got his economics from a textbook.
We can see the failure of the government. It is not economic theory. It is knowing how to put in place a strategy that works, and the government has not.
Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB
Madam Speaker, I listened to the member give these anti-free trade rants now for years. In fact, I chaired the trade committee for about a year and a half when he was on the committee and he is against all free trade agreements.
The member has to answer to his constituents. When he is standing in his constituency with two friends, the three of them standing there, if he cancels out on these free trade agreements, one of those people will lose his or her job. He will need to make the decision on which one of the three of them will lose their job if we cancel out on these free trade agreements. That is the absolute reality and the truth of the situation. Thirty per cent of all of our jobs in Canada result from NAFTA, the free trade agreement with the United States alone. These other agreements add more jobs.
The hon. member claims to be speaking on behalf of workers from time to time. I know that may not be true but he claims to be. How will he explain to those workers why one in three should lose their job because of his anti-free trade stand? He has to explain that to his constituents, and good luck to him in doing so.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Madam Speaker, what that member has to explain to his constituents in Alberta, for example, is why farmer seats in Alberta are lower than anywhere else in the country. Why have Alberta farmers been punished by the failed policies of the government?
I hope the member actually meets with farmers because the farmers in Alberta are suffering tremendously, which is why they are starting to vote NDP after--
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker Denise Savoie
You would think we were in kindergarten.
I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the House to be respectful to each other in this debate. This is a dialogue between different ideals. It is not a shouting match.
The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Madam Speaker, rather than shouting over the heckling of the Conservatives, I will be able to speak in a more conversational tone.
The NDP has always been for fair trade, not for chapter 11 provisions that allow pesticide bans to be overridden by chemical companies that are producing products that they know are toxic and not for people to override the kind of collective bargaining process that takes place in any sort of healthy society where workers can get together and negotiate a better wage together. The NDP has always favoured fair trade agreements.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives have not put in place and have not proposed to the House a fair trade agreement. They are proposing the same kind of failed policies that did not work under the Liberals.
When we have a hemorrhaging of jobs in the softwood industry, in the steel sector and in shipyards across the country, we would expect the government to take its responsibilities and to be very thoughtful in what it presents to the House, but that is clearly not the case. The softwood sellout that has killed about one-third of the jobs in my area in the softwood industry is just one example of that.
The member who references the one in three is absolutely right. His government brought in policies that killed, in my area, one out of every three jobs in that sector, and it has been like that right across British Columbia. It was a failed policy and the government never should have signed that agreement.