Madam Speaker, I am glad to join the debate on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.
It is a bit of a shock to see yet another trade agreement, especially with a country that represents about only 1% of our trade, but I will add my 2¢ nonetheless.
What we are being asked to approve is another in an ever-growing line of NAFTA-style agreements. These are agreements that promote what many call the race to the bottom, agreements that seek a level playing field which we are well aware is level for some, like investors, and lopsided for the rest of those affected by them.
I am sure that most in this chamber are familiar with the concerns New Democrats have been raising about these kinds of agreements. We have been consistent in our criticism of agreements that make a mockery of environmental standards and labour practices; fail to protect or promote human rights; entrench poverty in already struggling populations, just like we see here in Canada where a quarter of a million seniors live in poverty; and ultimately lead to a siphoning off of Canadian jobs.
Many of my colleagues have raised these very points again and again. Yet, they seem to fall on deaf ears as the ideologically-driven right wing cements a world that is defined by haves and have nots.
From my perspective, this deal is flawed. We are being asked to cozy up to a country with a terrible record when it comes to labour standards and the rights of workers. This is a country that has new legislation restricting the right to strike and freedom of association. In this country, Panama, this past summer we saw several workers killed, over 100 injured and more than 300 arrested as they protested the legislation. Is that what our government hopes to promote with this deal?
It is truly a step backward from the rights and freedoms fought for and enjoyed by Canadian workers.
It is all the more disappointing that labour is dealt with as a side agreement. It would be refreshing to see an agreement come about where human rights and labour standards are the primary goal and investor rights are dealt with as an afterthought. However, I do not imagine we will be seeing that any time soon from the current government.
What we see here is another in a long line of measures from the current government, and its predecessors, that pays attention to the needs of banks and CEOs at the expense of everyday people.
The current government likes to say the economy is its number one priority. I say it is too bad Canadians were not its number one priority. If that were the case, our trade policy would take a different shape. We would not have thousands of forestry sector workers unemployed. We would not be fighting foreign ownerships to honour pensions people worked their entire lives for, just as we saw in the case of Vale Inco. And we certainly would not be debating endless trade agreements that are not beneficial to most Canadians.
Ultimately, with this agreement we see that again all the meaningful regulations protect investors. If the NAFTA example is any indication, we will watch as money flows out of Canada in chapter 11-type dispute settlement payments. And if recent history is any indication, the government will not even bother to defend Canada when the claims are made.
If we take a look at the side agreement on the environment, it has no teeth. It does not ensure that Canada or Panama will enforce their environmental laws and this is worth considering. We actually have trouble enforcing the current environmental laws we have in place here in Canada.
A good portion of our trade with Panama would be in agriculture. The agreement would remove tariffs. If Panama were to follow the example of Brazil, we would be seeing a significant growth in cattle farming. Panama has some of the most important rainforests on the planet. It is not unreasonable to suspect that this agreement could lead to the destruction of these important cloud forests so that we could have cheap leather and burgers. This is why an environmental side agreement with no real teeth is such a disappointing feature of this agreement.
I do not think it is possible to overstate the fact that Panama is a tax haven and is largely uncooperative with other countries that would like to repatriate missing money.
We have just seen the kind of money that could be hidden from our tax collectors as a result of leaked documents from Swiss HSBC accounts. Why would we pursue a trade agreement with a country as notorious for this as Panama? Not only are we charging ahead with a deal that will mostly benefit large investors, but we will not even be demanding an end to the tax havens they can use to further avoid contributing to our country. It is enough to make one's head spin.
As I said at the outset, this agreement is typically that of a race to the bottom mentality that really does not address the needs of the average person.
I will leave it there because I am sure there will be questions that will need to be answered and I can present more of my speech afterwards if need be.
