Bill C-46 (Historical)

Canada-Panama Free Trade Act

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

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 Panama and done at Ottawa on May 13 and 14, 2010.
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 agreements 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.
Part 3 of the enactment contains coordinating amendments and the coming into force provision.

Canada-Panama Free Trade Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of International Trade]

moved that Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the House today to the Canada-Panama free trade act.

Pursuing trade agreements is essential to bringing continued prosperity to Canadians. And this is why the implementation of free trade agreements is a priority for the Government of Canada and demonstrates our commitment to helping Canadian businesses compete in markets abroad.

As the world economies recover, expanding trade and investment relationships to improve market access is more important than ever. By opening our markets and pursuing greater market access abroad, we are sending a clear message that protectionism is not the way to achieve global stability and prosperity. By improving access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses, we are supporting domestic economic growth and creating new opportunities for Canadian workers.

Our government knows that Canada's long-term prosperity is driven by the ingenuity and creativity of hard-working families, small business owners and entrepreneurs across the country.

Canada’s exporters, investors and service providers are calling for these opportunities. Business owners and entrepreneurs want access to global markets, and this government is listening.

Canada made the big jump into free trade with our free trade agreement with the United States. Many in the House will remember the 1988 election and how that very much gripped the country. It was perhaps the only election in my lifetime thoroughly dominated by policy, not personalities, not advertising campaigns, but by substance, and one policy in particular, that of free trade.

As a result of that great debate and the subsequent results, the success of free trade with the United States, that debate is very much a settled question in Canada now. Canadians embrace free trade. Our trade with the United States has doubled since that time and our trade with Mexico, as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement, has increased almost five times.

There are true Conservative roots in the commitment to free trade. After we ceased to be government, for the next 13 years our predecessors were somewhat reluctant to embrace free trade, notwithstanding its apparent success. Three new free trade agreements were negotiated, however, in that time with Chile, Costa Rica and Israel.

Since we formed the government again in 2006, we have pursued an aggressive and ambitious free trade agenda, including commencing renegotiation of our free trade agreements with Chile and Costa Rica to make them much more comprehensive and ambitious.

We have also concluded, in just a little more than four years, new free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Jordan and the European Free Trade Association countries of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Lichtenstein. We also have seen, through these agreements, in a very short period of time significant victories for Canadian workers and Canadian entrepreneurs.

We are continuing to look ahead to other key global partners, including, for example, the European Union. Our free trade agreement with the European Union would represent the most significant Canadian trade initiative since the North American free trade agreement.

The study that was done before we began our European Union negotiations indicated an annual benefit to the Canadian economy of some $12 billion a year from such an agreement. That is a boost that our Canadian workers and our Canadian economy really need to see. That is why we are excited that that negotiation is proceeding very positively. A fifth round of negotiations will take place next month right here in Ottawa. We are optimistic that we will have an agreement in place by the end of 2011.

What will be notable about that agreement is that it will be the very first free trade agreement the European Union will have negotiated with a developed economy, putting Canada in the very enviable position of being the only major developed economy in the world with a free trade agreement with both the United States and the European Union, the two biggest economies in the world, a tremendous platform on which our businesses and our workers can succeed.

However, we are also committed to advancing our ongoing free trade negotiations with other partners, including Ukraine; the Central American four of Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador; the Caribbean community countries; and the Dominican Republic.

Last Friday, I had the pleasure of hosting here in Ottawa my counterpart, Anand Sharma, the minister of commerce and industry from India. At that time, we released publicly a study into the possibilities of a comprehensive economic partnership agreement, a free trade agreement between Canada and India. That study showed that if we were successful in achieving such an agreement, the annual boost to the Canadian economy would be between $6 billion and $15 billion a year with similar annual benefits to the Indian economy. We are in the process now of putting together the negotiating mandate we need to be able to undertake those kinds of discussions.

As members can see, our government is firmly committed to free trade. However, the United States will remain, certainly for my lifetime, the major priority of Canada in free trade as 70% of our trade is with the United States and it is a relationship we must constantly tend to. We did that when we became the only country in the world to achieve a waiver from the buy American provisions of the U.S. stimulus program, and we continue to stand up for Canadian businesses and protect our access to that critical market. That will remain our number one priority.

However, we have three major initiatives underway: first, the European Union free trade talks, as I addressed; second, our initiative with regard to India, which looks very positive at this point in time; and third, an effort to carve out for Canada a role in the Americas, not dissimilar to the one Australia already has with regard to the Asian marketplace.

We can see that falling into place. We have our existing free trade agreements with Chile and Costa Rica, which are being improved and enhanced by this government. We have the free trade agreement implemented with Peru and the recently passed free trade agreement with Colombia. We have had negotiations with the Dominican Republic, the countries of the Caribbean community, and the Central American four. Altogether, we can see that Canada is working very hard to achieve that special, privileged position of having a dominant free trading position within the Americas.

Indeed, it is as part of that overall strategy of being a key trading country in our hemisphere, on which the Prime Minister has spoken, that we also now add the concept of a free trade agreement with Panama.

I was very proud and pleased to sign that agreement in May with Roberto Henríquez, my counterpart, and now I am pleased that we are commencing debate on it in the House of Commons.

The government is dedicated to pursuing trade relationships that work for Canadians. In addition to these markets, Canadian businesses have long been asking for closer ties to Panama—an innovative, dynamic economy, and a gateway to Latin America and the Caribbean.

That is why we have negotiated, concluded and signed last May a free trade agreement with Panama.

Panama has had one of the fastest growing economies in the Americas. Its real gross domestic product growth in 2008 was 10.7%. Even during the economic downturn it posted positive growth in 2009. Panama's real gross domestic product is expected to rise even further in 2010.

Panama is also a strategic hub for the region. It is also an important logistical platform for commercial activity. As a link between two great oceans, Panama, and of course the historic and well-understood Panama Canal, is vital to global trade.

We know that Canadian businesses and workers across a number of sectors can compete and win in the Panamanian marketplace. And the Canada-Panama free trade agreement will help them do that. This agreement is a good deal for Canadian companies, in particular for goods exporters.

Our exporters have been active in the Panamanian market. In 2009, Canada's two-way merchandise trade with Panama was $132.1 million, and our trade has been largely complementary. Upon implementation of the free trade agreement, things will improve significantly. Panama will immediately lift tariffs on some 99.9% of all non-agricultural imports from Canada, with the remaining tariffs to be phased out over five to 15 years. Tariffs will also be lifted immediately on 94% of Canada's agricultural exports to Panama.

These outcomes directly benefit a number of sectors that already have established business ties in Panama, including agriculture and agri-food products, pharmaceuticals, pulp and paper, vehicles, machinery, and information and communications technology products, among others.

We are also pleased that Panama has recognized Canada's inspection systems for beef and pork and has removed its previous ban on Canadian beef.

Canadian service providers will also benefit from the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Panama is a service-oriented economy. Canada has expertise in sectors such as financial, engineering, mining and petroleum extractive services, construction and environmental services—areas where there are opportunities for growth into the Panamanian market. And the agreement ensures the secure, predictable and equitable treatment of service providers from both countries.

With the Canada-Panama free trade agreement, we are helping Canadian service providers thrive.

Panama is also an established destination for Canadian direct investment abroad. At the end of 2008, the stock of Canadian direct investment in Panama totalled $93 million.

Canadian companies are choosing to invest in this market in areas such as banking and financial services, construction and mining. And they will benefit from the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. This deal will provide greater stability, transparency and protection for Canadian investments in Panama.

Government procurement has also been a key priority in our deepening trade relationship with Panama. One of the key drivers is the ongoing Panama Canal expansion and its associated projects. The Panama Canal makes Panama a natural centre for global trade. In fact, Panama handles 5% of global trade and has some of the world's largest export processing zones. The planned Panama Canal expansion, which is actually under construction, is only reinforcing its position as a nexus for international importers and exporters.

The canal expansion is a $5.3 billion project. It provides numerous opportunities to Canadian businesses through subcontracts and satellite projects, which will be further consolidated by this free trade agreement. We are calling on the opposition to consider and approve this free trade agreement very quickly so that our workers and our businesses can profit from the opportunities that exist right now.

The government procurement provisions in the Canada-Panama free trade agreement guarantee that Canadian suppliers will have non-discriminatory access to a broad range of procurement opportunities, including those under the Panama Canal Authority. Projects, including those associated with the canal expansion, may also lead to increased goods exports from Canadian manufacturers that have expertise in infrastructure.

We are also proud of the work done to protect labour rights and environmental responsibilities. Of course, in general, freer trade and increased prosperity have been shown to aid in improving human development indices. Of course, we have with this agreement, as we have had with others, parallel accords dealing with labour and the environment.

For all these reasons, the Panama agreement is a good deal for Canada, but it is also a good deal because it ensures that Canada remains competitive in the Panamanian marketplace. Panama has an active trade agenda with many partners, including the United States and the European Union. For this reason, time is, as I said, of the essence. Any delay of this bill would hurt Canadian businesses that are eager to compete and capitalize on the opportunities in Panama.

If Canada can establish access to the Panamanian market before our competitors take hold, it will give our companies an advantage, a real foothold, in doing business there.

Panama is also negotiating a trade agreement with Colombia and is exploring trade deals with the European Free Trade Association, the Caribbean community, Peru, Korea, and others.

Clearly other countries are noticing Panama’s potential, and they are looking to take advantage of this strong and growing market. That is why it is important for this government to take action now. And it is why I ask for the support of all honourable members for the Canada-Panama free trade agreement, and the parallel labour co-operation and environment agreements.

I am a great believer that free trade is one of the reasons Canada has been performing better than many other major competing economies. We have been leading the major developed economies of the G7 in economic growth. We are unique among those economies in having replaced or restored, through our job growth, all of the jobs that were lost at the start of the economic downturn. We are again in the distinct position of having the lowest debt and the lowest deficit, as a proportion of our economy, of any of those major economies.

We have, of course, as we all know, the soundest banking system in the world, as has been confirmed repeatedly by the World Economic Forum.

The reason for this success is not just the sound policies adopted by the government on fiscal responsibility and appropriate stimulus when required. It is also because of our approach to opening marketplaces and opportunities for our workers and our businesses.

Free trade is a reason for Canada's prosperity and Canada's success. It is the reason we are working so ambitiously to put in place opportunities for Canadian workers all around the world. Our free trade agreement with Panama is part of that plan. It is part of our strategic approach to the region of the Americas and to this hemisphere, and it is one reason Canadian workers and businesses can expect to succeed more in the future and enjoy greater prosperity in the future.

Those are all good reasons why this should be supported in the House of Commons.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make some observations regarding this free trade agreement.

Panama, as the minister likely knows, is regarded as a tax haven by OECD countries, including the United States. In fact, in 2008, Panama was one of 11 countries that did not have tax information exchange agreements signed or in force. It is one of three states, with Guatemala and Nauru, that will not share bank information or any tax information for exchange purposes. In fact, there are over 350,000 foreign-registered companies registered in Panama.

Fifty-four democratic congresspeople in the United States have called on President Obama not to ratify the agreement until Panama signs an agreement to forward information on these tax evaders. I would like to ask the minister why the government is proceeding when 54 congresspeople in the United States have said that unless Panama signs on and allows the Americans to get information on these tax evaders, they will not sign this agreement.

The minister wants to basically reward Panama. I would like to know what efforts he is making to get Panama to sign on so that we can find out who is hiding out in tax havens such as Panama.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am always impressed by the creativity and the ingenuity of the New Democratic Party in finding new reasons to oppose any free trade agreement that comes along. It is part of its ideological commitment, and I understand that, but I did not think it would be reaching for the argument that we should do what the Americans say they would like us to do. We actually let our trade policies be made here in this country. We are pursuing this trade agreement because it represents opportunities for Canada.

However, with regard to the issue he raises, the issue of tax-sharing informing for tax purposes, it was addressed by G20 leaders, under Prime Minister Harper's leadership, in June, here in Toronto. It is something on which they are working together and to which we are firmly committed. I will note that Panama has committed to implementing the standard developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for the exchange of tax information to combat international tax evasion. We will continue to work with them to make sure that it happens.

I can tell the member that I actually wrote to my Panamanian counterpart in July of this year to express our interest in pursuing such a tax information exchange agreement with Panama, and I look forward to that happening very soon.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I know that the minister did not intend to name the Prime Minister.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for York South--Weston.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that the House agrees that the dependence on our American trading partner over the next decade, or several decades, has to have a counterbalancing strategy with respect to our trade relationships with the world, in particular in relation to capital flow, investment, and so on. We need to look at a new regime.

The minister tangentially touched upon the issues of the environment and fair labour practices. That was of great concern to members of this House during the debate on the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I wonder if the minister could elaborate a little more on how the trade agreement will encompass fair labour practices and positive environmental strategies, given that these have been concerns and in fact would be concerns to Panamanians.

We have a private member's bill that is looking at fair labour practices in the mining industry where there is Canadian investment in mining.

I wonder if the minister would just make a comment on that.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to elaborate a bit further on the parallel agreements on labour and the environment.

The parallel agreement we have with Panama on labour principally requires that both countries respect the International Labour Organization's 1998 declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work.

To further protect the rights of workers, both countries commit to providing acceptable protection for occupational health and safety, including compensation in the case of injuries and illnesses, as well as acceptable minimum employment standards regarding hours of work, minimum wage, and overtime pay.

They also agree to ensure that migrant workers are accorded the same legal protections.

I could go on, but essentially both countries have agreed to significant consequences for infractions and a dispute settlement process.

On the environment front, we have a commitment to respect each other's environmental laws, to ensure that, in an effort to attract investment, trade, or jobs, there will be no reduction of environmental standards. Both sides have agreed to respect their commitments under the United Nations convention on the diversity of species.

These examples represent the basics contained in both of those agreements. They ensure that the things we value in Canada, like protecting our environment and the basic rights of our workers, will be respected by both countries under this agreement.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to express my shock at hearing that the NDP is taking its foreign policy leadership from the U.S. Congress and allowing American politicians to influence their decision-making process.

We are going to make decisions based on what is best for Canada. I have to thank the Minister of International Trade and Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for negotiating this free trade agreement with Panama.

I have had the opportunity to travel to Panama on a number of occasions. Every time I go down there I see the country moving ahead. It is still going through some major development. I can see that the middle class continues to grow and expand, to become more wealthy.

It is this type of opportunity that presents the greatest chance for recovery of our agriculture sector here in Canada, especially on the prairies.

Panama is a major trading nation. At the Panama Canal, which I have visited a couple of times, one sees volumes of trade going through the canal, from sea to sea, day in and day out, night and day. That presents us with an opportunity to make use of its connections in addition to feeding its market.

They are huge users of pulse crops and red meats. I know that cattle producers, hog producers, and grain and pulse growers in Selkirk—Interlake and throughout the province are pleased with this government and its efforts. For this I want to thank the Minister of International Trade publicly.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I note the ongoing interest in agriculture of the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

As I said, 94% of Canada's existing agricultural exports to Panama will immediately become duty free. That includes pulses: peas, lentils, and the like. Also, there are high-quality beef cuts, live animals, animal genetics, a wide variety of pork and pork products, malt, linseed, canola, sunflower seeds, maple syrup, Christmas trees, and frozen French fry products, which are important for some from Atlantic Canada.

I could go on. All this is good news for farmers, producers, and agricultural workers across Canada.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the minister a question, since he has focused on which industries are going to benefit from this. He talked about 90% of all the agricultural goods becoming immediately excise free.

I am wondering whether he would quantify that percentage. How many thousands of dollars are we talking about? Are we talking about millions, and if so, how many millions? If this is good for agriculture, is there a strategy in place for the manufacturing sector in southern Ontario, or is the minister just hoping?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, there were about 17 questions there.

The hon. member will be interested to know that we already export $23.4 million of agricultural products annually to Panama. We expect this to grow significantly once this agreement gives Canada an advantageous position vis-à-vis our competitors such as the United States.

As to manufacturing, 99.9% of the existing manufacturing goods and other goods that we export to Panama will immediately become tariff-free upon the implementation of this agreement. That includes equipment, machinery, and other common exports to Panama.

Overall, our exports are in the range of $80 million to $90 million a year. It varies somewhat, but we expect to see significant growth once we secure an advantageous trade position.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his graciousness in welcoming me as his new critic for international trade.

I rise to speak today in support of Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, and to having it reviewed at committee.

I am pleased to participate in a debate that, unusually for this House in recent times, should be relatively free of heated partisan rhetoric. As the representative of the official opposition, we support the passing of this bill for many of the same reasons that members sitting on the government's side of the House support it.

Indeed, this is the second time in only three days that we have had this opportunity. It mirrors our recent debate on similar trade agreements with Jordan, which have now been referred to committee. We should take advantage of these opportunities to agree when they come along, as they so rarely do.

However, I will also be raising some concerns about the government's lack of action on increasing U.S. protectionism and its failure to seize trade opportunities in China, South Korea, and other countries.

Canada is now experiencing the first trade deficits it has seen in 30 years. Indeed, the country set a trade-deficit record this July, $2.7 billion. Something is going seriously wrong and we must challenge the government hard on why this is and what we can do about it.

I will also mention that, although we in the Liberal Party want to see even harder work on multilateral trade negotiations, we also recognize the practicalities and challenges this task entails. In the absence of progress on the multilateral level, we in the Liberal Party encourage Canada to work at the bilateral level to enhance our trade with as many other countries as possible.

Canada is a nation that supports free trade. Our origins are those of a trading nation, starting with fur, wood, and other natural resources. The portion of our economic activity attributable to trade is greater than that of most other nations. Indeed, 80% of our economy and millions of Canadian jobs depend upon trade and our ability to access foreign markets.

Canadian exporters benefit from the reduction and elimination of tariffs on their goods destined for other countries. Canadian manufacturers benefit from the reduction and elimination of tariffs at the Canadian border of the various materials that go into their products. Canadian consumers benefit from lower prices of imported goods when tariffs on those goods are reduced or eliminated.

Although there will always be debate about protectionism and what steps best promote Canadian business success and generate Canadian jobs, most Canadian businesses that serve domestic markets benefit from free trade in being forced to innovate and compete with others from abroad, provided that those abroad comply with international rules on trade, tariffs, and non-tariff barriers.

In the long run, Canadian businesses are more than capable of being strong, innovative, and competitive without hiding behind protectionist walls.

I am proud to rise here today to take part in this debate and show my support, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, for Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

The Conservative government's mismanagement of Canada's trade relations has led to the first trade deficits we have seen in over 30 years. We need to increase our efforts and our engagement in order to improve the situation and increase international trade between Canada and other countries around the world.

Canada depends on trade. It is worth noting that 80% of our economy relies on access to export markets. The Liberal Party supports the principle of free trade, and it also supports any initiatives that will improve access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses. Although Panama has a small economy and Canada's existing trade with that country is relatively limited, there are opportunities for Canadian businesses.

In 2008, Panama had one of the highest real GDP growth rates in the Americas at 10.7%. Despite the global economic downturn, Panama posted positive growth in 2009 at 2.4%, a trend that is expected to continue in 2010.

The expansion of the Panama Canal is currently under way and is slated to be completed by 2014 at a projected cost of $5.3 billion. This expansion is expected to generate opportunities for Canadian companies in such areas as infrastructure and construction, as well as environmental, heavy engineering and consulting services, capital projects, human capital development and construction materials.

Like the free trade agreements between Canada, Chile and Costa Rica, the North American Free Trade Agreement and the free trade agreement with Jordan, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement includes side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment.

The Canada-Panama labour co-operation agreement recognizes both countries’ obligations under the International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, which requires both countries to ensure that laws, regulations and national practices protect the following rights: the right to freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced labour and the elimination of discrimination.

The Canada-Panama labour co-operation agreement and the agreement on the environment both include complaints and dispute resolution processes that enable members of the public to request an investigation into perceived failures of Canada or Panama to comply with these agreements.

The free trade agreement with Panama is another opportunity to increase access to more markets for Canadian farmers and business.

Yes, Panama is a relatively small economy. In 2009 we exported $90 million in goods to the country, which is not as large as with some trading partners. It is, however, a stable country which has made significant progress in recent years in terms of development and democracy, which Canada is well-placed to continue to encourage.

In spite of the global economic downturn, Panama's GDP grew at 10.7% in 2008, one of the highest in the Americas, and is forecast at 5.6% for 2010. In 2009 bilateral trade between the two countries totalled $132.1 million, Canadian exports making up $91.4 million of that and imports, $40.7 million.

Primary Canadian merchandise exports to Panama include machinery, vehicles, electronic equipment, pharmaceutical equipment, pulses and frozen potato products. Canadian service exports include financial services, engineering, information and communications technology services. Merchandise imports from Panama include precious stones and metals, mainly gold, fruits and nuts, fish and seafood products.

The existing Panama Canal, vital for the international trading system, is undergoing a massive expansion, with completion slated for 2014. The $5.3 billion expansion is already generating business for Canadian companies in construction, environmental, engineering and consulting services, capital projects and more, and is expected to generate even more over the next while, helped by this free trade agreement.

Canada will immediately eliminate over 99% of its tariffs on current imports from Panama.

The free trade agreement also addresses non-tariff barriers by adopting measures to ensure non-discriminatory treatment of imported goods, promoting good regulatory practices, transparency and the use of international standards.

On labour and environment, like most of Canada's free trade agreements, this free trade agreement includes agreements on the environment and labour co-operation that will help promote sustainability and protect labour rights. The Canada-Panama labour co-operation agreement recognizes both countries' obligations under the International Labour Organization, the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, including the protection of the following rights: the right to freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour and the elimination of discrimination.

Both the labour co-operation agreement and the agreement on the environment include complaints and dispute resolution processes that enable members of the public to request an investigation to perceived failures of either Canada or Panama to comply with these agreements.

I have a few words on human rights.

Although it is not the issue here, as it was in the debate over free trade with Colombia, the question of human rights will always come up in the House when we debate free trade agreements, and rightly so, sometimes more than others. As I have said in the House a number of times, it is a good thing that Canadian members of Parliament are concerned about international human rights and I have noted that, regardless of what party we sit for, we all want full human rights for everyone around the world.

We do, however, from time to time disagree on what Canada can do to further that goal. Some of my colleagues will say that putting up walls and preventing more open trade and engagement will somehow help, that somehow, Canada wagging its finger at other states rather than fully engaging will miraculously be listened to. I am afraid that that is not how the world works.

Freer trade encourages freer flow of information and freer flows of ideas. Rather than building walls, freer trade opens windows through which light gets in and opens doors through which Canadians can engage on all sorts of levels with others. If we isolate a country, our capacity to engage in human rights is in fact reduced.

Economic engagement increases our ability to engage in other areas, such as education and culture. All of that engagement increases the capacity to engage in the area of human rights. It gives Canadians a greater opportunity, through businesspeople, customers, clients and other engagements that can flow from those relationships, to show by example, not in a paternalistic, finger-wagging, we-know-best attitude, but rather showing by examples how things work so well for us in Canada and our willingness to share, on a friendly basis, those examples.

As I have said many times, it is the citizens of a particular state who are responsible for improvements in their state, not Canada. Canadians have a wonderful opportunity to engage with those citizens, in exposing what works in other parts of the world, in particular here, where we are proud of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our successfully pluralistic society and our peace, order and good government approach to governance.

Although we do not have the heightened level of concern with respect to Panama as we had with Colombia, I will take the opportunity to commend my Liberal colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, my predecessor in the role of critic for international trade, for the excellent work he did with the human rights amendment to the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. Under that Liberal-negotiated deal, Canada and Colombia must publicly measure the impact to free trade on human rights in both countries, the first trade deal in the world that requires ongoing human rights impact assessments. Again, I commend my colleague from Kings—Hants for his excellent work in this regard.

All of this goes to my support and my party's support for Bill C-46 and the free trade agreement with Panama. Greater economic engagement helps us all economically, for more jobs and more prosperity for Canada, yes, but for both countries, and free trade is, in this case, a win-win opportunity.

At this point, however, I wish to highlight some real concerns about the Conservative government's approach to international trade. We are losing the concept of free trade with our biggest trading partner to the south, the United States. When the recession hit, the United States government responded with protectionism, in putting forth its buy American policies and tighter rules. The Conservative government initially stood by watching, as if it did not know what hit it. It engaged in photo ops in Washington, not realizing the battle needed to be fought all across the states, at the state level.

By the time a so-called exemption was worked out, which in and of itself required significant concessions by Canadian provinces, the protectionism in the United States had already hurt many Canadian businesses, costing Canadian jobs. Even the so-called exemption only covers 37 states, a great example of how it is not just Washington that must be engaged.

Despite our vociferous efforts to get the Conservative government to engage much more forcefully at the state level, the government just did not seem to understand either the whats of the negative effects on Canadian business, or the hows of fixing the problem, and here we are again. The United States is threatening more protectionist legislation, the foreign manufacturers legal accountability act, which although not technically aimed at Canada, would significantly hurt many Canadian businesses and affect many Canadian jobs.

However, the minister's response was no action whatsoever. Instead he says, "Gee, it's too bad, we're always collateral damage in the battles between the United States and China”. Then he says, “We're hoping that it does not reach the vote state before the U.S. elections”. Then he says, “If it passes, we'll probably seek an exemption for Canadian companies”.

With all respect, it simply is not enough to dismiss Canada as collateral damage, or to merely hope that protectionist legislation will not pass. Just like last time, we urge the government to get its hands dirty, to get on the ground, not only in Washington but across the states, to ensure that Canada is exempted from this very damaging proposed legislation before it happens. Canadian businesses need something done to prevent this from happening, not just some vague hopes and prayers.

I also want to use this opportunity in the debate on the merits of free trade to exhort the government to do much more in its dealings with China, South Korea and others. I acknowledge the announcement and production of the report this last week between Canada and India, and I am encouraged this as moving in the right direction. However, having just returned from China and Korea, I am overwhelmed by the growth, the size, the pace and the scale of what is happening over there. At the same time, I am dismayed by how little the Canadian government is doing to capitalize on the extraordinary growth and scale that presents such fantastic opportunities for so many Canadians.

There are incredible investments being made in infrastructure, water, sewage treatment and public transit. We have been told repeatedly by the Chinese that they are looking for green technology, for forestry products, for investments in the financial services industries. There are tremendous opportunities for trade in educational services, in co-operation and engagement not just at the Canada-China level, but provincially and municipally. My colleagues should understand that I do not suggest for a minute that the federal government impinge upon those jurisdictions, but rather stress that we in Canada could work much more co-operatively and productively by engaging all orders of government in a concerted effort to take much more advantage of the opportunities that these extraordinary economies offer to Canadians.

We in the Liberal Party have stressed and will continue to stress the importance of Canada in the world. In support of this, we have proposed the concept of global networks. We say that the older, simpler concept of trade and commerce on its own, of simple export and import of goods and services, should be expanded to include all kinds of engagement on all levels, such as education, culture and environmental co-operation, a much greater engagement, a much broader engagement, and exchange of people and ideas.

Canada should be taking advantage of these extraordinary opportunities that the world and other growing, bustling economies and societies offer, opportunities which the Conservative government just does not seem to understand.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I had another question for the minister that I was unable to ask, but maybe the Liberal critic would have some comments on this.

I pointed out for the minister that 54 United States congressmen had demanded that President Obama forgo the agreement with Panama until Panama signed the tax information exchange treaties. The minister said that he did not follow what the United States did.

The fact is the Americans know that Panama is a tax haven. I would like to know where the minister has been since he is obviously not aware of it. For example, the U.S. justice department says that Panama is a major financial conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers and money laundering activities. Surely, the minister and the government would not want to help drug traffickers and money launderers. We all remember Manuel Noriega, the president of Panama a few years ago. He is now doing time in a Florida jail for drug trafficking.

As long as Panama refuses to sign these tax agreements, why would Canada support this type of essentially illegitimate and criminal activity? The government has an opportunity to get its signature on those agreements before it signs. That is what the Americans do. That is best practice. It is just plain common sense. If Panama is prepared to sign those agreements, then perhaps the government could proceed with the agreement.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, God forbid that I should presume to speak for the minister in this regard, so I will not.

My colleague has raised a legitimate concern. The minister mentioned the fact that Panama had agreed to make significant movements in this regard. However, I would suggest for my colleague that this is exactly the type of thing we look forward to discussing when the bill gets to the international trade committee. I look forward to the member's contribution in that regard during those discussions.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, even though I did not hear her entire speech, I believe my colleague did not touch on a certain impression we get in all this. Does she not get the impression that the government is being hasty in passing various bills on free trade agreements it has concluded?

There was the one between Canada and Jordan, and now it is presenting an agreement between Canada and Panama. Is the hon. member not afraid that the government's secret goal is to speed things along? This all seems to be going very quickly. It might be better to take a bit more time to assess the repercussions, both positive and negative, of these free trade agreements.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I do not believe that we are moving too quickly in concluding these free trade agreements.

The Liberal Party is in favour of free trade and agrees with concluding free trade agreements with more countries. What bothers me is that the government is concluding such agreements with smaller economies that do not necessarily represent the best opportunities for Canada.

In my speech I said that Canada was not really involved in China's economy. What is happening in China is incredible and yet the Conservative government is not doing much with that country.

The United States is the largest foreign economy we trade with. That country makes an effort to protect its market, which can make life difficult for Canadian companies. I therefore do not believe that the government is trying to conclude other free trade agreements too quickly, but I do take issue with what it is not doing.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague will know, for us the issue is not so much about being for or against trade. The issue is whether one is for free trade or fair trade. For us that is what the central focus of the debate ought to be.

I am pleased to tell members of the House that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster will soon be tabling a bill in the House on fair trade. For us it is absolutely key that in any free trade agreements there be respect for the environment in all of the trade dealings. There must be respect for the economy; trade agreements must be economically viable. Trade agreements also must have respect for human rights and social justice.

In July there was a new wave of anti-union repression in Panama, resulting in several workers killed, over 100 injured and over 300 arrested. When I look at the labour side agreements that are part of all of these bilateral agreements the Conservative government is signing, it really worries me because labour is never a part of the formal agreement. It is always in a side agreement.

Much like we saw in the trade agreement with Colombia, what we see here again is a provision that says, “kill a worker, pay a fine”.

Does the hon. member really think that the labour side agreement is enough to persuade her that this is not just a free trade agreement, but that it is a fair trade agreement as well? Does she have enough concerns about these issues to deal with them effectively in committee?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course we are concerned about fair trade. Of course we are concerned about human rights. I will say two things. That is exactly the kind of thing I look forward to having discussed at committee. That is exactly what the committee process is for, but I will also say that we do not rely just on the fact of specific words in a specific agreement or a side agreement. We of course do that. That is why we do them. That is why we encourage agreements on labour specifically. That is why we encourage agreements on the environment. We want to have those agreements. They are part of the discussion.

However, I cannot stress enough to my colleague that the fundamental philosophy we have here is that when we engage in free trade, the freer trade encourages a freer flow of information, a freer flow of ideas, a freer exchange of people, whether it is through business, whether it is through clients or whether it is through education exchanges that are spurred on by those business activities.

The situation in Panama in terms of labour rights and all of the things that happen domestically is up to Panamanians. The opportunity Canada has is to open those doors and windows wider so that we can engage even more fully. The people of Panama can themselves see the opportunities and the examples that Canada has to show. Again, as I said in my speech, not in some paternalistic way, not with some we know best attitude, but by showing by example there are opportunities for improvement and that it is not just coming from specific language and specific agreements, it comes from the entire philosophy that greater engagement will encourage greater exchange of people, of ideas, of information. That will give Canada and Canadians an opportunity in their engagement with Panama and Panamanians to have the Panamanians look for improvements wherever those improvements can be found.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to Bill C-46 to implement the agreement negotiated by representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade with the Government of Panama. We oppose this free trade agreement. It is not that the Bloc Québécois is against free trade and free trade agreements, but in this case, there are strong reasons that justify our opposition.

Panama has one of the most well-developed economies in Central America. However, the Bloc Québécois does not believe we should ratify a free trade agreement with Panama when it is still on the OECD's grey list of tax havens. Every country turns to that organization for that list; it is used as a reference. People at the OECD evaluate different criteria with regard to tax havens, which I will say more about later.

We asked departmental representatives a few questions. They said that Canada is currently negotiating a tax treaty with Panama in order to tighten the rules on banking transparency to better combat tax evasion. However, there is no mention anywhere of such a treaty with Panama in the Department of Finance's register of tax treaties currently in effect or under negotiation.

It is clear to us that Panama is still on the OECD grey list and France's blacklist of countries that promote tax evasion. That is the major reason we oppose such an agreement.

The other reason we object to implementing this free trade agreement is that we do not get the impression that workers' rights are very well protected in Panama. In June 2010, the right-wing government of Ricardo Martinelli passed Law 30, which is considered to be anti-union. This law is said to include labour code reform that is seen as repressive since it would criminalize workers who demonstrate to defend their rights.

On August 5, the Panamanian government agreed to review this law, but we have every reason to be concerned about the desire of the Martinelli government to respect the conventions of the International Labour Organization integrated into the side agreement on labour standards.

For these two major reasons—which we will look at again in more detail—we believe that we should delay the ratification of the free trade agreement, in light of the adoption of Law 30, with which the Panamanian government has taken a real step backwards.

Although two days ago we were talking about the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement—Bill C-8—which we were in favour of, we do not agree with the Conservative government's strategy of focusing on bilateral agreements instead of multilateral ones, which are preferred by the Bloc, as we said yesterday.

The Bloc Québécois believes that a multilateral approach is more effective for the development of more equitable trade that protects the interests of all nations.

I would like to come back to the issue of respect for human and labour rights in Panama. Human rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, and in general, they are respected. That is a fact. However, the judicial system still has a number of problems in Panama, including the conditions of imprisonment, the length of preventive detention, corruption, and the lack of independence of the judicial system. In rural areas, there are problems with child labour and with indigenous communities and marginalized ethnic minorities, as well as discrimination against women.

In recent months, Panama has seen a wave of what is considered to be anti-union repression. Sources estimate that between two and six people died, and about a hundred were injured during violent protests that followed the June 2010 adoption of Law 30, known as the “sausage bill”, because it contains all kinds of reforms, such as reforms to the labour code and to environmental legislation.

The reform of the labour code is seen as repressive, because it would make it a crime for workers to demonstrate to defend their rights.

Some of the country's environmental groups submitted an application for support to the UN environment program to convince the Panamanian government to review changes that will diminish the state's ability to preserve its natural resources.

Unions have asked for support from the international labour federations while the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is asking for an investigation of police brutality during protests against Law 30 in July 2010. According to our sources, the Panamanian government is conducting its own investigation.

On July 14, 2010, the International Trade Union Confederation, together with its affiliated organizations in Panama, firmly condemned violent repression of the strike movement by workers and demanded the immediate repeal of “the controversial Law 30, which has become a licence to kill for the police, creating a climate of extreme violence” among the people. I am quoting from the article entitled “New Panamanian Law Threatens Environment and Human Rights.”

On August 5, the Panamanian government agreed to review the law. We should monitor this issue before going any further. Otherwise, after signing the agreement, Canadian corporations may find that they are damaging the environment or contravening the International Labour Organization's core convention, C87. That is rather important.

I will now return to the issue of Panama being a tax haven on France's blacklist and the OECD grey list. The latter lists countries that have committed to exchanging tax information but that have not substantially implemented the rules.

Section 26 of the OECD model tax convention provides the most generally accepted standard for the bilateral exchange of tax information.

There is no indication, on the Department of Finance web site of treaties and conventions, that an information exchange agreement is being negotiated with Panama.

Before entering into the Canada-Panama free trade agreement, the Conservative government absolutely must sign a tax information exchange agreement with Panama and this agreement must not allow subsidiaries located in the targeted jurisdictions to be tax exempt.

Obviously, it is important that this agreement be concluded, negotiated, drafted and signed before finalizing the free trade agreement. It is also clear that, under such an agreement, corporations cannot use their presence in Panama to justify tax evasion. For the Bloc Québécois, it is entirely inconceivable that we would be associated with such a practice.

With this free trade agreement, we will likely see more trade and a significant increase in Canadian investment in Panama. We will see more taxpayers, both individuals and businesses, earning income in both Canada and in Panama. That is why it is essential for the Government of Canada and Panama to sign the type of information exchange agreements I was talking about earlier.

Since Panama is a tax haven, such a free trade agreement would become an invitation to evade taxes, or use loopholes in the law to help a taxpayer avoid paying a tax he or she normally should.

At the end of the day, should a free trade agreement promote tax evasion? It is a very serious question because we would not want Canada to inadvertently promote investments that encourage tax evasion under the pretext of concluding more trade agreements and lowering taxes. That makes absolutely no sense.

For example, a company whose income would be legally taxed according to the rate in effect in Panama would be tempted to set up a business structure to take advantage of this near-zero tax rate.

The Conservative government is already signing tax treaties with tax havens and we all know it. The Bloc Québécois absolutely believes that we need to be vigilant because in June 2010 the government signed tax information exchange agreements based on the OECD model with eight jurisdictions: Bahamas, Bermuda, Dominica, the Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

This information tells us that we absolutely must be careful; the Conservative government absolutely must avoid putting Canada in a position, once again, of promoting tax evasion, when there are plenty of workers in Quebec and Canada who can barely manage because they have to pay their taxes.

In La Presse on July 6, 2010, we read:

In return for these agreements, Canada seems to have given these jurisdictions an advantage. Subsidiaries of active Canadian companies domiciled in these islands can effectively repatriate their foreign profits to Canada tax free.

Bermuda, Bahamas and the other islands will thereby have a similar status to Barbados, which has been the only tax haven to have this privilege.

It is high time we gave ourselves a real policy of multilateralism.

The current course of globalization, a phenomenon bearing both great hope and great injustice, must be redirected. Disparity between rich and poor, the failure to respect rights and freedoms and the lack of regulations on the environment and labour give rise more to despair than to hope.

Openness to trade and the establishment of international regulations to counter protectionism and protect investment are good things that the Bloc supports. That does not mean that trade rules should have precedence over the common good and the ability of governments to redistribute wealth, to protect their environment and culture and to offer their citizens basic public services such as health care and education. These fundamental elements must always take precedence over any trade that we establish in order to increase our exports. These basic criteria must guide our negotiations and intentions to sign free trade agreements with other countries.

Quebec is a trading nation. Our companies, and especially our cutting-edge companies, could not survive on just the domestic market. International exports account for one-third of Quebec's GDP. If interprovincial trade is added, exports represented 52% of Quebec's GDP in 2005.

Protectionism is not in our interests, and that is why Quebec, and Quebec sovereignists in particular, massively supported the free trade agreement with the United States and then NAFTA.

That is also why the Bloc Québécois was the first party in the House of Commons to call for a free trade agreement with the EU.

Then again, it would be naive and false to claim that everything is just fine, in the best of all possible worlds. While freer trade has led to greater wealth overall, it has also produced its share of losers. And that is unfortunate.

The trade environment has worsened considerably over the last few years, and we must take that factor into account. Between 2003 and 2007, Quebec went from a large trade surplus to a $13 billion deficit. In 2006, every Quebecker therefore consumed $2,000 more than he or she produced. And this only covers our international trade balance; another $5 billion deficit must be added in interprovincial trade, which also made us considerably poorer.

The result of this trade deficit is that our manufacturing sector has become dangerously weak. Between 2003 and 2007, it lost nearly 150,000 jobs, which was nearly all the jobs lost in this sector in Canada, including 65,000 lost since the Conservatives came to power, mainly because of foreign competition and a strong Canadian dollar. Trade liberalization can only be profitable if it is guided by certain rules; otherwise, it is a race to the bottom.

For a long time, Canada's trade policy was simply to improve access to foreign markets. From that perspective, it has been very successful. Today a majority of products, over 80% of world trade, flow freely.

However, we are now beginning to see the downside of unbridled liberalization: heavy pressure on our industry, offshoring and trade agreements that amount to a licence to exploit people and the environment in developing countries. The trade environment has changed in recent years and as far as Quebec is concerned, it is not for the better.

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winner in economics and former vice-president of the World Bank, had this to say when he received his honorary doctorate from Université de Louvain on February 3, 2003:

As our interdependence has increased, we have discovered that we need rules to govern the process of globalization and to create institutions to help it function. Unfortunately, these rules are too often established by the rich countries to serve their own interests and especially individual interests within these countries.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing a change in Canada's trade priorities. Canada should now shift its focus from trade liberalization to creating a more level playing field. The Bloc Québécois believes that our trade policy must focus on fair globalization, not the shameless pursuit of profit at the expense of people and the environment.

That is the Bloc Québécois' position on Bill C-46.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I understand the Panamanian government is planning a $5.3 billion expansion of the Panama Canal. This is in addition to $13.6 billion in investment planning, including $1.5 billion for a new metro system in Panama City.

I understand the hon. member plans to oppose the free trade agreement, even though it will provide Canadian companies, which are known all over the world for their great products, the guaranteed ability to bid on these projects.

The member says he thinks the government is moving too fast with this bill. I wonder if he would say the same thing to the workers, many of whom live in Quebec, employed by the companies he wants to prevent, by delaying or opposing this bill, from bidding on the nearly $19 billion in government procurement contracts in Panama. Can he explain that to the people of Quebec? Can he explain it to me here in the House?

This is a great opportunity for Canadian companies, for companies in Quebec. Why would he object to that? Can he explain this to me?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this free trade agreement because it does not completely safeguard the workers in Panama today. If implemented, this agreement will allow some companies to set up shop there to evade taxes. Quebec workers would see companies take advantage of a free trade agreement to avoid their obligation to pay taxes here in Canada.

Quebec workers and the people of Quebec know what is what, and they will have no trouble understanding why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this free trade agreement.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would simply like to ask my colleague whether the Bloc members are dead set against this agreement. Perhaps in committee we could try to determine where the problems are and fix them. Can my colleague tell me whether his party is completely unwilling to discuss this in committee? Perhaps there is a way to amend the agreement to address the issues my colleague spoke about.

Will the Bloc Québécois completely reject this bill or will it participate in committee discussions?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not get the impression that my colleague would be able to tell me whether the OECD will take Panama off the grey list of countries that promote tax evasion for companies investing in Panama.

All of these questions are hypothetical. The main objections we have voiced are in relation to that. I said that Panama is considered to be a country that openly promotes tax evasion. In addition, it has not yet passed laws or taken the necessary measures to protect all its workers.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the Bloc, the Liberals, and the Conservatives talk about this trade agreement.

Let us keep in mind what is at stake here. Right now, as the minister said, the trade amounts to $130 million. That is one-tenth of what it cost for security at the G8 and G20.

We are talking about an agreement that is fundamentally flawed, an agreement that gives rise to huge concerns about human rights, environmental protection, and fair trade. I do not think we need to blow this out of proportion and say it is going to be the be-all and end-all for saving the Canadian economy.

I want to ask the member about a concern that has been raised with respect to where some Canadian investments may be headed, namely, the mining sector. I have heard from many people who are actively engaged with the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, which has been following these trade agreements closely because they are concerned about what Canadian mining corporations are doing in the global south, particularly when it comes to environmental matters, indigenous peoples, and labour laws.

I wonder if the member has heard from any of his constituents, particularly from the organization I just mentioned, and whether he might be able to comment.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question

Unfortunately, I did not hear the minister's presentation. I do not know how they make their plans, but the Standing Committee on International Trade was meeting just as the first debate got under way concerning this international trade bill. Perhaps they could have watched out for that kind of overlap, since they create the agenda. However, as for her question, even though I did not hear the minister, we have seen how the organizations that she mentioned, ones that defend people, see very dangerous gaps in terms of respect for human rights in various countries. We saw how the Conservatives acted during the debate about the free trade agreement with Colombia, when there were numerous presentations from people who came from all over, including Colombia. NGOs also came to testify that workers are under tremendous pressure and are also victims of relocation by mining companies. There are Canadian mining companies that are not respecting these workers' rights or the rights of the local populations in general. I cannot imagine that they have changed overnight. I think that they still have the same listening technique, which means that they choose not to hear the pleas of these people.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member raises questions about guarantees for workers. The provisions of this agreement do cover a wide range of issues that would protect workers, such as, the abolition of child labour, the freedom of association, the rights of collective bargaining, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour and many other initiatives that would protect workers.

Why would the Bloc member and the Bloc as a whole oppose guarantees for Canadian workers, like the guarantee that Canadian companies would now be able to bid on infrastructure projects in Panama, projects that could total as much as $19 billion.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, with respect to workers' rights, I mentioned earlier that as long as we do not have proof that the government of Panama has backed off—although it has announced its intentions—on Law 30, which was passed last spring and is considered to be anti-union legislation that prohibits union protests, I think that we can say that there would be serious risks if the free trade agreement with Panama were adopted. If it were adopted, there is a serious danger that Canadian companies could be put in a situation where they would violate core convention 87 of the International Labour Organization.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the free trade agreement with Colombia. Members will recall that in the beginning, when we examined this issue, the Liberals agreed with us. As leadership changes were made, the Liberals started disagreeing with the Bloc and supported the agreement. We see today that they support the free trade agreement with Panama, so they support the Conservatives as well.

Do they see a chance for power and want to meet the demands of industries, financiers and businesspeople?

I would like to ask my colleague whether an impact study was provided to members in committee, as it was with previous agreements, so that the members could carefully examine the impact on our businesses here, our businesses abroad, our businesses in Panama, human rights and the environment.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, very quickly, I have never seen a political party change its tune faster than what we saw this spring concerning the free trade agreement with Colombia.

To answer his second question, we have not received any impact studies or anything of the sort in committee. We are not yet in committee.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, the environment; the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso, Public Safety.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

I have to say at the outset, though, that I find it mind-boggling that we are yet again debating a bilateral trade agreement, as if such agreements will somehow magically give us a coherent and smart industrial and economic strategy.

On the contrary, there has been no economic strategy, no real focused trade strategy, and the result has been that most Canadians are worse off now than they were before.

The government simply cannot keep doing these ribbon cuttings for free trade agreements and then expect that its job is done.

This is no small issue. When we look at the last 20 years, since the implementation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the real income of most Canadian families has gone down, not up. The real incomes of the two-thirds of Canadian families that comprise the middle class and those of the poorest Canadians have gone down right across the country.

The only people who have actually profited and seen an increase in their real income over the past 20 years, when the first of these agreements was implemented, have been the wealthiest of Canadians. The wealthiest 10% have seen their incomes skyrocket. One-fifth of Canadians, the wealthiest 20%, now take home most of the real income in this country.

In fact, as I pointed out in this House on Monday when I spoke about the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement, I remember the arguments being used when the first free trade agreement was being signed between Canada and the U.S. At that time, the management of Stelco, which is now U.S. Steel, a steel manufacturer in my hometown of Hamilton, sent a letter to all the steelworkers in the plant telling them that in the upcoming federal election they should vote for the parties that support free trade because without such a trade deal their jobs would be at stake.

Well, that trade agreement has been in place for decades now and I would defy the government to find a single steelworker who would say that it has been good for his or her job. On the contrary, decent family sustaining jobs are disappearing and they are being replaced by precarious and part-time work.

To imply, therefore, that the free trade agreements that have been brought in by the Liberals and Conservatives have led to instant prosperity is simply false.

Statistics Canada data puts the lie to those pretensions that this is somehow a coherent and smart industrial and economic strategy. Maybe the reason the government is so intent on doing away with the mandatory long form census is that it knows that solid statistical evidence will contradict its mantra of being a good economic manager.

We need to ask about the actual record of the government since it came to power. We saw the softwood lumber sellout, which killed jobs right across this country. We have seen the shipbuilding sellout, where the tiny European country of Liechtenstein actually outmanoeuvred the Conservative government. Of course, there was also the Canada-Colombia free trade deal. All of them point to the fact that the Conservative government's record is abysmal when it comes to protecting Canadian interests.

Meanwhile, our competitors are investing in export promotion support. The United States, Australia and the European Union are spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year in providing support for their export industries and promoting their exports.

In Canada, we spent paltry cents on the dollar compared to other countries like Australia. Australia's total budget for export promotion support is half a billion dollars. Our total budget is a few million. This is what is wrong with the government's approach: it simply does not provide the kinds of supports that other major industrialized countries, our competitors, do.

What we in the NDP have been saying ever since the Conservative government came to power is that it needs to change its approach. The government simply cannot go to these free trade agreement ribbon cuttings and expect that its job is done.

Even if these trade agreements were based on fair trade as opposed to the old NAFTA template, do the trade agreements themselves make a difference? Obviously not, because with a number of these bilateral agreements, our exports in places have actually gone down in those markets after the trade deals were signed. In every case, imports from the countries that we have signed with have gone up. In other words, other countries have managed to profit from the agreements signed with Canada but Canada's exports have actually gone down.

How can we sign an agreement and not have a follow-up strategy to bolster our exports?

The problem with the government's approach is not only that it has no industrial strategy but it also does not have an export oriented focus and it is not willing to invest Canadian government funds in the way that other countries do to bolster their industries.

Instead, our government is allowing the wholesale sell-off of Canada's strategic industries: Stelco, Inco, Alcan, Nortel, Falconbridge, and the list goes on. Canada has already ceded control over aluminum, steel and nickel, and now potash is inching its way toward a foreign sale. It is way past time for the Prime Minister to stop rubber-stamping foreign takeovers and start protecting family supporting jobs and our communities.

I am proud that my NDP colleagues and I have been advocating a buy Canadian strategy. We are the only party in the House to do so. While the Liberals and Conservatives make facile attempts to ridicule us for it, countries like France, the United States and Germany are focused on making precisely such investments in key industries. They are essential for ensuring a strong foundation. Without such a foundation, Canada will continue to lose from the trade deals it signs.

Let us look specifically at the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

As the NDP labour critic, I will begin by focusing on the labour co-operation agreement, which grandly declares that both countries have committed to ensuring that their laws respect the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

The declaration aims to ensure that social progress goes hand-in-hand with economic development and covers the right to freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. That sounds great, except the labour co-operation agreement contains no provisions that would force the signatories to implement the UNs labour standards.

Moreover, the agreement does not prevent Panama from weakening or reducing the protections afforded in domestic labour laws in any future effort it may make to encourage trade or investment. The Canada-Panama FTA contains only one enforceable labour provision: a requirement for the government to adhere to its own labour laws. Unfortunately, there is a significant canard involved in this language.

Panama's labour track record is not good. While unions and collective bargaining are permitted in export processing zones, the International Labour Organization's committee of experts questioned the government as to whether these workers actually have the right to strike.

In August 2007, two construction union members were assassinated while demonstrating for worker's rights. This summer there was a new wave of anti-union repression in Panama, resulting in several workers killed, over 100 injured and over 300 arrested.

Panama's law regulating the EPZs does not include arbitration or specify procedures to resolve labour disputes. Moreover, the U.S. state department noted that child labour continues to be a problem, with violations occurring most frequently in rural areas at harvest time and in the informal sector where many children work as street vendors, shoe shiners, cleaning windows, washing cars, bagging groceries in supermarkets and picking up trash. Clearly, even if Panama plays lip service to upholding ILO and UN labour conventions, it does not walk the talk. This FTA's so-called “dispute settlement system” does little to change that reality. It serves as little more than window dressing.

The maximum government fine for labour violations is capped at $15 million and, to add insult to injury, these funds, in the unlikely circumstance that they will ever be collected, are paid to a joint commission to improve labour rights enforcement, which, in turn, could easily be funnelled back into the Panamanian government's coffers.

Given that the Panamanian labour code does not even apply in export processing zones and that approximately two-thirds of Panamanian workers operate in the informal economy, the remedial power of any labour provisions that might be included in the agreement would be severely limited. In fact, this FTA would ultimately exonerate the signatories from meeting an acceptable human rights standard. To put it in a nut shell, this free trade agreement is bad news for labour.

However, it gets even worse.The agreement is bad news not just for labour, but for every Canadian because Panama is an offshore tax haven for companies that want to evade their Canadian tax obligations. A free trade agreement between Canada and Panama would be a bonanza for big business while leaving individual Canadian taxpayers with an ever-increasing burden for picking up the costs of federal government programs.

Let us take a closer look.

For decades, Panama has adjusted its laws in order to ensure that its business climate is one of the most unregulated in the world. Such lax regulation offers tremendous opportunities for foreign companies interested in dodging fair taxes, exploiting malleable labour regulations and taking advantage of less than transparent reporting requirements.

Panama's level of foreign direct investment has skyrocketed since legislation was passed in 1992, which established export processing zones in a number of locations across the country. Companies from all over the world are welcome to establish factories in these zones from light manufacturing, assembly, high technology and specialized and general services. Companies operating there are exempt from all taxation on imports and exports, sales tax and taxes on capital and assets.

In addition, EPZs are free from all restrictive national labour and immigration standards. Instead, they operate under provisions that are more favourable to foreign companies than the current Panamanian code.

In April 2009, the U.S.-based Public Citizen released a report highlighting Panama's banking secrecy rules and lax financial regulations. Ever since then, there has been much discussion in the media about Panama's status as a top tax haven. All foreign corporations conducting business in Panama are exempt from national taxes, making the country a 100% tax haven, according to the report. It comes as no surprise that over 350,000 foreign registered companies nominally operate from Panama.

In addition to tax exemptions, Panamanian law also makes it easy for multinational corporations to cook the books. According to the Public Citizen report, Panama has one of the world's most restrictive information exchange regimes, which allows the country to withhold information, even within the framework of a criminal investigation. Moreover, extremely strict slander laws can be used to arrest journalists for reporting facts and figures if they do not reflect well on business interests.

This lack of transparency, coupled with a lenient regulatory system governing the country's banking and financial sectors, enables corporations to conceal their financial losses and to engage in off-balance-sheet activities.

Evidence also links Panama's Colon Free Zone, or CFZ, with trafficking of narcotics and other illicit substances, in addition to offshore activities carried on by foreign corporations. Panama's CFZ, which is the second largest free trade zone in the world, provides a centrally located transit area for drugs and related money laundering activities moving up through Mexico to its northern border, according to the International Monetary Fund.

The illicit matters have grown even more controversial since the G20, at its recent conference, decided to crack down on tax havens and to step up financial regulation as key steps toward global financial recovery. In response, the Canada Revenue Agency is working on a new set of rules for voluntary disclosure here in Canada of offshore earnings.

I have criticized these rules elsewhere before. Not only will these rules allow individuals and corporations to admit that they have earned income in offshore bank accounts without facing prosecution for tax evasion, but under the new rules, auditors will only go back 10 years, and account holders will no longer have to explain where the original capital on accounts more than 10 years old came from. That, of course, means that money laundering is now legal in Canada as long as one is patient.

A free trade agreement with Panama would actually make it even more difficult to crack down on tax evasion and money laundering in Panama. The proposed FTA contains provisions that forbid cross-border regulations on financial transactions between Canada and Panama. It would also provide subsidiaries operating in Panama enhanced investor rights that would enable them to challenge any attempt by the Canadian government to monitor or limit financial transactions. In short, if one has tax evasion or money laundering needs, try Panama.

It is time to rethink our approach to global competitiveness. The measure should not be the profitability of Canadian multinational corporations abroad but rather the ability of Canadian-based producers to compete and thrive on Canadian soil in a dynamic global economy. What Canada needs and Canadians deserve is an overall national economic strategy that delivers on the promise of good jobs at home and shared prosperity abroad. The patchwork of trade agreements the Conservatives have brought to this House to date delivers neither.

It is time to stop the ad hoc ribbon cutting across the globe and start afresh in the recognition that our trade policy requires deep reform. In fact, Canadians understand that need better than the Conservative government, and they are getting active on the issue. There is a growing fair trade movement in Canada that is being embraced by individual citizens, schools, academics, unions, activists, religious organizations, and more, all unified by their desire to make the world a better place.

Fair trade is really about making changes to conventional trade, which, as I pointed out, often fails to deliver on promises of sustainable livelihoods and opportunities for people in the poorest countries in the world. Poverty and hardship limit people's choices, while market forces tend to further marginalize and exclude them. This makes them vulnerable to exploitation, whether as farmers and artisans or as hired workers within larger businesses. That two billion of our fellow citizens survive on less than two dollars per day, despite working extremely hard, makes it painfully clear that there is indeed a problem.

Fair trade seeks to change the terms of trade for the products we buy to ensure that the farmers and artisans behind those products get a better deal. Most often this is understood to mean ensuring better prices for producers, but it often includes longer-term and more meaningful trading relationships.

Clearly, Canadians are taking this concept to heart. I want to applaud everyone involved in having their communities certified as Fair Trade Towns. The first city to be awarded Fair Trade Town status in Canada was Wolfville, Nova Scotia, on April 17, 2007.

Since then, additional cities, such as La Pêche, Quebec; Port Colborne, Ontario; Nakusp, B.C.; Golden, B.C.; Gimli, Manitoba; Olds, Alberta; Revelstoke, B.C.; Neuville, Quebec; Mercier-Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, Quebec; Vancouver, B.C.; Barrie, Ontario; Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec; and Canmore, Alberta have all joined, allowing fair trade towns to stretch from coast to coast.

I am proud that my own home town of Hamilton is a fair trade town in progress. We are well on the way to meeting all six goals for achieving fair trade town certification. All of the credit goes to Environment Hamilton and its supporters, who have been tireless in promoting sustainability in our community.

Members of the House may be interested to know that the six criteria for certification are as follows. First is the support of city council. Council has to pass a resolution in support of fair trade and the local campaign including (a) a commitment to purchase only fair trade certified tea, coffee, and sugar and other fair trade certified products, where possible, for all meetings and in offices and cafeterias and (b) a commitment to assign fair trade town responsibilities to a member of staff or committee to ensure continued commitment to its fair trade status.

Achieving this goal has been interrupted by the current municipal campaign in Hamilton, but I am cautiously optimistic that getting the city to commit will not be the most daunting challenge. Of course, the outcome of the election may change that landscape.

Second, communities have to demonstrate that fair trade certified products are available in stores and restaurants. Hamilton is already there.

Third, there must be support from community groups. Again, the support and commitment is already there in Hamilton, and we are now getting people organized around the goal of formal certification of the city.

Four, there needs to be demonstrated public support from both the media and the general public. Those pieces will certainly fall into place in Hamilton as we take the final steps toward certification of the city.

The fifth criterion is that a steering committee be convened that includes wide representation from the community and that commits to achieving two additional targets per year: submitting an annual progress assessment to TransFair Canada, and organizing events for National Fair Trade Week in May of each year. Environment Hamilton has already recruited representatives from local co-ops, faith groups, and retail outlets to join EH on the steering committee, so that is another criterion that has been met.

Lastly, there has to be a commitment to promote ethical and sustainable consumption. This will dovetail nicely with work already being done around the “eat local” campaign and the labour movement's “sweatshop-free” campaign. Again, we are almost there.

I am confident that Hamilton will get its certification as a fair trade town in very short order. When we succeed, we will be the largest municipality in Ontario to have achieved that designation.

Let us put that into the context of the oft-cited phrase of environmentalists, “Think globally, act locally”. Clearly, Hamilton is already acting locally, but the phrase urges people to consider the health of the entire planet when acting in their own communities and cities.

Long before federal agencies began enforcing environmental laws, individuals were coming together to protect habitats and the species that live within them. Now, with respect to trade, grassroots activists are once again way ahead of the federal government. It is time to catch up. It is not overly complicated, and if we make the effort, it will be very easy to engage in fair trade.

There are only three pillars to fair trade: respect for the environment in all dealings, respect for the economy—agreements must be economically viable—and respect for the human rights of the societies involved in trade agreements.

If the Conservative government included these simple but profound guidelines and principles in its international trade policies, Canada's image on the global stage would be transformed, and all Canadians would know that their federal government is finally embracing a trade policy that delivers on the promise of good jobs at home and shared prosperity abroad.

Instead, what I see in the Canada-Panama free trade agreement is a continuation of the patchwork approach of signing bilateral agreements that neither meet the goals of fair trade nor lead toward a comprehensive national economic strategy. In the absence of meeting those criteria, this is not a trade agreement that I can support.

Therefore, I move the following motion:

That all the words following “That” be deleted and replaced with the following: Bill C-46, An act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama, and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time six months hence.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

This amendment is deemed in order. Questions and comments.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Hamilton Mountain. First, I agree with her that today our country is in a trade deficit, after 30 years, and it is sad, because under the Liberal administration, we were doing quite well.

The hon. member talked about following examples, such as France and Germany. France and Germany generate a great portion of their revenue by being trading nations. They are also members of the European community, and they trade. This agreement is patterned on similar trade deals.

I want to ask a simple question. The member for Hamilton Mountain talked about an economic strategy to create jobs at home. What would the member say to farmers or to people in the greater city of Toronto, because we trade, for example, potato products, beans, lentils, pork, processed foods, and beef with Panama, and the duties will come down once this agreement is signed.

What will she tell the people in my area who engage in the manufacture of machinery, electronic equipment, pharmaceutical equipment, et cetera, or banking services, engineering, and information technology who are creating jobs for Canada?

This agreement might not be a big agreement. Nevertheless, it is working toward an agreement to reduce tariffs and to create whatever part of the economy we can generate for jobs in Canada. What do we tell these people?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really welcome that question, particularly because the member started by focusing on Europe. My goodness, I wish that our trade agreements were like the EU's. In the EU, they actually support fair trade. That is exactly the model we ought to be supporting here in Canada.

The member asked what he should be telling his constituents. I was not aware that Scarborough had such a huge farming community, but I certainly welcome his comments on that.

When I look at free trade agreements, if we actually do the analysis of the agreements we have signed, more often than not, after we have signed a trade deal, our exports actually go down.

If the member is interested in protecting manufacturing, I would encourage him to have a much, much closer look at what is before us in the House today.

I said earlier, and the member may have missed it, that in my home town of Hamilton, the management at Stelco, which is now U.S. Steel, during the free trade election, told all of his workers that they had to vote for parties that supported free trade, because that is what would be good for their jobs. I would encourage members who were around at that time to come to Hamilton now and find a single steel worker who would say that free trade has been good for the manufacturing sector or for the steel industry in Hamilton. We are losing decent paying, family sustaining jobs. They are being replaced by precarious part-time work. I do not think that a whole lot of people who have actually given serious thought to the impact of free trade agreements on their jobs would agree with the member that they are good for their communities.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for an extremely expansive overview of the legislation.

I am not sure the member was here when my colleague, the representative for Willowdale, talked about the mechanisms that have been entrenched in the agreement that deal with occupational health and safety, that deal with the exploitation of children and their working conditions, that deal with fair labour issues, and that also deal with issues related to sustainable development under multilateral environmental treaties.

Entrenched in the agreement, the member for Willowdale reminded us, is the mechanism of appeal to the International Labour Organization and other suitable, established international organizations.

My question is on the human rights and fair trade issue. Is the member not satisfied with the concerns that have been raised and answered by the legislation and by, for example, the overview that was given by the member for Willowdale?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the question, particularly as I am the NDP's labour critic, and the opportunity to once again comment on the labour side agreement that is indeed part of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

Let me say first that it is a side agreement. Therefore, it is not entrenched in the main text of the trade agreement that is before us here in the House.

Second, there is only one enforceable labour provision, and that is the requirement for the governments to adhere to their own labour laws. These are their own labour laws that this summer saw workers killed in Panama, just in July, when over 100 workers were injured and 300 were arrested. These are the same labour laws that are now allowing for child labour. Clearly those protections are not enough. They certainly do not meet Canadian standards. They do not meet ILO standards, and they do not meet the standards of the UN Convention. No, I am not at all convinced that the labour side agreement does the job the member is hoping it will.

Moreover, this is akin to what we saw in the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. Members will remember: kill a worker, pay a fine. Those same provisions are identical in the free trade agreement before us today.

On all of those grounds, I do not know how anyone who supports labour rights in this country could agree to engage in a free trade agreement with Panama under these conditions.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Hamilton Mountain has made a very compelling case in front of this House.

What the Liberals and Conservatives appear to be doing, yet again, is telling Canadians to swallow this because it is good for them. They said that about the softwood lumber sellout, leading to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs across the country. The shipbuilding sellout that was brought into this House has led to the loss of hundreds of shipbuilding jobs.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is a complete repudiation of Canada's tradition of standing up for human rights, rewarding a regime that is tied to brutal paramilitary and military thugs and intelligent officers who routinely kill trade unionists and human rights advocates.

The Liberals and Conservatives, yet again, are making the same pitch to Canadians. The are telling Canadians to swallow it because it is good for them or it is good for Panamanians. However, none of them have done their homework. None of them have actually looked at what the export figures are after we sign these bilateral free trade agreements. In every case, exports have declined afterwards.

This is a dysfunctional trade policy. We have a dysfunctional approach from the Minister of International Trade, supported by the Liberals, despite the fact that it is very clearly not working and despite the fact that after 20 years of this free trade regime, or so-called free trade regime that has been very costly to Canadians, most Canadians are earning less. There is a problem. Our exports declined in those markets and Canadians are earning less.

What is wrong with this picture? Why is it only the NDP, as a national party, standing up in Parliament and telling Canadians that they do not need to swallow what the Liberals and the Conservatives are trying to force down their throats?

Why does the member for Hamilton Mountain think the Conservatives and Liberals are unwilling to do their homework, actually read the export figures, actually read the income figures and actually work with the NDP so that we can create a fair trade policy that is in the interest of all Canadians.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether one can respond to a question in this House by quoting Pete Seeger, but the question really is, “Which side are you on?” In the answer to that question, we will find the answer to the member's question, as well.

The rich have been getting richer under the successive bilateral trade agreements that this country has been signing. If we look at the standard of living for the middle class or the poorest in our country, it is quite clear from the statistical evidence that they are much worse off.

Why would the Conservatives sign this? As we have said under so many other circumstances in this House, they are the friends of the banks, the wealthiest corporations, and they are, once again, protecting the interests of those wealthy friends.

It is imperative, though, that on this side of the House we stand up for those who are not able to advocate for themselves under these circumstances and that we fight for decent paying, family sustaining jobs.

Let us keep in mind, as the minister said earlier in this debate, that we are talking about an agreement that is contemplating $132 million in trade. That is one-tenth of the amount of money that the current government spent on the security for the G8 and the G20 alone. Clearly, this is not an amount of money over which we would we want to sell out human rights, environmental protection and labour rights. It is just completely insane that we would be signing these kinds of agreements without any protections in place.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House today to labour co-operation in the context of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

In line with our previous free trade negotiations, labour and environmental issues were an important part of the free trade discussions with Panama. That is why Canada negotiated separate international treaties on labour co-operation and the environment to coincide with the free trade agreement talks with Panama.

With regard to labour, the Canada-Panama labour co-operation agreement is strong and comprehensive and it would help protect the rights of workers in both countries. In particular, Canada and Panama have committed to ensuring that their domestic laws respect the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. This declaration covers a wide range of workers' rights; namely, the abolition of child labour, the right of freedom of association, the right to collect bargaining, the elimination of discrimination and the elimination of forced or compulsory labour. Through these provisions, Canada has shown its commitment to improving labour standards and to helping Panama protect its workers. It also demonstrates this government's firm belief that prosperity cannot come at the expense of workers' rights.

The labour co-operation agreement with Panama, however, goes even further than the International Labour Organization's 1998 declaration. More specifically --

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A motion was moved on the floor of this House just a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain that essentially moves the debate and discussion of whether or not this bill should be read and heard six months from now.

Madam Speaker, could you just clarify for the minister that she is indeed speaking to the motion now and not to the bill itself?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I thank the hon. member for his comments. I am sure the hon. minister will take note of that.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy the hon. member is actually listening and paying attention. After what I have been hearing in terms of the inaccuracies and absolute untruths he has been indicating with respect to some of the accusations against Colombia, I do believe it is important for us to listen to what we have to say to one another.

Of course, everything I do say today applies now. It is even more important to ensure we have something like this in place between Canada and Panama currently and, going forward for more than six months, would make absolutely no sense in terms of labour co-operation agreements, specifically for the reasons I will be enumerating here.

As I said, the labour co-operation agreement with Panama goes even further than the International Labour Organization's 1998 declaration. That is why it is important to deal with it now and not deal with something in six months. We should take the opportunity to deal with these things as they appear before us and as they are meant to be.

This agreement commits both countries to protect workers by providing acceptable protections for occupational health and safety. I am sure the House would agree that it is something that should happen immediately and not six months from now. Allowing for compensation in cases of injuries and illnesses is important for workers and that should happen now, not six months from now.

Providing for acceptable minimum employment standards, such as minimum wage and hours of work, on which I assume the opposition would agree, is something that should happen sooner rather than later, not through a delay of six months.

Further, the labour co-operation agreement would ensure that migrant workers would be given the same legal protections as nationals in respect of working conditions.

In order to ensure that Canada and Panama comply with their labour obligations, this agreement does include a strong dispute resolution mechanism that is transparent, robust and easy to use. The model is in line with Canada's other parallel labour co-operation agreements with Colombia, Peru and, of course, with Jordan.

As part of this settlement process, members of the public can submit complaints to either government concerning any of the obligations contained in the labour co-operation agreement. These complaints can bring to light any concerns from the public that domestic labour laws or their implementation by Canada or Panama do not comply with the terms of the labour co-operation agreement. If the complaint is deemed valid, then either country can request ministerial level consultations with the other country to resolve the issue.

If the countries are unable to come to a mutually satisfactory agreement and the matter concerns a perceived failure to respect obligations related to the 1998 International Labour Organization's declaration or even the enforcement of domestic laws, the country that requested the ministerial consultations can request that a review panel be convened. If the matter cannot be resolved, the independent review panel may require that the offending country may face financial penalties. These penalties would be placed into a co-operation fund in order to resolve the matter identified, as well as to help ensure compliance with and respect for domestic and international labour obligations.

Moneys placed in the co-operation fund would be disbursed according to an agreed upon action plan, which would ensure that the matters under dispute are effectively resolved

As we can see, under the labour co-operation agreement, both Canada and Panama will have an important tool to protect and improve the rights of workers, which, of course, would make more sense for them to have this now rather than six months from now at the very earliest.

That being said, it must be noted that this agreement also respects provincial jurisdiction on labour matters. At the same time, however, the federal government would have the ability to immediately use the dispute resolution process, if necessary, regardless of the level of provincial participation in the labour co-operation agreement.

In looking beyond the provinces, it is important to remember that this government is re-engaging with our partners across the Americas. An important part of this re-engagement is the promotion of the principles of sound governance, security and prosperity. A vital component of this strategy is the protection of labour rights, and this includes Panama. That is why Canada negotiated a robust and comprehensive labour co-operation agreement with Panama.

Our efforts to protect labour rights do not stop there. During the free trade negotiations with Panama, Canada requested that a principles based chapter on labour be inserted into the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Panama agreed to this request and, as such, there is now a much stronger and much more direct reference to labour rights in the free trade agreement.

That is important because the chapter on labour reaffirms both countries obligations under the labour co-operation agreement. By inserting a labour chapter into the free trade agreement text, Canada has provided an additional confirmation of that vital link between economic growth, prosperity and the respect for labour rights.

In closing, I would like to emphasize this government's view that free trade can play a positive role in a country's economic and social life, but this positive role does not have to come at the expense of labour rights. In fact, as the labour co-operation agreement demonstrates, it is possible to liberalize trade while protecting the rights of workers.

The push to protect labour rights is also an important component of Canada's active engagement in the Americas. Under this labour co-operation agreement, Canada would be able to help support Panama in its efforts to respect both its domestic labour laws and its international labour obligations. These efforts in turn will benefit Panamanian workers.

For those reasons, I ask all hon. members for their support of the agreement in total and the parallel agreement on labour co-operation and implore that this happen sooner rather than later.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. minister will have about 11 minutes for comments if she chooses when this bill returns to the order of business.

The House resumed from September 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-46, as I did the other day on Bill C-8 which dealt with another free trade agreement the government is proposing. This bill deals with a free trade agreement with Panama.

Obviously, free trade agreements are important to Canada given that we export over 80% of our goods, and obviously Canada needs to be competitive in the international community. It is disturbing that for the first time in over 30 years, we have a significant trade deficit. The government needs to look at a comprehensive approach in terms of how we deal with the issue of trade in the international community.

At the moment we have what I would call one-off agreements. There is one with Jordan and now there is this one with Panama. We also debated one involving Colombia. The difficulty is that our competitors are taking a much more aggressive approach. For example, we have no free trade agreements with any state in Asia. With markets such as Japan, China, India, the ASEAN members, this is very important, and a multilateral approach particularly with ASEAN would be beneficial.

We are still in negotiations with Korea; I believe we are in the seventh round now. With Singapore, we are in the ninth round. This is disturbing, given that the Americans have been reaching out. We see the Japanese concluding free trade agreements with countries as diverse as the Philippines and Mexico, yet at the same time, we are doing these small agreements.

The one with Panama is fine. We on this side of the House certainly support the bill going to committee. However, in terms of the big picture, there are real issues that we need to be grappling with on the issue of free trade. A multilateral approach gives us a bigger market. For example, ASEAN, with 590 million people from Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, et cetera, is very important, yet we are simply chipping away at it. We do not have a coherent policy in terms of how we should tackle trade issues.

As a significant amount of our trade, some 75% or 80%, is with the United States, when there is an economic downturn in that country, as we have seen, it has an impact on our economy. We need to diversify, but diversifying with Jordan and Panama is not going to solve things in the big picture. It is not going to deal with what our competitors have been doing internationally. We need to be in the game. We have been more on the sidelines. We have to engage in these major markets. There are opportunities for us out there, but the government needs to lead. The government needs to demonstrate.

A few years ago, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce wrote a very compelling paper about China. It clearly indicated that there was no policy of the government in terms of how to engage that market. For example, Canada is a world leader in the area of environmental technology, particularly with respect to clean air, clean water and contaminated sites. This is very important work and certainly is useful for China. We need to be part of that, but we are not seeing the kind of leadership needed in order to go forward.

From that standpoint, the agreements the government has been putting forward simply focus on a very small niche. They do not deal with the kinds of issues they should be dealing with.

We are seeing an increase in protectionism in the United States. That is of concern, particularly in the area of agriculture. It means difficulties for our farmers. It is a difficulty in terms of our being able to compete in the international arena. The United States' protectionist policies are having an effect here. With respect to the America first policy, the government had discussions with the United States and changes were made in terms of Canadian companies being able to compete, but that only affected 37 of the 50 states in the U.S. It is important that we be there.

The Conservative government has not shown the kind of leadership that is needed on the multilateral side, in terms of being much more visible in the United States. Policy in the United States is not done in Washington; it is done in districts and states across the U.S. That is where we need to be focusing our efforts.

Canadian businesses can compete with anyone in the world if there is a level playing field. When there is not a level playing field, obviously we often face difficulties.

Although my party supports this bill going to committee, the fact is that we would like to see a clear strategy, particularly for the emerging key markets, such as Brazil, India, China, and Japan. We have watched and continually see the United States, Australia, and others being very aggressive, particularly in their talk about a big Asia Pacific free trade zone. If they are in first, we obviously will pick up the pieces.

I think Canadian businesses deserve more than picking up the pieces. They deserve the opportunity. Again, we have to be aggressive. We can talk free trade, but we really have to demonstrate it. The only way to demonstrate it is to show leadership.

Currently, penetrating the Korean market is an issue, particularly in the automotive sector, and the Japanese are carefully watching our discussions. If, and it is a big if, a free trade agreement were to occur between Canada and Korea, the Japanese would be particularly anxious to come to the table. At the moment, the Americans are talking to them about possible free trade.

Some people say that we could never get a free trade agreement with Japan because of agriculture. I do not know of too many people in this House who represent ridings that have a lot of rice. Rice is always the one issue the Japanese deal with. Even then, Japan was able to conclude a successful agreement with the Philippines, for example.

The issue in this agreement, and we are supportive of sending it to committee, is the Canadian merchandise we export to Panama: machinery, electronic equipment, pharmaceutical equipment, et cetera. It is a relatively small market. It is also important that we look at some of the other free trade zones in Latin America.

Latin America has developed, along with states such as Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile, zones in which there is a free flow of goods and where tariffs have been dropped so that businesses can compete. As a country, we need to send out a very clear message that we are prepared to enter into agreements where it is in our national interest.

Obviously, we have to look at environmental issues. This country has traditionally been a leader on climate change, clean water, and clean air issues. Countries really need that expertise.

Not only are Canadians very cost effective in terms of what they are able to produce and export, we can do it in two official languages, which is very helpful. Again, if we are not at the table, that is a problem.

We also have to look at the issue of labour co-operation. I notice in this agreement that there is a side agreement on labour co-operation. Obviously we have to expect that what we are asking is what we would demand at home, including the right to association, the right to collective bargaining, and the abolition of child labour. These are standards we have, and we would expect the same in dealing with other countries.

I know that some colleagues have concerns on the labour end of it. When it goes to committee and we have the appropriate witnesses, we can have those kinds of discussions and strengthen, if need be, those provisions. I think that is important. No piece of legislation I have seen in 14 years here has ever been perfect. That is why we send it to committee, where colleagues have an opportunity to look very carefully at legislation, hear from witnesses, and move forward.

My understanding, in terms of the major stakeholders on this particular bill with Panama, is that there are no major objections. On the whole, it is a fairly straightforward agreement. Again, it will give us some access, but we have to build on that, particularly in the Central American region in countries such as Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Costa Rica. Those countries are also looking at better co-operation. As a balance to the United States, I think Canada could play an important role.

Again, it is the whole issue of having a level playing field with access to markets. We need to be able to at least secure that. When we are looking at new partnerships, we must be able to tell our business community to go forward with the opportunity.

There were reservations about the free trade agreement with the United States and whether we could compete. Obviously, we can compete extremely well when a level playing field is available.

Canada's total exports to this particular country amount to 12.6%. Imports amount to about 17.3%. Over 80% of Canada's economy depends on trade. To keep that, we need to have as much access to markets as we can.

Former Prime Minister Trudeau, in the seventies, talked about a third option, and that third option was to diversify. If we had diversified in the seventies and eighties, maybe we would be in better shape than we are now.

Tariffs are the worst thing that can happen to a trading nation. Obviously, I am not old enough to remember the Great Depression in the 1930s, but some of my colleagues on the other side might. The first thing that happened was that major tariff barriers went up, and protectionism became rampant. That is not something we want to do. That was not good. We need to make sure that we have protection.

We also need to demonstrate leadership when it comes to issues such as climate change and the environment. The Conference of the Parties will soon meet in Mexico, and that will be an opportunity to strengthen international regimes.

Canada is traditionally well known for its international leadership, particularly in areas of multilateralism. The International Criminal Court is an example.

The 11th Conference of the Parties, in 2005, was the most successful COP ever to deal with developing a clear climate change regime internationally. That was important. The former Liberal government got a lot of accolades because of that. Again, it was because of the fact that we demonstrated leadership. We need to continue to do that. We need to continue to say to our allies and others that if protectionism is wrong, this is what we are prepared to do to focus forward.

The European Union has some very stringent policies, particularly when it comes to foodstuffs, even in terms of colouring food. We have to be able to talk about these issues with colleagues. We have seen other countries react to issues in this country, and we need to have a strong voice on those issues. Some of my colleagues, particularly those from Newfoundland and Labrador, are well aware of the issue with regard to the seal hunt.

What are we doing to educate? What are we doing to get our message out on some of these issues so that these sudden trade barriers will not come forward and harm the interests of Canadian farmers and producers, whoever they happen to be?

It is instructive to look at what went forward when we made an agreement with Israel in 1997. That was an opportunity to start further negotiations in other areas of the Middle East. Bill C-8, the Jordan agreement, will build on that. The gulf trading area, a Middle East trading area, is important all the way from the United Arab Emirates to Algeria. That is another market we could penetrate.

In other words, what is the strategy? What is going to be the policy in order for us to move forward? We on this side of the House are quite willing to work with the government to develop a strategy, because it is in our nation's interest. If we do these kinds of things, we will serve our citizens well.

Non-agricultural products, particularly fish and seafood, would be helpful for our markets, but that is only one part of the puzzle. It would be nice to see a really strong policy that the government, members of the opposition, and members of key sectors that deal with international trade really hammer out together. It would be the kind the policy and the kinds of tools we need to be much more aggressive.

The Americans certainly have not been sitting idly by. The Australians, in particular, have been very aggressive in Asia and have reaped a number of benefits. ASEAN, of course, which was getting closer on trade issues with China, now realizes that they cannot put all their eggs in one basket. They are wondering where Canada is on the international stage. They see where the Australians and the Americans are, and they are saying that we need to be there.

Some people do not know that in Indonesia, for example, we are the fifth largest investor, particularly in the area of mining, but our approach is not necessarily coherent. It is not necessarily a policy to say, “Go out there and good luck”. That is not the way to build good trade relations.

Obviously, we support the faster elimination of tariff barriers, particularly in those areas that are important to Canadian industry. In this agreement, Panama will see the elimination of at least 90% of current barriers on goods coming from Canada, which is obviously a positive, but where are those big deals we need to hear about in the House? Where are those big negotiations going on?

On this side, we are watching very carefully the issue of Korea. That is very important because of the nature of that market. We need to be able to say to our businesses that there are tremendous opportunities out there. We do not want to be dealing just with our American friends, which is great, but given policy there, we need to make sure that we are at the forefront.

We were one of the first major countries in China. We had a tremendous opportunity there. Mr. Chrétien led a number of Team Canada missions there in the 1990s. We were leaders. Unfortunately, relations with China changed with the current government, and we lost a lot of ground.

We have to continue to have a consistent policy on how to deal with our trading partners. We cannot be all things to all people. We have to have a particular niche. For example, on the environment, we could have a whole Team Canada just dealing with environmental issues in the Pearl River Delta. There are days when the smog is so thick it rolls into Hong Kong and one cannot see across the harbour. We need to take advantage of those things.

People cry out and say that they need to see Canada there. It would be very helpful if we would do that. Although we will support the bill going to committee, we want to look at the issue of labour to make sure that the guarantees are there. We want to make sure that if these things can be strengthened, that will be done. We welcome the opportunity, but we want to see the bigger picture. We want to see more emphasis on multilateralism, and if that goes forward, it will benefit Canada in our future trading relationships around the world.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his support of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

He is correct in suggesting that Canada, as one of the great free trading nations, needs to develop new trading relationships.

Where his argument falls down is the suggestion that previous Liberal governments somehow were able to achieve much more in the area of international trade. If we look at the record of the previous governments, it is really an appalling record. For years the previous Liberal government tried to conclude an agreement on approved destination status with China. It never happened. Our government got the job done.

I also refer to additional free trade agreements that he did not refer to, which our government has been able to achieve, such as with the European Free Trade Association. I refer now to the European Union, which is negotiating a free trade agreement with Canada.

Would the member not agree with me that this Conservative government's successes far surpass the record of the previous Liberal government?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

First, Mr. Speaker, the member had better define what he means by “appalling”, because my definition and his are obviously different.

I give the example of the preferred destination status with China. If the member checks the record, in the fall of 2005 it was the Liberal government that actually had an agreement in place. There was something called an election, which obviously precluded the final signing of that agreement.

My question to the member, which I realize is a rhetorical one, is why it took the Conservative Party almost four years to get that finalized when the Liberal government had done all the work. The work was already done. In December 2005, that destination agreement existed, and we lost four years of an opportunity to really showcase Canada, because those guys over there, unfortunately, were ragging the puck.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, members will know that the total two-way trade between Canada and Panama in 1999 was only $132 million. Imports to Canada from Panama were only $21 million, and half of that was refined heavy oil. The fact of the matter is that members know that trade is not going to stop tomorrow if we do not implement this trade deal.

For a government that pretends to be tough on crime, it is somewhat surprising that it would be ready to implement a free trade deal with a country such as Panama that was blacklisted by the OECD in 2000 as an unco-operative tax haven. In fact, there are 350,000 foreign companies registered to hide from the tax man in their home countries.

Why would the Liberals get in bed with the Conservatives to facilitate this agreement when what we should be doing is following the American example and forcing Panama to sign tax agreements so that there can be an exchange of tax information about tax evaders? The Liberal opposition is actually facilitating the government promoting tax evasion if it supports this initiative.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not an advocate of getting into bed with the Conservatives, the NDP or anybody else, although I know the NDP has had experience with being in bed with the Conservatives, particularly in 2005.

I want to point out that one of the things free trade provides us is an opportunity to deal with political liberalization, et cetera. Panama has come a long way from the Noriega days. There is no question that there is continual liberalization and improvement within Panama. One of the things that at least my party believes in is engagement. There cannot be improvements unless we engage others, and this is one vehicle.

I understand the member is concerned about those issues and I would suggest to the member that the bill going to committee is an opportunity to look at some of those issues and strengthen it. That is why bills go to committee. We do not just say we do not like a bill because it is not perfect. If it is not perfect, we have to work on it, and that is why members deal with it in committee.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that it seems the Liberals want to return to power. On Wednesday evening, there was a vote to improve the employment insurance system. The Liberals, who can practically taste power, have started voting against workers again.

When Prime Minister Martin was in office, the Bloc Québécois spoke out vigorously against tax shelters. Tax shelters in other countries hide money from the taxman for certain large companies, many of them subsidized by taxes paid by Quebec and Canadian workers. As a result, wealth is not redistributed to improve our health and education systems and living conditions for those who do pay taxes: workers.

How can this government and this opposition keep supporting free trade agreements that will negatively affect working conditions for Quebeckers and Canadians, agreements that will make it easier for mining and other companies to take advantage of tax shelters?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, one of the side agreements deals with labour. If the member has legitimate concerns on the labour issue, that is where at committee with the appropriate witnesses that kind of discussion needs to go forward in terms of strengthening these provisions. But if we simply want perfection and say no, if this is not here now we are not going to engage with any free trade, then we can put up a big wall around the country and obviously we will not be doing our businesses any favours and certainly not the population. So again, it is about engaging. Obviously there are provisions we can strengthen, but we cannot strengthen the bill if we simply say we are not going to do anything because it is not there now. That is why we have these discussions and obviously why amendments are made at committee.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over two years ago I was on the international trade committee delegation to Panama and I am pleased to see the progress and support with respect to this free trade agreement.

However, does the member for Richmond Hill believe this focus by the Conservative government on these smaller free trade agreements with smaller potential for trade impedes the ability of Canada to do more strategic larger agreements with Asia-Pacific, for example, or Brazil?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that it does not impede it, but it is not really focusing on what the real issues of the day are in terms of what our competitors are doing, and again, much more engagement on the multilateral level with organizations that are out there. I go back to one that I am most familiar with, dealing with the Asia-Pacific region, and that is ASEAN. Obviously if we do that, we are going to have a bigger bang in terms of that approach. Although these things are helpful, we need a strong policy, a strong strategy. We need to listen to what organizations such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have said, which is that we really do not have that, and unless we have it, we are not going to be competitive internationally in the longer term.

In order to do that, we have to get together. We have to really start hammering out something not for this year or for the next five years, but the kind of policy that will take us 15 or 20 years down the road, because standing still is not going to help and obviously the Australians in particular recognized that when they launched their very aggressive free trade approaches in the Asia-Pacific.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will first point out that I will be splitting my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

First of all, I would like to quickly go over the Bloc Québécois position on bilateral agreements. Make no mistake, the Bloc Québécois is not a protectionist party. Quebec exports 52% of what it produces, and our businesses, especially cutting-edge businesses, could not survive in the domestic market alone. Therefore, the Bloc Québécois supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and was the first party to propose entering into a free trade agreement with the European Union. Clearly, our party supports free trade.

We believe that in order for trade to be mutually beneficial, it must first be fair. A trading system that results in exploitation in poor countries and dumping in rich countries is not viable. The Bloc Québécois will never tolerate a system of free trade that would result in a race to the bottom.

We know very well that the lack of environmental or labour standards in trade agreements puts a great deal of pressure on our industries, particularly our traditional industries. It is very difficult for them to compete with products made with no regard for basic social rights. We support a true multilateralism policy and not shameless profiteering without regard for human conditions and the environment, which all too often is the basis for these bilateral agreements that our Conservative friends and, for some time now, our Liberal friends want to negotiate. This Bloc Québécois position was eloquently presented yesterday by the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, and I would like to congratulate him on his apt remarks.

That said, the Bloc Québécois, as per usual, methodically examined Bill C-46, which would implement a free trade agreement between Canada and Panama. We do not support this bill because, for the most part, it does not reflect the beliefs and values of our party and Quebeckers.

Even though the free trade agreement signed on May 14, 2010, comes with a side agreement on labour co-operation, protecting labour rights remains a serious concern. Indeed, President Ricardo Martinelli's right-wing government passed Law 30, legislation that is considered anti-union, in June 2010. Quite simply, and as my hon. colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain explained so well, the law criminalizes workers who demonstrate to defend their rights. That cannot be justified.

We also know that Panama was shaken in recent months by crackdowns described as anti-union. Between two and six people were killed and about 100 were injured during violent demonstrations that were held after Law 30 passed in June 2010.

I have been a farm unionist for 20 years and I think we are fortunate to live here in Quebec and in Canada, in a democracy where we are not up against legislation like Panama's Law 30, which would bully us and prevent labour groups from raising their voices to improve their conditions. This is unacceptable. We are fortunate that we do not have to deal with such legislation and governments like Panama's that pass that kind of legislation in 2010.

As a member who comes from the labour movement, I naturally believe that workers' rights are universal rights, and no trade agreement—and I mean no agreement—should be entered into without absolute assurance that workers' rights will be respected.

Considering that in the present case we do not have that assurance, it is not possible for the Bloc Québécois to speak out in favour of this agreement.

We vigorously defend this position through our actions and our decisions. It is for that reason, among others, that we were able to support the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

Even though on August 5, the Panamanian government agreed to review this law, we nonetheless have cause for concern about the Martinelli government's true willingness to respect the International Labour Organization conventions. Why is the government in such a hurry to ratify this agreement? Should we not ensure that the Panamanian government is backing away from Law 30 before we make any commitment?

Something else that bothers the Bloc Québécois greatly is the fact that Panama is still on the OECD's grey list of tax havens. It is even on France's blacklist of tax havens.

While major European corporations are leaving this country because of its lack of banking transparency and its promotion of tax evasion, Canada wants to send its companies there. Does that make any sense?

Also worrisome is the fact that on the Finance Canada website on treaties and conventions there is no indication that Canada is negotiating an information sharing agreement with Panama.

We feel it is imperative that before concluding a Canada-Panama free trade agreement, the Conservative government, supported by the Liberals, sign an information sharing agreement with Panama. I hope the Liberals will support us on this. Nonetheless, this agreement must not exempt subsidiaries domiciled in the targeted jurisdictions from paying income tax.

In closing, without any assurance that workers' rights are respected in Panama and considering that this country is still on France's blacklist and the OECD's grey list of tax havens, unfortunately it is not possible for the Bloc Québécois to support this bill.

We will vigorously oppose any agreement, treaty or government decision that does not respect these fundamental rights.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to hear Canada's name come up on the world stage, even if they are opposed to the bill introduced by our government. I have a question for my colleague.

What do the following have in common: EFTA, Peru, Colombia, Jordan and Panama? The answer is that these are all countries or groups with which Canada has entered into free trade agreements. What about India, China and Korea? These are countries with which our Conservative government has engaged in the last few years in an unprecedented way, making Canada truly the country of the 21st century.

As the hon. member weighs the labour issues he has considered, I would ask him to think for a minute about the gains Canada has made on the world stage. What does he think about how we are doing in trade and our international respect?

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As I mentioned in my speech, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of free trade and free trade agreements. We participated in the discussions on the free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia. We were against the agreement with Colombia because that country does not respect human rights.

With respect to the agreement we are debating today, I made it clear that Law 30, which is anti-union legislation, is unacceptable. Also, we want Canada to sign agreements that address tax havens. This is in line with article 26 of the OECD model tax convention.

I can assure my colleague that the Bloc Québécois will continue to do a thorough job on the upcoming agreements with China, India and Jordan.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always listen closely to my colleague's speeches. He mentioned a number of important things, including crime. The Conservative government always claims that it wants to address the issue of crime, but now it is signing a free trade agreement with Panama, a country that allows money laundering, which would increase the prevalence of this phenomenon in Canada.

How can the Conservatives be so irresponsible as to say that money laundering is allowed, that it is fine and that it is not serious, because we do not have to live with it? The government wants to sign an agreement and tell the Panamanian government that it can continue to tolerate money laundering.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and say that I enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on International Trade. We always have very good discussions.

It is unacceptable to want to sign an agreement with a country like Panama, which is a tax haven. We are not the ones saying that. Panama is on the OECD's grey list and on France's blacklist. Europeans are taking their companies out of Panama because they feel it is unacceptable to do business with a tax haven. But in Canada, the Conservatives—backed by the Liberals—are rushing to sign an agreement with the Panamanian government.

Last night, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé said that the Bloc Québécois is making proposals to overhaul and improve employment insurance for the benefit of our workers. The two parties are telling us that it will cost too much, but at the same time, the government is signing an agreement with a tax haven where, if things were done properly, we could reap some benefits.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague on his excellent speech about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

I was involved in a parliamentary mission to Colombia with the NDP member here and the Liberal member. We also visited Panama as members of a committee to assess the possibility of free trade.

I am keen to talk about this today because I have been following the progress of this accord for the past few years. I should reiterate that we are against this free trade agreement. My Bloc Québécois colleague made it clear that we are not against all free trade agreements. We support a free trade agreement between Quebec and the European Union. Back in the day, the Quebec sovereignty movement was very supportive of the free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

I want to make it clear that we are not against all free trade agreements. I have noticed that, anytime we discuss a free trade agreement in the House, there is a lot of pressure on those who oppose such agreements, as though they were opposed to economic growth and to making Canada and Quebec more competitive in a free trade environment.

That is not the case. We support free trade agreements when they are fair for workers and the economy and when they comply with environmental standards. We oppose free trade agreements when these basic conditions are not met.

When we were discussing the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, we told the House about the human tragedies that befall unionized workers in Colombia. We also talked about violations of mine workers' rights and environmental standards. We opposed that bill.

Even though things in Panama are not as bad as they are in Colombia, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement includes a number of unacceptable clauses, so we should not sign it.

First of all, there is Law 30. We tend to sign agreements with right-wing governments. We signed an agreement with Mr. Uribe, whom my colleagues and I met. We signed an agreement with a right-wing government that does not respect workers' rights, particularly their right to demonstrate and unionize to protect their rights. The government lets companies violate environmental standards.

The Conservative government, unfortunately supported by the Liberals, tends to want to sign agreements with such right-wing countries because it says they will generate revenue and improve our competitiveness.

Our imports from Panama are five times greater than our exports to that country. How will this free trade agreement spur our economic growth? I do not believe it will happen. We must immediately disregard this argument.

I do not think that the workers in my riding of Berthier—Maskinongé, or Quebeckers as a whole, will get rich from this Canada-Panama free trade agreement. On the contrary, without respect for labour or environmental rights, these free trade agreements put pressure on our own companies operating in Canada. In the case of mining or the production of all kinds of agricultural products, for example, they create pressure to lower standards.

We must compete against countries that do not respect labour rights. In the case of Panama, it is even said that the right-wing government condones child labour, just like Colombia. Consequently, the agreement does not improve the working conditions of our workers, and it places pressure on companies. They think that in Panama or other countries, they can engage in such activities. This agreement will allow them to set up operations in those countries, where labour is cheaper. The agreement also eliminates tariffs and promotes trade.

Panama is also recognized as a tax haven. We have discussed tax havens on many occasions, and it is important.

A number of companies here receive subsidies. Some are having serious financial problems because of this global competition. Not only do our workers have to work very hard and in very difficult conditions, but they are financing these companies through their tax dollars, to make them a little more competitive globally. Indeed, with free trade and considering the degree of competition from China, we have lost many jobs in the manufacturing sector, in the furniture sector in my riding for example.

So the workers are paying to improve our productivity in the context of globalization and, on top of that, the revenues are going into tax havens. The companies receiving subsidies are earning huge profits. They will go and set up shop in other countries that offer more attractive tax benefits and where it is easier for them to exploit workers. So they simply move and do not pay taxes. They do not redistribute this wealth or the profits they make by paying taxes in Canada and in Quebec.

As an indirect result, this leads to cuts in social programs and education. We are told there is no more money. Our current system is already under tremendous pressure, so cuts have to be made to public services and education, all because the government does not have enough money.

Quebec and Canada should at least be collecting taxes from these companies, which are earning huge profits. We could follow the example of certain other countries, which I will not name, that have chosen to put education, health, and so on first, by making taxes a priority on a national level. That money must come back. If workers are subsidizing businesses, of course the tax dollars should come back to the country.

That is why we do not support this Canada-Panama agreement. On the one hand, it does not respect labour rights—Panama passed its Law 30—and on the other hand, there are also concerns about environmental standards. Lastly, we do not believe that this agreement will do anything to stimulate the economy in Quebec or Canada. Our exports to and imports from Panama are very limited. This will not create more jobs.

We want globalization to be fair and equitable, as defined by Joseph Stiglitz—a former adviser to the President of the United States—in several books, which I invite all members of this House to read. They are not necessarily leftist readings, and I invite all members to read them.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has spent a great deal, and quite rightfully so, on the rights of workers, fair trade and fair labour conditions.

My question is related to the support in the bill for the International Labour Organization's declaration on fundamental principles and rights of work. It talks about child labour, occupational health and safety, compensation for injuries on the job and so on.

We have a commitment to the International Labour Organization's declaration by all parties to this agreement and there is a provision where a panel of last resort would be established to hold a hearing on a particular violation to the agreement.

With all the issues he has mentioned about occupational health and safety, children's rights and so on, is it not better to have an agreement that would invoke a multilateral organization, like the ILO, with a provision that there would be compensation back to those very people who he is concerned about, those who are exploited under present conditions? Would it not be better to have this agreement that would address those kinds of issues in Panama?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for this question.

However, I do not necessarily agree with his position, and I will tell you why. In recent months, Panama has been shaken by a wave of anti-labour repression. I say it is recent because in 2010 there have been several deaths, between two and six depending on which source you consult, and about a hundred people injured during a violent demonstration following the June 2010 adoption of Law 30, which some are calling the “sausage law” because it contained such diverse reforms, notably to the labour code and environmental legislation.

When the public protested, the crackdown was severe. And in that context we, as Quebeckers or as Canadians, cannot sign agreements with countries that do not respect working conditions and environmental standards. This issue always comes back to haunt us, putting pressure on our own environmental laws and our own workers.

I know that the Conservative government does not seem to care about respecting the environment—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Abbotsford has the floor for questions or comments.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with the member and the Bloc for not supporting this free trade agreement. Canada is one of the great free trading nations of the world. We heard earlier today that in order to grow our economy to ensure our future prosperity it was critical that we continue to find new trading relationships.

The member has highlighted certain concerns about this agreement as well as some of the issues taking place in Panama. Why would he not at least allow the bill to go to committee so there can be a thorough review of it to ensure there are the protections that he would like to see in the bill?

My guess is it is simply a matter of ideology. He does not share the ideology of the present government of Panama. Is that not correct?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to say that we live in a democracy where I can express my feelings and also say that I do not necessarily agree with the ideology of the Conservatives who sit across from me in this House.

As I mentioned in my speech, the issue is always to improve competitiveness through free trade agreements and to accumulate more wealth, but we have seen that these types of agreements do not make our population richer. Since we have started signing free trade agreements, the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. The statistics prove this. Let us not kid ourselves.

I would like the Conservative member to answer this question in his speech: How can we say that doing business with a country that generates five times more imports than exports will help our workers and improve our living conditions, and all of this in a country that allows tax shelters?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to rise in the House on Bill C-46, which could be more aptly called the drug pushers, money laundering act. It is absolutely shameful what the government has brought forward.

Panama is ranked as one of the top drug pushing, money laundering, tax havens in the entire planet. The Panamanian government has done nothing to resolve that. There is absolutely nothing in Bill C-46 to deal with the drug pushing and money laundering that the Conservatives are promoting. It also would do absolutely nothing to address the tax haven status.

People who watched CBC or heard Radio-Canada last night would have seen the impact of tax havens and money laundering and how that impacted on our social programs in Canada. It impacts how we as Canadians can deal with some of the fundamental issues.

This widespread money laundering and the use of tax havens so drug pushers and folks who earn money illegally can get around existing tax laws are not small issues.

Hard-working middle-class Canadians, poor Canadians, work very hard and they pay their taxes. They do what they must do as Canadians to support our society. Yet the Conservative government is going to shamefully sign an agreement with a drug pushing, money laundering tax haven paradise without even addressing one word of it in this agreement. It is absolutely shameful. It is a symbol of what is dysfunctional about the Conservative government on trade policy. The NDP is the only national party to stand up in the House against this completely dysfunctional trade policy of the Conservatives.

We have seen the kind of bills the Conservative have brought forward. They brought forward the softwood lumber sellout. As a result, two thousand jobs were lost in my riding. Tens of thousands of jobs right across the country were lost as the Conservatives deliberately shut down the softwood lumber industry. It was appalling and incompetent. People from the industry, except the CEOs who wanted to take their operations across to the United States, told the government very clearly that it would be disastrous. The NDP was the only national party to rise in the House and say that it would be disastrous. The Conservatives rammed it through, with the support of their Liberal cohorts, and we saw the results.

We saw the results with the shipbuilding sellout. Shipbuilding workers from British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec all said that this would have a negative impact on the shipbuilding industry. As a result, hundreds of jobs have been lost in the shipbuilding industry.

In the springtime, after what was an appallingly ridiculous debate, the Conservatives and the Liberals pushed through the Colombia free trade deal, essentially putting an X on Canada's reputation of standing up for human rights.

This present deal would provide a stamp of approval on the drug pushing, money laundering, tax haven paradise. This deal says that it would be okay to do this kind of activity, that it would be okay to have whomever, Hell's Angels, drug pushers, getting around Canadian income tax laws by having their money in Panama. Panama has strict rules about ensuring that Canadian authorities cannot find out a wit about the illegal money laundering taking place. The Conservatives say that is okay.

Each member of the Conservative Party, each member of Parliament who has made a great speech about cracking down on crime, is now going to stand and give his or her stamp of approval to a government that has not cracked down on fighting money laundering and drug pushing, one of the worst in the world.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You should be embarrassed.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the Conservatives reacting, as they normally do. None of them have read the agreement. There is not a single word in the entire text that deals with money laundering or the tax haven status. It is appalling. This is a symbol of a completely dysfunctional trade policy pushed by the Conservatives and supported, as we have seen every time, by the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Conservatives will say that by doing this they are actually contributing to the growth of our export industries.

The NDP has pushed for fair trade rules. We are the only national party speaking out against the hemorrhaging in our manufacturing sector, the loss of half a million good-paying manufacturing jobs. We are the only national party speaking out against the chronic under-financing of our major exporting industries.

I am pleased to say that this week some of the export associations have finally heeded our call. They are actually going to go to the government, with the support of the NDP, to get substantial increases in product promotion support.

Why? Because Canada, quite frankly, just plays lip service to exports. We have a trade minister who loves to cut ribbons and sign fancy agreements that do not deal with the fundamental issues.

Let us compare what Canada invests to support our export industries abroad with what other countries spend. We spend $12 million to $13 million in product promotion. Australia spends half a billion dollars. The European community spends $125 million for their wine export sector alone. That is 10 times what we spend for all industries right across the board. For the United States market, our most important trading partner, we spend $3 million or $4 million, which is the equivalent of promotion support for marketing a medium-sized enterprise in the lower mainland of British Columbia. We do that as a nation for the entire U.S. market.

The Conservatives, on the one hand, love these camera opportunities and these signatures but have done absolutely nothing to stimulate export growth.

What has been the result? If the Conservatives say that, although their actions might encourage some money laundering and drug pushing and use of tax havens, they are really doing this for exports, then they are going to have to explain that in this House. They have been mute so far in this debate. They have not spoken to these issues at all. In fact, it appears that they do not want to stand up and defend this deal. This should indicate to the public, those who are looking for work but have taken a brief break and are tuning in to CPAC today, that if the Conservatives are not willing to speak to the issue it is because they know that they do not have a leg to stand on, that they simply do not have any basis for supporting this dysfunctional deal.

If we look at the export figures, what do we see? If we move from the realm of inflation-devalued current dollars to constant dollars, which actually reflects a constant value over time, what we see is that after we sign these bilateral trade deals our exports actually go down. Let me cite a few examples.

With Israel, before we implemented a free trade agreement, we had exports of $270 million a year. In 2003, seven years later, we had gone from $270 million to $239 million in exports. What is wrong with this picture?

It was the Liberal government at the time that starved our export industries. But at the same time they had the big song and dance about how this was going to be terrific for our export industries. What happened? There was a decrease from $270 million to $239 million.

Let us look at another example.

I can see the Conservatives waking up now. They are saying, “Gee, nobody told us that. Gee, we should have done our homework., Gee, we should have actually looked at the export figures Maybe we'd know what we were talking about if we actually compared the figures”.

I am the glad the Conservatives are waking up, because these are important issues. We are talking about lost jobs. We are talking about half a million manufacturing jobs lost. We are talking about an actual net decrease in income for most Canadian families. The Conservatives have not understood that; the Liberals certainly did not. For 20 years, this so-called free trade regime has proven very costly to the average Canadian family.

These are important figures. I am glad they are taking note.

Look at Chile. We had $467 million in exports, before the implementation of the magic free trade agreement. Well, the exports to that market have gone from $467 million to $433 million. That is after the FTA, after the song and dance, after all of the pretensions about how this was going to stimulate our export industries, even though Liberals and Conservatives have done nothing to stimulate our export industries beyond the photo ops and signatures on bad trade deals. With Chile, after 10 years of free trade our exports were down.

Let us move on. I could continue. I will not cite the EFTA figures, because we already had this debate. It was the famous shipbuilding sellout. Since we signed that deal, our exports have gone down. There has been a huge decrease in the EFTA market, and yet we had Conservatives and Liberals standing in this House and saying this was going to be a magical day for Canada. Our exports went down the toilet.

At the same time, we opened up our shipbuilding industry, and it lost a large number of jobs. Here again is an example of the dysfunction and incompetence of the Conservative government when it comes to trade policy. It is dysfunctional.

They are not reflecting Canadian values. They are selling out human rights, our softwood industry, our shipbuilding industry. Then, as we sign the bilateral agreements, we see a decrease in exports to these markets .

The final bilateral agreement I will mention is the one with Costa Rica. We have talked about the others; let us talk about Costa Rica. I think it is an important one to flag.

There again we saw a decrease. We had $77 million in exports before the implementation of the deal. Seven years later, in 2009, we had gone from $77 million in exports to $73 million.

I rest my case. The Conservatives have strange pretensions. It does not matter about endorsing money laundering. Forget about that, Canadians. Do not worry about drug-pusher tax havens, and these fiscal paradises for the wealthy, where they do not have to pay taxes as ordinary Canadians do. Do not worry about that, because we know what we are doing.

Clearly, they do not. In case after case, our exports to those markets, after we sign these FTAs, go down, not up. They fluctuate up and down, it is true. However, in case after case, we see that in constant dollars our exports to those markets have gone down.

The Conservatives might even be forced to admit that the exports went down, and that we are selling out human rights and the softwood industry. If so, however, they are giving a rubber stamp to drug-pusher money launderers.

But what about Canadians' incomes? They have gone up, right? Well, unfortunately, even that is not true.

Statistics Canada has essentially told us what has happened to middle-class and poor Canadians since 1989, since these free trade pacts came in, which in almost all cases have led to a decline in our exports to those markets.

We have the most recent figures. What has happened to the poorest Canadians? The poorest Canadians, viewed in terms of market income, have neither gained nor lost. Fortunately, that is because of the advocacy of the NDP, which has worked to ensure that some social programs have been maintained.

What about the middle class, the hard-working people who support their families and pay their taxes? Well, the second-income category has actually seen a 5% reduction in real income over the last 20 years. What is 5%? It is like going without a paycheque for a couple of weeks a year. This has happened on the watch of the Liberals and Conservatives over the last 20 years.

We were told that these so-called free trade agreements would not be costly to the Canadian middle class and poorer Canadians. It would not be costly for manufacturing jobs. It would not cost us a bit. Well, it has been extremely costly. It has hit middle-class Canadians hard. Even the upper middle class has seen a net reduction in real income.

If we think about that, it is very sobering. We have heard all the pretensions, spin, and flim-flam from Liberals and Conservatives about their having some idea of how to make sure we stimulate export growth and family incomes. Then we look at the hard facts. None of these facts have been studied by Liberals or Conservatives, because they do not even track this stuff. They do not track going in what the economic impacts will be on these trade deals, and they do not track going out what has actually happened. There is no tracking at all. It is simply a photo op.

We have a trade agreement that is negotiated badly, written badly and does not deal with any of the real issues. Then there is a photo op and the minister goes on his next little trip. There is no evaluation, no homework, and no sense of what the real impacts have been on ordinary Canadians.

There is, however, one group of people that has benefited over the last 20 years. Their income growth has skyrocketed by 25%. Corporate CEOs and lawyers now take 52% of all income in the country. Income has gone down for the middle class and stagnated for the very poor, but the very rich are taking a huge and ever larger piece of the pie. A hefty 52% is now going to the very wealthy. Yes, they will support these trade agreements. They move their money offshore. They invest in low-wage factories. They can afford to. However, government should be looking to stimulate the Canadian economy.

Government should be looking to make sure middle-class Canadians are taken care of. They say that through hard work poor Canadians can raise their living standard, that over time there will be progress, and that we can build local economies where small businesses thrive as we forge a national economy where nobody is left behind. But exactly the contrary has occurred over the last 20 years, because Conservatives and Liberals in the House are simply not doing their homework.

What have we in the NDP been proposing? We have been making proposals like many of our allies in places like the U.S. Congress, which now has a fair trade act before it. It was interesting to note the comments of the Minister of International Trade in Europe when he said free trade was looked down on there. He is right, because Europe is trying to move to a more progressive trade model.

This is perhaps a discussion for another day, but we have a completely dysfunctional approach to negotiations with the European Union. We went to them and said we were going to sacrifice supply management. Supply management is on the table. We sold out the softwood lumber industry in northern Canada, northern Ontario, and B.C. We sold out our shipbuilding industry on both coasts. What can we sell out this time? Let us sell out the prairie farmers in the west, farmers in Ontario and Quebec, rural Canadians. We have a dysfunctional trade approach with the European Union, and we are saying that this time it is farmers who have to pay.

We in the NDP are saying a fair trade model has to be put into place. We are saying that what we need to do is economically boost all Canadians and make sure nobody is left behind.

This Panama trade deal, this drug-pusher, money-laundering, tax haven, fiscal paradise act does not do it. The government did not do its homework. It shows a complete lack of regard for the valuable opinions of the Canadian public. We have a dysfunctional government that is trying to foist a bad policy on Canadians without having done its homework. That is why in this corner of the House we will be voting yes for the hoist motion and no to this bill.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hyperbole coming from the member is breathtaking. Canadians have seen why they elected a Conservative government to protect the economy and prosperity of this country and why the NDP has no hope of ever leading Canada.

He suggested that our government does not track the figures of our free trade experiences with other countries around the world. Let me quote Statistics Canada. Regarding our free trade agreement with the U.S., after 10 years there is 150% growth in bilateral trade with that country; with Israel, 133%; Chile, 250%; Mexico, 157%. I do not know where he is getting his statistics, probably from far-left think tanks who continue to spout these untruths.

My question for him is this: how can he stand and defend protectionism when the G20 arrived at a consensus that protectionism was going to ruin economies around the world?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Abbotsford cannot get me started on the billion dollars the government wasted on the G20 with the fake lake and thousands of dollars spent on bug spray. It was absolutely irresponsible

However, it is interesting to note that the Conservatives are again trying to spin the figures and not put them in constant terms.

The member is right that, over time, we could have a growth in trade if the dollars are worth less, which is a little trick the Conservatives have used yet again from their talking points. They want to pretend that a dollar now is worth the same as a dollar 15 years ago but not one of them has actually tracked it. I know this because we asked the people at International Trade about it and they said that they do not do that. We had to commission a study. That is why we now have apples compared to apples, constant dollars, and we see a net decrease in exports.

Again the Conservatives have not done their homework. Canadians are owed more than just that ridiculous spin from the Conservative PMO.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his input into the debate again on a bilateral trade proposal.

One of the reasons I acknowledged the member when he stood to speak was that he has the conviction to put on the table where he stands on some of the issues that he thinks need to part of the conversation. If we talk about bilateral trade in a vacuum, that this is trade, we trade with them, they trade with us and it is a win-win situation, we do not have to consider the ripple effect of other things that are going on.

The revelations on the Swiss bank accounts, with Crédit Suisse and HSBC, raised the fact that even in Canada there were almost 1,800 private bank accounts, only two of which, they discovered, had ever reported income. There are some bad things that are going on and some of those things are facilitated by other countries, as the member has raised, whether it be in Colombia or in this case here.

I would encourage the member to present this dilemma where, yes, we want to do trade but we cannot do trade at any cost. There must be a point at which we need to have those other arrangements also addressed as a part of the trade deal. There must be other conditions. I ask the member if he wants to comment on how we can do trade ethically.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the member for Mississauga South was the trade critic for the Liberal Party because, when he rises on trade issues, he makes a great deal of sense.

Those are exactly the kinds of questions that should be asked in the House. He is absolutely right. Here we have one of the most notorious, drug-pushing, money-laundering tax havens on the planet and the government says that it is okay, that it is going to give a stamp of approval to the actions of that government and that it will not address any of the money laundering, not a word on the tax haven status and not a word on money laundering.

As the member for Mississauga South has mentioned, Canadians' values are profound. Canadians are honest, hard-working people who pay their taxes and it is not reflected by the dishonest action by the government. To try to pretend that it is in some way dealing with the drug-pushing, money-laundering, tax haven status of Panama, when any member reading through this will see that there is not a word addressing that issue, is simply hypocritical. There is no other way to put it. I think Conservative voters will punish Conservative MPs for this kind of hypocritical action.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to clarify something our colleague said in his speech when he said that his party was the only one that speaking out for the manufacturing sector. The Bloc Québécois has done a great job of defending the manufacturing sector and, of course, workers in recent years. So I wanted to make that clarification.

I agree on some level with my colleague's comments. The Bloc Québécois does not understand why the Conservative Party always favours bilateral agreements, especially with right-wing governments, as we saw with Colombia, and as we are seeing with Panama. Often, in these countries, workers and environmental standards are not respected. We believe that we should favour multilateral agreements, which would mean that a group of countries—and Quebec should be its own country one day—must respect the working conditions, environmental standards and labour standards of the group. We must oppose child labour. In bilateral agreements, it seems as though this government often favours mining companies and certain companies at the expense of the collective good.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for asking a good question.

I did say that we are the only national party standing up for these issues. However, on the Colombia file, the Bloc Québécois has been a major ally. That may not have been the case with respect to the softwood lumber agreement and the shipbuilding agreement. So today, it is important for us to work on this issue together.

Yesterday, our labour critic did a great job talking about another aspect of the agreement. I had only 20 minutes to talk. She talked about the fact that there is ongoing union suppression in Panama and that union members have been killed. The Conservatives seem to think that is a good reason to sign another agreement, as they did with Colombia. The Conservatives do not seem bothered by the fact that people have been killed. In fact, they seem all the more eager to sign an agreement. I think that is a terrible approach. We should be taking a multilateral approach instead. I think everyone can find common ground on that. We should be holding multilateral negotiations based on fair trade, not free trade, because free trade has cost Canadians dearly.

It is interesting to note that even the Minister of International Trade avoids using the term “free trade agreement” when he is in Europe because the term lost so much value during the Bush era in the United States that nobody uses it anymore. We should focus on fair trade. The NDP is ready to work with all other parties in the House to implement a functional international trade policy based on fair trade.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé for his enthusiasm. His riding and mine are neighbours.

From the outset, I want to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois does not have an ideological position on matters of free trade, liberalizing trade, or open markets. We think that open markets and liberalized trade are conditions for economic growth. That is true for Canada and Quebec and for most industrialized and emerging countries. It is perhaps less true for some countries, especially African countries that, despite measures to open up borders, have seen their situation deteriorate.

Accordingly, knowing that liberalizing trade can be a way to increase wealth, we also have to consider that wealth is often poorly distributed around the world and within industrialized societies. In his book The Conscience of a Liberal, Paul Krugman points out that in 1980, 1% of the American population had roughly 8% of the total wealth and total revenue. In 2007, that same 1% of the population held 24% of total American revenue. This situation has not been seen since 1928. It is interesting to note that inequality of wealth contributes to economic instability.

The recent and ongoing economic crisis for which we are calling on the government to continue providing stimulus measures, namely by pushing back the deadline for the infrastructure programs which is currently March 31, 2011, was originally a financial crisis, of course. Nonetheless, income inequality in the United States caused a major portion of the American public to go into debt, to buy property in particular. The entire chain reaction that brought in the unsound financial products that provoked this crisis was caused in part by income inequality.

Therefore, we cannot simply open our borders, move forward and hope for the best. That is why, since its inception, the Bloc Québécois has always wanted the opening of markets to be regulated by the state. That is one of the reasons why we want Quebec to become a sovereign country. It would allow Quebec to take part in international forums during which basic rules must be formulated in order to avoid uncontrolled globalization and problems like the ones we encountered during the financial and economic crisis that originated in the United States and spread across the globe. We examine all agreements negotiated by the government through that lens. When agreements are negotiated on the basis of equality and mutual respect, we support them.

For example, we recently supported the Canada-European Free Trade Association free trade agreement. This association consists of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Members will say that, until recently, at least two of these countries were considered to be tax havens, which is the case for Panama. However, these two countries—Switzerland and Liechtenstein—were removed from the OECD list because they agreed to co-operate and transfer tax information to at least 12 other countries.

It seems that their economies are somewhat similar to Canada's, not in terms of industrial composition, but level of development. There was no chapter 11—I will come back to that—as there is in some free trade agreements recently signed and ratified by Canada. Therefore, we did not have a problem with that agreement.

The same goes for Jordan. The free trade agreement did not provide for the protection of investments beyond what is normally covered. Once again, I am referring to chapter 11 of NAFTA. I will have an opportunity to come back to this because some of Canada's free trade agreements include investment protection.

We did not have that problem with Jordan. I also believe that we must send a message to Middle Eastern countries that Canada has a balanced policy with respect to countries that may not be openly at war, but are in a conflict situation. I am obviously referring to Israel, with which we signed a free trade agreement in 1994, if I recall correctly. We are not challenging that. Having a free trade agreement with Jordan balances Canada's position in the region. Thus, we had no problem supporting the free trade agreement with Jordan.

However, we were fiercely opposed to the free trade agreement with Colombia because of the human rights situation, and we were quite right. It is completely wrong for Canada to sign a trade agreement with a country where human rights are widely violated.

For example, in my riding of Joliette, there is a community of new Quebeckers of Colombian origin who had to leave their home country because of violence. These people told me that they did not understand how Canada could sign a free trade agreement with Colombia, when the country does not respect human rights and people are victims of violence, particularly at the hands of paramilitary organizations that have ties to some Colombian political leaders. They told me that they did not understand how Canada, which is trying to improve respect for human rights around the world and at home, could sign this free trade agreement. Many of us regularly take action to address human rights violations, such as those the first nations suffer in many areas.

Therefore, we opposed that free trade agreement, as well as the agreement with Peru, because of chapter 11 on investment protection and the lack of a framework to make mining companies, specifically Canadian ones, accountable.

In looking at the free trade agreement with Panama, we can see that there are some problems. We do not think it will benefit Canada or the people of Panama. I am not necessarily referring to some industries here or in Panama that could benefit; I am referring to the people of Panama, Canada and Quebec.

How about the infamous chapter 11? I remember that NAFTA was the first free trade agreement to include that provision. The provision allows foreign companies to directly sue the Canadian, American or Mexican government before a special tribunal. That did not exist before. Any trade disputes between countries were resolved at the WTO.

This meant that multinational companies became a new entity, a new player on the international law scene. That makes absolutely no sense. It is extremely dangerous, and I think that the increase in the number of lawsuits and complaints filed under chapter 11 of NAFTA is proof of that. So far, there is not much jurisprudence, but the free trade agreement is relatively new. I believe that we opened a Pandora's box, and we need to close it up.

Unfortunately, the Canadian government decided to use this model as the inspiration for its bilateral agreements, in particular those with countries in the global south. That was the case with Colombia, Peru and Chile. We believe that it is completely immoral to allow companies from Canada, the United States or any other country to take governments to court over public health, environmental issues or industrial policies.

We cannot accept that Canada includes such investment protection measures in its bilateral agreements, particularly with more vulnerable countries in the global south. That is the main reason we are opposing this free trade agreement. The second reason is because of the issue of respect for human rights and workers' rights, as was brought up by my NDP colleague earlier.

Again just recently, in June 2010, there was a protest against changes to the labour code. These repressive changes were decried on July 14 by the International Trade Union Confederation, which is made up of practically the entire labour movement on the planet. We are not the only ones who are concerned about respect for workers' rights. If we move ahead with this free trade agreement, we will be accomplices in contravening certain international conventions of the International Labour Organization. I am specifically thinking about convention no. 87 regarding the right to freedom of association.

So, after this chapter on investment protection that gives too much power to multinational companies—or that gives them power that they should not have—there is issue of respecting workers' rights, which is the second reason we oppose this agreement.

There is a third very important reason: the fact that Panama is a tax haven on the OECD's grey list. It signed co-operation agreements with a number of countries, but does not abide by those agreements. So here we are signing an agreement with Panama, which has signed agreements to disclose and exchange tax information, but does not follow through on those obligations. And we are not even talking about the fact that the corporate tax rate is insignificant, that there is a lack of transparency—as I mentioned earlier—and that there is a lot of information missing about what is going on with tax treatment, especially for foreign companies.

I am not leaving out the other two issues I mentioned, but we think it makes perfect sense for Canada to start by signing a real tax information exchange agreement with Panama, at the very least. If that works, then we can figure out what comes next. The problem is that the Conservatives included in this tax information exchange agreement a provision making subsidiaries located in jurisdictions with which we have agreements tax exempt.

Panama's corporate income tax rate is insignificant. If Canadian companies report profits made in Panama there, they pay 1%, 2% or 3%, as in Barbados, and they can transfer that capital without paying tax in Canada. Once again, this is a manoeuvre that found its way into Conservative budgets that were passed in collusion with the Liberals because they were too weak to oppose them. Not only do we want a tax information exchange agreement, but we also do not want exemptions for profits taxed in Panama because the tax rate there is just too low.

We should take our cue in this matter from France. The French president decided that French companies, especially banks, located in tax havens that appear on the OECD's grey list had to divest their assets. This is how it happened. In a September 30, 2009, press release, the French economy and finance minister announced that companies, banks in particular, operating in jurisdictions like Panama would be penalized. Bercy implemented retaliatory measures in early 2010.

This made the banks think twice, and a few days later, the banks announced that by the end of March 2010—so a few months ago—they would divest themselves of all assets in any tax havens still on the OECD grey list. So as I said, on September 30, 2009, the French finance minister announced his intention to take retaliatory measures and the next day, the banks themselves, through the Association Française des Banques, announced that by March 31, 2010, they would divest themselves of all branches in any tax havens still on the OECD grey list.

We do have the means, and this is a perfect example, but it takes political will. Unfortunately, despite the fine words of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the government on this issue, what we are seeing is quite the opposite.

The government has made it very easy to use tax havens. Do people know who bought the French bank branches in those tax havens? Most of them were purchased by Canadian banks. Clearly, our banks are confident that they have the support of the Conservative government to invest more in these tax havens, particularly Scotiabank, the Canadian bank that uses tax havens the most. This has already been criticized in this House. We now know that it is one of the banks that purchased many of the French bank branches in these tax havens. That is unacceptable.

In closing, I would remind the House of the point raised by my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, specifically, that the bilateral approach to these trade agreements is not beneficial for Canada or for emerging and developing countries. This strategy was imposed by the Americans in the Bush era, which is now over. President Obama has said he would like to return to multilateralism. It was reminiscent of Mao Zedong's strategy in the 1940s, before his successful revolution in 1949, of encircling the cities from the countryside.

How does it work? We attack the weak, like Panama, and we get them to sign a free trade agreement that suits our vision of unbridled liberalization, what we call neo-liberalism, which has now been completely discredited by the financial crisis and the economic crisis. We impose our view on the weak to try to encircle countries like Brazil, which is currently putting up resistance at the Doha round, as are India and China. The Doha round is at a standstill because industrialized countries like the United States and Canada do not realize that the old negotiating process does not apply in this new climate. China is a major player. Brazil, in South America, is a major player. They have managed to make the point that the agenda the industrialized countries wanted to set does not serve the interests of the vast majority of countries around the world. As long as Canada, the United States and Europe do not understand that, it is quite clear that we will not make any progress on issues related to multilateral negotiation at the World Trade Organization.

I find it particularly ironic that Canada is in such a hurry to sign a free trade agreement with Panama and that we are being presented with a bill to ratify the agreement as quickly as possible, when this is dragging on in the United States and in other countries, where the long-term effects of these bilateral agreements are assessed more seriously than they are here.

This is an ill-conceived and outdated bilateral negotiation strategy, and we are not in favour of this free trade agreement.

We think the future is in multilateral organizations such as the World Trade Organization. Obviously, we have to go further. People are starting to talk about it. We support the idea of second-generation free trade agreements. What is more, Europeans do not like the expression “free trade” whatsoever. They prefer to talk about partnerships. The agreement currently under negotiation is a partnership agreement. This goes far beyond free trade. This partnership must include more than just trade. Second-generation agreements absolutely must take into account the effects of trade liberalization on industrial sectors. There need to be conversion periods for industrial sectors that might otherwise be left out in the cold.

The Bloc Québécois thinks that agriculture should be left out of trade negotiations, as culture is or should be, because these are not commodities as other things are. Culture is not simply about entertainment. It is a nation's signature, a country's signature. So we must ensure that there is a convention to protect these cultures, and more specifically cultural diversity.

Canada and Quebec were driving forces behind the convention, and I congratulate everyone on that. For agriculture, it could be the same thing. We should perhaps exclude some sectors, give them the time to adapt and include mechanisms so that respect for environmental rights recognized by major international conventions, such as the Cartagena convention, which Canada has still not signed, and the major conventions of the International Labour Organization is a condition for opening our markets.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is a bad example; it is not the right way to go. I can assure this House that we will continue with the debate and that we will vote against this agreement if we do not see some considerable improvements. I think that there are far too many improvements needed for them to be made here.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member and his party are going to oppose this free trade agreement, as they have opposed so many other free trade agreements before, but he mentioned that one of the reasons he is opposing it is because he believes there is a failure to protect labour and the efforts of workers to get proper living conditions and wages.

I do not know if he is aware that there is a supplementary agreement to this free trade agreement, called the agreement on labour cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, which actually addresses those very issues and is tied into the international treaties relating to labour. This declaration covers specific things such as the abolition of child labour; the right of freedom of association, for example, unions; the right to collective bargaining; elimination of discrimination; and the elimination of forced or compulsory labour. These are all protections that are built into this free trade agreement.

I wonder if the member is aware of those protections. Secondly, if he is and is still concerned, why would he not at least allow this agreement, which is good for Canada because it builds on our trading relationship, to go to committee where he can review it, together with other members of the committee, and perhaps make amendments that would satisfy him?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, on July 14, 2010, the International Trade Union Confederation joined its affiliates in Panama in condemning the violent repression of the strike movement by workers and in demanding the repeal of the controversial Law 30, which has become a licence to kill for the police, creating a climate of extreme violence. Those are not my words; they are the words of the International Trade Union Confederation.

There is likely a side agreement about the environment, too. As the member just said, there is one concerning labour. There are side agreements in NAFTA and in the agreement with Chile, but we have yet to see any concrete results because they are not binding agreements.

As a bit of an aside, I would like to say that even Canada disagreed with including side agreements on labour and the environment in NAFTA in 1992. When Bill Clinton was elected as president in 1992, the Canadian government, which was Conservative at the time, had to accept this inclusion. They are strictly co-operation and training agreements that are in no way binding. And if they did not work with the United States, Mexico or Chile, I would be surprised if they work with Panama.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that members of the House are quite taken by the depth of knowledge that the member has and I found it instructional myself with his analysis of two major issues.

One is the international regime with respect to labour standards and occupational health and safety, and so on. The question was trying to extract what this agreement would do to firm up fair labour relationships.

The member has also addressed the issue of tax havens. He has talked about the second generation of globalization as a need to reassess, for example, mechanisms such as the WTO and chapter 11 dispute mechanisms that are not working properly. We have heard before that crime and international criminal activity are focusing around the whole issue of tax havens and the lack of accountability in the international banking regime. He has indicated that the OECD is grappling with this very same issue.

Would it not be better to send the bill to committee, given the member's approach and his overview with respect to globalization, and look at the experience of late through the OECD to see if we can come up with mechanisms similar to the labour initiative that would allay the fears put forward with respect to the international banking regimes that in fact are very problematic to trade?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, we could do that if we could imagine—and this is my reasoning—that it would be possible to correct some of the agreement's shortcomings. However, some of the problems with the agreement or relations with Panama are beyond Canada's control. For example, there is the issue of police repression of unions. Although we could study the issue in committee, we would be wasting our time if the Panamanian leaders have no interest in examining and addressing the situation. As for chapter 11, we have raised this on a number of occasions. It would require a change in the government's philosophy, and there is absolutely no indication of that. We believe that it would really be a waste of time.

I just wanted to highlight one of the concerns that was raised. When I say that we must comply with the major international labour conventions, I do not mean that we all comply with them in the same way. We respect the rights that are protected. I would like to give a brief example and end on that note.

The right to unionize is for the most part respected in Canada and Quebec. The closing of the Walmart in Jonquière showed us that there are still shortcomings in the law, but we do unionize to a certain extent in Canada, Quebec and the United States. It is different in Europe. We are not asking others to do as we do, we are asking them to respect a right. For the time being, this does not seem possible for Panama.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, it appears that the Conservative government and the Liberal Party are intent on building a free trade platform that provides corporations with additional powers and indeed with incentives. It would give them the right to challenge Canadian regulations and standards and shape trade to serve their needs, and not necessarily in the public interest.

My colleague talked about being in such a hurry for this trade agreement to go through. I would like to ask my colleague, why does he think the Conservative government and the Liberal Party are in such a rush to allow multinational corporations to leverage additional power, and in his case, to leverage additional power over the Quebec government?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I too have to wonder about this, but it seems to be the strategy chosen by the Canadian government. I was talking about Colombia. While the United States-Colombia free trade agreement was debated at length in the U.S. Congress, here, the Conservatives tried to impose it by shoving it down our throats. The same goes for the agreement with Panama. Discussions are currently underway between the United States and Panama. I believe they have agreed to enter into a free trade agreement, but there will be a ratification process that is much more involved than what we have at this time. This stems from several problems, but I will mention only one, specifically, the fact that free trade agreements are negotiated by the government, by the executive. We, as parliamentarians, have no influence over these agreements, except when an implementation act affects Canadian legislation.

In the case of chapter 11, for instance, we have no influence, either as a committee or as parliamentarians. It was negotiated by the government, the executive, and from a legislative standpoint, parliamentarians cannot add a thing, except very indirectly. What we need in order to have a process that is at least equivalent to that of the United States is a process to ensure that before any free trade agreement is signed with any country—Panama, in this case—a debate would have to be held here in this House and the House of Commons would have to give the executive the mandate to negotiate that agreement. Unfortunately, this is not possible for treaties at present. Let us hope that, for democracy's sake, the ratification process will be taken further.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, before asking my brief question, I would like to congratulate the member for Joliette on his excellent speech, which summarized the Bloc's thoughts on free trade agreements.

I would like to ask my colleague how this government—the last I heard, it wanted to lead a fight against tax shelters—can sign this agreement with a country that is considered to be a tax haven. I would like him to specifically address the impact these tax havens have on the tax revenue Quebec or Canada could bring in to improve our healthcare and education systems. There is enormous pressure to privatize these systems because of a lack of tax revenue.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will answer the last question. Canadian banks are required to disclose how much the federal and provincial governments lose as a result of the banks' use of tax havens. Last year, the annual reports of Canada's banks showed that $2 billion was lost because the banks take advantage of havens. We are talking about several billion dollars that is being paid by the middle class and by taxpayers—businesses or individuals—who are not able to pay accountants and lawyers to take advantage of these havens themselves. That is completely anti-democratic.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not an expert in foreign trade, although I am a person with a small business and I do some foreign trading in a variety of forums. I am a forester and a biologist, and I am still listening and learning in this debate.

However, I am alarmed about what I hear about Bill C-46. Despite popular mythology, the NDP is not protectionist. The NDP believes in trade and the jobs that are created by trade, but we believe in fair trade, trade that is fair to all parties, all Canadians, not just large multinationals but fair to average Canadian citizens, to our middle class, our working people, people with small businesses, trade that is fair to workers and fair in the area of women's equity.

Forget about Latin American countries, where they have far to go. Canada still has huge gaps in pay equity, which is shameful. We believe in trade that is fair to farmers, especially farmers of small and medium size farms across Canada.

My area of expertise is in the environment and I am concerned about fairness to the environment, not only the Canadian environment but also the global environment.

Fair trade would be fair in the areas of clean water, water quality, surface water, ground water and especially drinking water, which should be a basic human right and not traded away in trade agreements anywhere. I believe in trade that is fair to air quality, which we now realize is a global concern and not just an urban concern. I believe in trade that is fair to biodiversity. We have important biodiversity in Canada, but in Panama it is amazing. It has over 10,000 documented species in Panama, but almost 1,300 of those are found nowhere else in the world. I am concerned that in our rush to promote multinationals, in promoting quick development in Panama, that we will put many of these species and rare diverse ecosystems, forested ecosystems at risk.

Canada has its own endangered species and biodiversity problems. Some of them are very small and very little known and some of them are quite well known, like grizzlies, wolverines and polar bears.

Speaking of polar bears, I am concerned about the entire lack in Bill C-46 and the proposed treaty to do anything about concerns of greenhouse gases and global climate change.

As many of us recognize increasingly that the Conservative government is more interested in protecting the rights and benefits for large multinationals, especially big banks and big oil companies.

In the name of big oil and the Conservatives attachment to it, several decades ago they brought us NAFTA. As we know, the Liberals won a majority election by promising to scrap NAFTA, but they did not keep their word.

Now the Conservatives, through a series of serial bilateral NAFTA-style agreements, are pandering to the aspirations of those large multinationals with which they seem to see as their main client base.

This template is well documented and forecasted in Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine. Every Canadian who can read should read Naomi Klein's book. It is alarming, it is prescient and it should be required reading.

As we can see, the Bill C-46 treaty will move this agenda one step forward. It is a small step, a small country and a small portion of our trade, but it is part of a disturbing trend.

Let us talk about a few specifics.

With respect to the area of market access, an important part of this treaty, Bill C-46 would eliminate all non-agricultural tariffs in to and out of Canada. It would eliminate most agricultural tariffs either immediately or within the next five to ten years.

Let me get back to the environment and some of the wording in the proposed bill.

The bill promises not to weaken environmental regulations. As we know, environmental regulations in Canada are already disturbingly weak, but in Panama they are virtually nonexistent. Bill C-46 proposes to enforce existing regulations. In theory that sounds great, but, again, Canada is already doing little in the area of environmental enforcement. Panama has virtually no environmental enforcement.

In the area of disputes, Bill C-46 proposes to hold consultations, information exchanges. We have seen these kinds of words before in Conservative legislation and we know what kind of commitment to protecting our environment, or Panama's environment or the world's environment for that matter, would entail.

Where is this free trade agreement and other various free trade agreements that the Conservative government has been signing not fair?

Let me talk about some of the problems with so-called U.S.A.-Canada relations. Very few Canadians, and even some members of Parliament, know that the nominal tax rate for large corporations in the United States is 36%. Very few know that in Canada, under the Conservatives, it has been reduced to 18%, half of the U.S. rate.

That has been justified by those who know about it and agree with it. They claim it is an alleged stimulus to investment, but that investment has not occurred in Canada. The moneys from those huge tax breaks to big corporations has moved out of Canada into the U.S. and into various tax havens, including Panama. That investment simply has not occurred in Canada.

I can understand having slightly lower tax rates than the United States, but half the large corporate tax rate? How will we continue to pay for our health care system? How will we continue to invest in the technologies and industries of the future, such as clean energy, sustainable energy?

Let us talk about another aspect of the bad NAFTA agreement and a bad softwood lumber deal.

The U.S. has rolled over our economies in many of the areas that are covered by NAFTA, which is most of our areas. It has exported jobs from Canada. It has exported natural resources in low value-added form, in the form of minerals, trees, cereal grains and other crops and especially in the area of oil.

Under NAFTA, we can either do as we are doing now, which is giving the United States relatively low cost oil, but we have to charge ourselves the same for that oil. We cannot take advantage of our natural asset, sell it at the world price and sell it to ourselves at a reasonable cost that Canadians can afford to foster economic development in Canada.

Canada could choose to be 100% self-reliant on oil and energy, but we export about half of it to the United States and import roughly the same amount from places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Most of the oil that runs our cars and heats our homes in eastern Canada comes from those places. It does not come from our west at an affordable price with a guaranteed supply for the future. Rather it is imported from other places so large multinational oil corporations benefit by exporting those jobs and those litres of oil to the United States.

The government does not believe in fair trade on oil. It does not believe in fair trade on energy self-sufficiency. It does not believe in fair trade on Canadian autonomy.

Let us go back to Panama and why I and my party are inclined to oppose Bill C-46.

Panama is a well-known source of drugs. It is a well-known tax haven for those wealthy multinational corporations and wealthy tax-avoiding Canadians, whose interests the Conservatives seem to be placing paramount.

It seems this is a new opportunity for the Conservatives, with the passive support of the Liberals, to export lost tax dollars, low value-added resources and hundreds of thousands of jobs: manufacturing jobs, real jobs, productive jobs, jobs that can support a family, jobs that can support the Canadian health care system.

The Conservative initiative in Bill C-46 is one more new opportunity, it seems, in a small, symbolic but worrisome way, to sabotage Canadian regulations, autonomy, health care and Canadian labour standards. The labour agreement here is not in the treaty itself; it is a side agreement. The side agreement has no effective mechanism to protect our labour rights, not to mention the labour rights in Panama.

The side agreement on the environment for this Panama treaty will unfortunately continue the degradation of the natural environment not only in Panama, but probably will help to continue the stagnation of dealing effectively with our environmental degradation. It is a side deal with no teeth.

Let us talk about tax havens. In 2000 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, blacklisted Panama as, “An unco-operative tax haven”. In 2008 Panama was one of only 11 countries with no tax sharing information.

I would like to ask a large question, much bigger than Panama, much bigger than Bill C-46. What is happening to our Canada under this Conservative government?

In looking at the past Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, if one liked Mulroney, then one would love the current government. It is moving faster and more effectively to undercut the core of Canadian values, jobs and autonomy.

We have half the large corporate tax rate in Canada than what there is in the United States, 36% versus 18%. We have a huge growth in Canada, in a time of fiscal difficulty, of banks, big oil, their executives and a variety of speculative traders.

Canada has a huge growth in unemployment, especially in real full-time jobs. Those are not the part-time, or underground jobs. Those are not the jobs of people scrambling to survive after they have given up trying to look for real jobs, which are not even reflected in the statistical figures anymore. These are the kinds of jobs that will support families, mortgages and a university education. The quality of life that Canadians have come to expect for decades is eroding. We have a huge loss in Canada of our middle class.

The Conservatives have been doing a wonderful job of distracting Canadians, distracting the media, and distracting the House of Commons with wedge issues. There was a huge one last week. Wake up, Canadians. Wake up, parliamentarians.

As I said, Naomi Klein, in The Shock Doctrine, does a good job of documenting the blueprint for this plan. If members have not read it, I urge them to read it. It documents the right-wing agenda, which is clear. It is as clear as Das Kapital. It is as clear as what was in Mein Kampf.

I would like to recommend another book, called The Spirit Level. The Spirit Level is by Wilkinson and Pickett. Wilkinson and Pickett are epidemiologists and statisticians, and The Sprit Level is full of graphs. It does not sound very interesting, does it? However, it is fascinating.

The Spirit Level documents scientifically what many of us have known for decades, which is that trickle-down economics is baloney. Wilkinson and Pickett, in The Spirit Level, have taken the figures and facts from the United Nations and other data sources for all the developed wealthy countries of the world and have shown clearly that the best countries in the world to live in are the Scandinavian countries. When it comes to health, happiness, fairness, equitableness, crime, and prisons, the United States heads the list of the worst developed country in the world in which to live.

They do a wonderful job of showing how that is highly correlated with the gap in income in those countries. Those countries that have a reasonable gap in income between the bottom 20% and the top 20% are happy, healthy countries. They are the Scandinavian countries, some of the European countries, and Japan.

On the other hand, countries such as the United States, Portugal, and others have a huge gap and a growing gap.

Where is Canada in that spectrum? Canada is right in the middle. We are halfway between the Scandinavian countries and the United States in terms of happiness, welfare, and quality of life, and we are also halfway between those countries in terms of the spread of income.

My question for this Parliament, for Canadians, is this: Do we want to drift or be driven, as is happening now, closer to the U.S. greed-based model, with its excessive gaps in income, or do we want to move back toward the Scandinavian model that has done such a good job of providing employment, wealth, happiness, and security for Scandinavians?

The last thing I would like to say is that Panama is less than one-tenth of 1% of our trade. It is pretty minuscule. In 2008, we had a trade surplus. We exported $128 million, and Panama exported $21 million to Canada. It has been going down since 2008, though. In 2009, it was $91 million and $41 million. The trend throughout Latin America has been that the balance-of-trade deficit is getting worse for us.

As we make hard decisions in this act, over how many months and years and coming elections, I hope we will give real consideration to how we get back to fair trade rather than alleged free trade and to how we get back to a Canada that has values based on a middle class and full employment.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not certain about how to really begin. I am very disappointed by what I just heard from the member. I commend him for the way he presented his speech. He did it in a calm way, which is different from other NDP members whom we have seen today. His approach was fairly calm, but his substance I found quite offensive.

The member stands in this House and says, “Wake up, Canadians. You are being sabotaged. The autonomy of your country is at stake. Your health care here in Canada is at stake. All labour agreements are at stake. The well-being of every Canadian is at stake”. I find that offensive. He points to this legislation, as well as at the government, and says that everything about Canada is bad.

We look around and we see that Canada is coming out of this recession in probably the best position of any other country, and the member stands here painting a picture of nothing but doom and gloom.

I believe that one of the problems of this House is that many times we really begin to believe our own rhetoric. I would ask the member to simply calm down a bit.

The government believes in free trade. The Panama free trade agreement is here to enhance the environmental and labour practices of both countries, and agreements have been negotiated to do that.

Is it because of his frustration with Canada that he does not want to have us influence that country and continue to enhance trade?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe that most of the members of this House believe in the kinds of traditional values that have helped Canada become the wonderful country it has been for a century and a half and beyond, but I think we are in trouble. I am going to stand by my comments.

Our middle class is disappearing. We have increased poverty. The gap in income is growing, and I unfortunately believe that most, perhaps not all, people who stand on that side of the aisle believe that the model we need for the future is one of greed. It is a U.S.-based model. It is a so-called free trade model. It is one on which we will just have to agree to disagree, and I just hope that in the future, Canadians will vote for parties that believe in more equity and more fairness.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have said before that I find the NDP approach to economic policy, to put it politely, a bit old fashioned. I am curious. It has consistently opposed free trade, which is wrong-headed in general.

My question is very simple. Is there any country in the world, any country on this planet, with which the NDP would favour free trade with Canada?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, time is limited, so I will keep my response short.

The countries that obey and follow the precepts of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be basic ones. The ones in which the gaps in income, as indicated in the book The Spirit Level, which I mentioned, are reasonable and moderate I would say are the countries we want to trade with.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Name one country. Just name one.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Name one.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Japan.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

There is Scandinavia, Japan, and the list goes on. There are many.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

How about Cuba? You like those guys.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

There are some fine countries in this world. Canada is still a fine country but we are headed in the wrong--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I will not be recognizing members who heckle across the way when they have not been recognized.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for calmly explaining this bill's weaknesses, which suggest that our government has little to gain economically from this kind of agreement.

It is very important to emphasize that Panama is a tax haven. If we increase trade between our two countries, more of our country's money will be sheltered from taxation.

Signing this kind of agreement is contrary to Canada's interests. I would like the member to comment further on Panamanian tax shelters.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not pretend to be an expert in this field. I was merely quoting the report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2000, which said that this was a country with a serious a problem, because it is a tax haven.

Members may have noticed in the news this week that the Canada Revenue Agency is becoming increasingly concerned about large corporations and rich Canadians who are choosing, through legal, quasi-legal or sometimes not very legal means, to move their wealth into areas that are tax havens. It is a wake-up call to do a much better job of thinking about where Canadian wealth is being distributed.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for his low-key speech on this bill.

The member opposite used the words “sabotaging Canada”. The fact that foreign corporations are using Panama as a tax haven for probably billions and billions of dollars is sabotaging our health care, education, and housing, all the things necessary to give Canadians a good life. How is this tax haven affecting ordinary Canadians?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to go back to the growing gap between the bottom and the top. In a good society, we need to be sure that no one is left behind. Increasingly, many Canadians are being left behind, and many small businesses, present or potential, are being left behind and are having trouble competing, even though they have created 80% to 90% of all new jobs over many decades.

We have increasingly been worshipping at the altar of bigger is better; trade with any country, whether it has ethics or not; the buck is all that matters; and worship the dollar. We will reap what we sow if we continue on that path.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments, and quite frankly, I disagree with just about everything he said.

I do not understand why his party would not want to trade with a country that handles about 5% of the world's trade through the Panama Canal and that is an automatic partner for our Atlantic and Pacific gateways. I fail to understand why it would not want to trade with a country that has an immediate $5.2 billion in infrastructure with the widening of the Panama Canal. I fail to understand why it would not want to trade with a country that is the gateway to 34 more countries and economies in Central and South America and the Caribbean. I fail to understand why it would not want to trade with a country that is democratically elected and is looking to improve the position and status of its citizens.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe in trade, and my party believes in trade. We want to trade with any country that has fair trade and that deals with its citizens, unions, aboriginal peoples, and the environment with respect.

As we negotiate, and treaties are negotiations, we need to make sure that we look at all the factors that affect the long-term sustainability of both our economies and not do just short-term thinking.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have spoken on other free trade agreements in the past. This will not be a complete repeat but what has happened is that the government has made the same mistakes again.

I will speak in two parts. In the first part, I will voice my concerns about this agreement, and, in the second part, I will talk about what a fair trade agreement should look like and what would be acceptable.

I will echo the hon. member's remarks. Canada is a trading nation. We need trade to survive, as does every other nation on this planet. Trade is essential. We believe in trade but we believe more than anything in fair trade. We believe agreements can be struck that reflect the values I will talk about right now as I speak to the concerns I have.

It seems that the Conservative government is engaging in NAFTA style trade agreements and, in this particular case, with a country that is also an offshore banking centre and that acts as a platform for multinationals and a conduit for opaque banking activities and tax evasion.

It is not just me who thinks that but also a Democrat congressman in the United States. I will quote just a small part from a letter he has written. It reads:

Panama’s industrial policy is premised on obtaining a comparative advantage by banning taxation of foreign corporations, hiding tax liabilities and transactions behind banking secrecy rules and the ease with which U.S. and other firms can create unregulated subsidiaries. According to the State Department, Panama has over 350,000 foreign-registered companies.

Michael Michaud is the congressman who made those remarks.

It looks as if the Canadian government is building a so-called free trade platform that would provide front corporations with additional powers and incentives and give them the right to challenge Canadian regulations and standards, and shape trade to serve their needs, not necessarily the needs that are in the public interest.

It seems that we are making it easier for Canadian foreign companies to move to Panama, to flout Canadian labour laws and to pay their workers in Panama, which, I think, the average wage at the moment is about $2 an hour, and not have to pay for pensions, benefits and sick days.

Canadian law states that workers enjoy certain minimum workplace safety laws and benefits. Corporations in Panama do not have any of these.

As with the other free trade agreements with Colombia and Peru, appended outside of those agreements, outside of the main text, are labour co-operation agreements. We have heard people speak about those this morning.

The problem with the agreement, as it was in the other free trade agreements, is that it is an agreement without any vigorous enforcement mechanism. The same template was used in the Canada-Colombia and the Canada-Peru agreements. The labour side agreement does not deliver an effective mechanism for the protection of labour rights.

I will say what I said when I spoke on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. If the labour co-operation agreement is so important, why is it a side agreement? Why is it not in the main body of the agreement? If it is in the main body of the agreement, then there would be a vigorous enforcement mechanism. Again, it is a side deal.

The side agreement on the environment is the same. There is no effective mechanism to force Canada or Panama to respect environmental rights. The agreement commits both countries to pursue environmental co-operation and to work to improve their environmental laws and policies but it can only ask both parties to enforce their laws. That is why it has been put into a side agreement, at least I assume that is why. Why is it not in the main body of the free trade agreement?

I am also concerned as to why the Conservative government and the Liberal Party are in such a rush? Why are they in such a rush to move Canadian jobs overseas? Why are they in such a rush to enhance the capacity of multinational corporations to evade taxes? Why are they in such a rush to allow these corporations to leverage additional power over Canada's government and Parliament?

We heard earlier today various speakers in the debate talk about Panama, which is regarded as a tax haven by the OECD. In the last 24 hours, we have heard lots of news nationally about this very same issue.

In 2008, Panama was one of 11 countries that did not have a tax information exchange agreement signed or in force. Panama is one of three states that would not share banking information for any tax information exchange purpose at all. Panama does, however, have a bilateral agreement with the U.S. called the mutual legal assistance treaty to which Panama will share some information. Tax offences are not covered by the treaty. Tax information sharing could occur for a criminal offence, though, such as drug trafficking. Therefore, there is a possibility to move forward on this particular issue and this agreement could have done that, but it did not.

The OECD has blacklisted Panama since 2000. I did not want to say anything about this but Panama has not to date substantially implemented the internationally agreed tax standards to which it had committed itself. So nothing has been moved on that front. This free trade agreement would have been a wonderful opportunity for the Government of Canada to make that happen.

Today, in 2010, I find it interesting that the Colombian banking system retains a prominent role in the Panamanian banking system. We can draw our own conclusions from that. Again, it is on the NAFTA model and, as everybody knows, we have had trouble with NAFTA and softwood lumber.

I just want to say a little bit about that. Bilateral trade deals generally go against GATT and multilateralism. The International Monetary Fund has been complaining about the proliferation of bilateral trade agreements, which would spell a return to protectionism and trade wars between trading blocs, so it is concerned.

The Canada-Panama trade deal is a NAFTA-like agreement. It is the same template which overrides the democratic rule of Parliament and equalizes or gives precedence to corporate rights over human rights. All of the text of the accord is not yet available. The free trade agreement would very likely produce chapter 11-type issues, what has been proven to be an inadequate dispute resolution mechanism that can easily be abused by the dominant partner. I draw the attention of the House to softwood lumber, which is a good example.

The Canada-Panama agreement is another agreement, which, I guess we could say, is marginally improved on the Bush-style approach to trade. However, it would still put big business before people, it has no effective enforcement of human rights and it pays lip service to environmental protection without any real tough measures or any dispute resolution mechanisms.

We have an opportunity in free trade agreements to help the poorest of the poor. One of the big worries we hear bandied about is micro-financing. The trouble with micro-financing, as we talk about it now, is that it does not reach the poorest of the poor. When I say poorest of the poor I mean those who live on less than $1.25 a day. Those are the poorest of the poor on our planet. There are models that have worked when we talk about micro-financing. We can make it work for those people. We can make it work for housing, education and a whole host of other things that are so important to the survival of families and the ability for families to move ahead.

Free trade agreements are exactly the same. There is an opportunity to make all of those good things happen. However, this agreement does not do that. Panama, by the way, is not a major trading partner of Canada. It is less than 1%, which makes it an interesting choice for a free trade agreement. Because of the smallness of our trade, it has to send up some red flags and we have to wonder why. Are there not other countries that would be much better opportunities for Canada in terms of exporting and trade agreements?

Another concern I have is that we have yet another trade deal negotiated in record time and, because it was done in record time, I wonder if there has there been full consultation with environmental groups, trade unions, civil society and citizens of the countries? A fair and sustainable trade deal would not just address the needs for business but also the needs of working families and the environment.

The trade deal does not provide investors and labour with a level playing field. While under chapter 11 investors have the right to seek binding arbitration that they can pursue independently, a trade union in Panama does not get to pursue a case to arbitration. It could file a complaint that would lead to an investigation and possibly a report, but it is up to the government to seek remedies and damages. Experience with our past NAFTA templates shows that it is unwilling to do this. Empirical evidence strongly suggests that the minister of the day will not pursue these matters.

The trade agreement includes enforceable protections of patents, trademarks and copyrights but no meaningful protection of workers and no meaningful protection of the environment.

What would a fair trade policy look like? When we stand in the House we reaffirm our vision for a fair trade policy that puts the pursuit of social justice, strong public sector social programs and the elimination of poverty at the heart of any affected trade policy. Canada's trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade, trade that builds partnerships, partnerships with other countries that support the principles of social justice and human rights, while also expanding business opportunities.

The federal government should stop exclusively pursuing the NAFTA model at the expense of all the other alternatives, because there are alternatives. It should invest in other avenues of growth, including, above all, a vigorous trade promotion strategy that builds the Canadian brand abroad along the lines of the Australian experience, for example.

It is shocking to hear that the European Union spends in excess of 500 times more than Canada in promoting its wine industries. There may be a greater volume of wine in European countries, but 500 times more towards promotion than Canada?

There is an alternative and there is a better form of trading relationship that can be established with Panama or any other country, one with an overall fair trade policy that includes the following:

First, it should provide a comprehensive common sense impact assessment on all international agreements that demonstrates that trade deals Canada negotiates are beneficial to Canadian families, workers and industries. The government should never sign a trade deal that would lead to a net job loss.

Second, it should ensure that the trade agreements Canada negotiates support Canada's sovereignty and freedom to chart its own policy, support our ability to be a competitive force on the world stage, and support the principles of a multilateral fair trade system.

Third, by fundamental principle, all trade agreements must promote and protect human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any product that is deemed to have been created under sweatshop conditions, forced labour or other conditions that are not in accordance with fundamental international labour standards and human rights.

Fourth, by fundamental principle, all trade agreements should respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems. That is straightforward. I do not think anybody in the House would disagree with these things.

Fifth, at any time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to proceed with enabling legislation should be subject to a binding vote on whether to accept the terms of the agreement. The current system, which consists of tabling FTAs in the House for a period of 21 sitting days prior to ratification, is neither mandatory nor does it bind the government to a decision of the House.

The minister should be required to develop fair and sustainable trade-related performance indicators in concert with provinces and territories. Statistics Canada could collect the information and develop with the finance department new benchmarks for the evaluation of present and future trade agreements.

Performance indicators would measure the impact of bilateral trade agreements on the qualify of life, to include, in addition to detailed bilateral trade figures, an assessment of their effects on things such as employment, including quality of employment; impact on wage levels and core labour standards; things such as prices and market concentration, including the effects of currency manipulation; the effects on public health, including an assessment of the impact of intellectual property rights on drug prices, for example; environmental standards; human rights standards; the levels and types of investment by industry; economic diversification; food self-sufficiency; food safety standards; consumer safety; the effect on farms and farmers and the number of farms; access to essential services; the fiscal system; and intellectual property and copyright.

I have just outlined the concerns I have about this free trade agreement and what a fair trade agreement would look like. I welcome questions from my colleagues.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said there were no effective enforcement mechanisms with respect to labour issues: occupational health and safety, exploitation of children, collective bargaining, forced labour, and workplace discrimination. I wonder if he knows that, in the agreement, failure to respect International Labour Organization principles would result in an independent review panel assessing monetary penalties as a matter of a special fund to be used to support the implementation of a remediation for whatever the issue was, exploiting children or whatever.

Therefore, there is that mechanism. I wonder if he is aware of that.

Also, if we do not engage countries such as Panama, how can we ever bring that kind of sustainability in the environment and fairness in trade if we do not have them under either a bilateral umbrella or availing ourselves of the multilateral umbrella provided by international dispute mechanisms? How are we ever going to bring a humane, humanitarian and empathetic solution to the kinds of issues that the member has talked about?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are two questions there, one on labour and one on the environment. I will try to answer them both at the same time.

I will go back to what I said earlier. We have side deals on both of those things, environment and labour, which are not part of the main text. They are not part of the main text so they can stay on the side and not truly have any sort of mechanism that deals with things when they go wrong.

For example, in labour, let us say a labour leader is killed, for the right to strike or for whatever reason a labour leader is killed. They would get a fine. They pay themselves a fine. That is what this side agreement means on labour. If it were in the main body of the text, there could be other mechanisms built in, other triggers that have penalties that suit the problem.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, since there were two questions asked by the member for Richmond Hill, I am going to up him by asking three questions of my friend, the member from Thunder Bay.

First, what do these have in common: EFTA, Peru, Colombia, Jordan and Panama? Second, which party voted against the free trade agreements with each of those? Third, why does the New Democratic Party consistently oppose free trade when it is one of the reasons Canada is leading the G8 out of the recession?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, the answer to the member's first question is that those free trade agreements are ill-conceived. They are poorly put together. They could be put together better. I think that is the point I have been trying to make in the course of my last 20 minutes of speaking, that we could make them better if we just took the time to ensure that the elements I talked about in relation to the concerns I have about the free trade agreements were there.

If the things I talked about were in there, if we could protect labour with real teeth, protect the environment with real teeth, ensure that the poorest of the poor in any of these countries that we make agreements with are going to be much better off because of these agreements, ensure that our jobs do not disappear and all these other things that I talked about, I could tell this member that I would be supporting these free trade agreements.

There are ways to make trade agreements work.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my NDP colleague's presentation. One point that stood out was the fact that there is no information exchange agreement in the bill before us. Information exchange is critical to any trade agreement. If this agreement works at all, trade between Canadian and Panamanian companies will increase. That is why it is important to have full access to information about revenue if we do not want to be taken for a ride. In the end, we have to ask ourselves whether this bill is just another gift to Canadian companies to help them avoid paying taxes.

I would like to hear his opinion on this since he has studied the bill so thoroughly.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, several countries, including the United States, have listed Panama as a tax haven. That is the first part of my answer, that because it is listed as a tax haven and continues to be listed as such, we have to be concerned that businesses in Canada will have the opportunity to move jobs out of Canada to Panama. The other part is that they will have the ability not to pay taxes. That is a real problem.

What could have been in this trade agreement to prevent it from happening? There could have been a tax exchange section in this agreement or there could have been something constructed to ensure that does not happen, but it was not done. It was much easier to simply follow the same model for the other free trade agreements and get it done as quickly as possible. I do not know why a little more time was not taken.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, as we speak today, there is a forum in Singapore with 200 delegates to fight tax fraud and bank secrecy. It met yesterday and is meeting today to look at the progress. It delisted countries such as the Philippines. It said the Philippines are doing good work and are no longer listed as a tax haven.

However, it went after Panama and said the reason was that it refused to give information to foreign tax authorities, there is a lack of transparency in the operation of the legislative, legal and administrative provisions, there is no requirement for a substantial local presence, and it promotes itself as an offshore financial centre. This is the country that we are talking about and about to do business with. Tax cheaters can sleep well tonight because there is no persecution or penalty.

My question is this: Why are the Conservatives and Liberals soft on crime when it comes to cross-border cheaters and tax fraudsters?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, to answer that question, we will have to wait and see what happens with the Canadian government and the potentially thousands of cheaters that have been found in the last 24 hours. We will see how the government deals with them. That will be an important part of it.

We have a trade agreement that has been negotiated in record time, with no consideration for all the things I talked about, including the problems that Panama has and the lack of sharing of tax information. I do not understand the urgency when there could be a trade agreement that is much better than the one the Conservative government has come up with.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, there has been a wave of anti-union repression in Panama, resulting in several workers killed, over 100 injured and over 300 arrested, including the leader of the SUNTRACS and CONATO trade unions. This was the government of Panama's brutal reaction to protests against new legislation restricting the right to strike and the freedom of association, including provisions to jail up for up to two years any workers taking their protest to the streets. This simply proves that the labour protection agreement will not provide any real protection of labour rights in Panama as it lacks any effective mechanism for enforcement and the Panamanian government clearly intends to ignore it.

This is but one reason why we against this trade agreement. I will give more reasons why we oppose this trade agreement.

We are engaging in a NAFTA-style trade agreement with a country that is also an offshore banking centre that acts as a platform for multinationals and a conduit for opaque banking activities and tax evasions.

We heard recently in the news media about Canadians who were avoiding taxes. Panama is just one of these countries where Canadian corporations can take the profits they have earned off the backs of Canadian workers, Canadian workers who have paid their share of the taxes to improve society as a whole so the poorest Canadians can live better. However, these companies are taking their profits, which may be millions or even billions of dollars, and investing them in Panamanian banks where they do not pay any income taxes.

We are building a so-called free trade platform that would provide front corporations with additional powers and incentives to challenge Canadian regulations and standards and shape trade to serve their needs and not the public interest, and I want to expand on this a bit.

We just finished a year-long strike in my community. A foreign company challenged Canadian regulations and standards by using scabs to perform the work of striking workers, by using intimidation, by firing people just for expressing the fact that the company did not want to negotiate, by ignoring bylaws in our community, bylaws that were set in place to protect the people of our region. The company was housing scab labourers in office buildings. They were sleeping in those buildings. This is completely against the bylaws of my community of Sudbury. The company had the gall to take our municipality to court over this. The company was breaking the bylaws, but it was the one that was taking our municipality to court. That is why I want to repeat this: Canadian regulations and standards and shape trade to serve their needs and not the needs of the public.

We are making it easier for Canadian and foreign corporations to move to Panama, flaunt Canadian labour laws and pay their workers in Panama an average of about $2 an hour, and not have to pay pensions, benefits and sick days. Pensions, benefits and sick days are the core values of Canadian workers and they should be the core values of any Panamanian worker.

Canadian laws state that workers enjoy certain minimum workplace safety and benefits. Corporations in Panama do not have to do any of this. Imagine if we did not have any safety laws in Canada. Imagine what would happen to the workers who worked in deep underground mines if there were no Canadian laws to protect them so they could go home to their families at night. We are encouraging companies to invest in Canada and flaunt our Canadian laws.

This agreement is without a labour co-operation agreement, without any vigorous enforcement mechanism. The same template was used in the Canada-Colombia agreement, “kill a trade unionist, pay a fine”. The labour side agreement does not deliver an effective mechanism for the protection of labour rights. The side agreement on the environment has no effective mechanism to force Canada or Panama to respect environmental rights.

The agreement commits both countries to pursue environmental co-operation and to do work to improve their environment laws and policies, but it can only ask both parties to enforce their domestic laws. If they do not, there are no consequences. In other words, Panama can do anything it wants to the environment and there are no consequences.

Why is the Conservative government in such a rush to move more jobs overseas and enhance the capacity of multicultural corporations to evade taxes and leverage additional power over Canada's government and Parliament? With this agreement, we will move more jobs out of Canada, the same as the Brazilian company that bought Inco and moved jobs out of Canada. When jobs are moved out of Canada, there is no net benefit to the Canadians.

We are not against free trade agreements. We are not against foreign ownership. We are against losing our jobs in Canada. We want these agreements to be beneficial, not only to the Panamanian people but also to Canadian people.

The Canada-Panama agreement is another marginally improved copy of the George Bush-style approach to trade. It still puts big business before people, with no effective enforcement of human rights and pays lip service to the environmental protection without any real, tough measures or dispute resolution mechanisms.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

George is back.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

I haven't heard that for at least one speech.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

I can hear the opposition members talking about George Bush, but they are sure anxious to follow his lead. That is why the want to sign the trade agreement with Panama.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice and many other entities, Panama is a major financial conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers and money laundering activities. Again, just like we did with Colombia, we want a free trade agreement with a drug-producing country. How will that benefit Canadian workers? I do not know.

It is yet another trade deal negotiated in record time, without any consultations with trade unions, environmental groups or civil society and citizens. A fair and sustainable trade deal would not just address the needs of business, but also the needs of working families and the environment.

I will give the House our vision of a realistic free trade policy. The NDP reaffirms its vision for a fair trade policy that puts the pursuit of social justice, strong public sector social programs and the elimination of poverty at the heart of an effective trade strategy. Would it not be nice if we could help eliminate poverty in Panama with an effective fair trade agreement?

Canada's trade policy should be based on the principle of fair, sustainable and equitable trade, which builds trading partnerships with other countries that support the principle of social justice and human rights, while expanding business opportunities. We want our Canadian businesses to expand their opportunities, but we want them to do it in a fair and equitable way for workers across the world.

Fair trade should be the overarching principle, not just an afterthought of trade negotiations. The NDP strongly believes in an alternative and a better form of trading relations that can be established with Panama and other countries, one that includes the following within an overall fair trade strategy.

The first is to provide a comprehensive common-sense impact assessment on all international agreements that demonstrates the trade deals Canada negotiates are beneficial to Canadian families, workers and industry and that the government does not sign any trade agreement that would lead to net job losses.

The second is to ensure that the trade agreements Canada negotiates support Canada's sovereignty and freedom to chart its own policy, support our ability to be a competitive force on the world stage and support the principles of a multilateral fair trade system.

The third is the fundamental principle that all trade agreements must promote and protect human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any product that is deemed to have been created under sweatshop conditions, forced labour or other conditions that are not in accordance with fundamental international labour standards and human rights.

The fourth is the fundamental principle that all trade agreements should respect sustainable development and the integrity of the ecosystem.

The fifth is that any time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to proceed with enabling legislation would be subject to a binding vote on whether or not to accept the terms of the agreement.

The current system which consists of tabling FTAs in the House for a period of two sitting days prior to ratification is neither mandatory nor binds the government to a decision of the House.

These are very simple suggestions that I have read. These principles could be easily implemented into any agreement that we sign with any country.

I do not know what the rush is with the Conservative government.

I would like to read into the record a letter from the Hon. Michael H. Michaud, member of Congress. Parts of this letter have already been quoted today, but I want to read the whole letter:

Just when we thought we'd heard almost everything there is to know about the American International Group (AIG), from its bailouts to its bonuses, many may not know AIG is suing U.S. taxpayers claiming it “overpaid” U.S. taxes on activities in Panama, a country which applies low to no regulations and taxes on firms registered there. AIG wants to get back those taxes it dodged with this Panamanian front....

We could substitute “U.S.” or “American corporations” or “AIG” with any Canadian company.

Panama's industrial policy is premised on obtaining a comparative advantage by banning taxation of foreign corporations, hiding tax liabilities and transactions behind banking secrecy rules and the ease with which the U.S. and other firms can create unregulated subsidies. According to the State Department, Panama has over 350,000 foreign-registered companies.

AIG is very keen on tax havens with Panama.

Imagine, a small country like Panama has 350,000 foreign registered companies. I think the only reason it has so many foreign registered companies is that it is a tax haven. Companies do not have to pay taxes so they are investing in Panama.

The New York Times ran an exposé on how AIG is currently suing the U.S. government for $306 million in back taxes it claims it does not owe thanks to its use of one of Panama's corporate entities, Starr International Company, SICO. SICO is AIG's largest shareholder. It is also the manager of a compensation fund for AIG employees who are paid by AIG in shares. SICO's chairman is former AIG chairman Maurice Greenberg. The same company that received government bailouts and used taxpayers dollars for outrageous bonuses is now demanding twice the amount of the bonuses it paid in back taxes.

If people are not already outraged by the greed of AIG executives, the fact that it is using Panama's tax haven statute as a way to sue the American taxpayers for back taxes is completely egregious. The Panama free trade agreement would make matters worse.

I will finish by asking, what is the rush? Let us stop and think about what we are doing here. Let us think about the Panamanian workers. Let us think about the Canadian jobs we could end up losing.

Most of all, let us think about the Canadian companies that are hiding money in Panama and not paying taxes. That is tax money that could be used to improve our health care system, improve our education system and provide long-term care facilities which we are lacking. We could use those taxes for a lot of other good Canadian values.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating another free trade agreement. As always, the NDP stands to debate against it and will vote against it. I find it quite disappointing that every NDP member stands and says, “We are not against free trade, we are just against this free trade. It is just this agreement. It could have been much better”. Every member so far has said, “We would support it if it was fair trade”.

The truth is, this negotiated agreement is fair trade. It is much fairer than what Panama has seen on the environmental file and on the labour file.

A number of members from the NDP have stated that it has not done anything to address the sweatshops and child labour. That is not correct. This declaration covers a wide range of worker rights. It covers the abolition of child labour. Why are the NDP opposed to that? The right of freedom of association is in the side agreement. The right to collective bargaining, elimination of discrimination and the elimination of forced or compulsory labour are in the labour side agreement. I just want to get that on the record.

I have a question for the NDP members as they have been languishing, opposing every free trade agreement. There is one member of the NDP who has had a certain measure of success and that, of course, is former premier Gary Doer. He defended NAFTA. He supports these types of free trade agreements. Why is it that the New Democratic Party here does not take the lead from former NDP premier Gary Doer and start defending some of these trade agreements that we are negotiating?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is right: former premier Gary Doer was a great New Democrat and he still is.

I reiterate that we will support fair trade with any country. Fair trade means that we are not going to murder trade unionists. We are going to elevate the poorest of the poor. That is what we want to do. That is what fair trade does. Free trade does not do that.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, the issue with respect to tax havens has been addressed, according to another colleague, through the OECD. It has created a grey list and is looking very seriously at, particularly within the context of globalization, capital mobility and so on, building tax accountability into the global banking system. The OECD is moving on that.

Would it not be better to address the kinds of issues the member has raised by having this bill go to committee to look at that? It could look at taking Canadian leadership on an issue that has been described as the next generation of globalization and the issue of banking institutions which must be addressed. Would it not be better to take that approach than to say there is no opportunity here to achieve labour solidarity so let us not go there at all; let us just say that we cannot do that and not negotiate? Why not continue the negotiations and address those kinds of issues and bring back a better bill?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a very good question and I am glad the member asked it. It is obvious that the bill will go to committee because, for the 106th time, the Liberals are going to vote with the Conservatives. What a coalition that is.

Hopefully, when the bill gets to committee the necessary change will be made that will make it possible for trade unionists to live a free life, that it will be possible to lift up the poorest of the poor and make their lives better. Hopefully, when this bill is at committee we can make some of those changes.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member talk about fairer, more sustainable trade that shows more respect for the environment and workers' rights. The Liberals and Conservatives in the House seem oblivious to this issue in an international context, but Bloc Québécois members would like to see fairer international trade.

I listened to some of the arguments made by Conservatives. One of them talked about the Panama Canal. He wondered how we could refuse to sign a free trade agreement with Panama given that it has the canal. That is odd because I never heard anyone say that this free trade agreement with Panama would lead to lower tariffs for our ships going through the Panama Canal. This shows—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. I would like to give the member a chance to respond to the question.

The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

We do not want to do business with Panama because of the Panama Canal. It has nothing to do with that. We want the Canada-Panama agreement to be fair and balanced for workers. That is what we want. We want it to be good for the environment, for Canadians and for Canada's industries. I wonder why the government is so anxious to sign this agreement. Why is it not taking the time to think a little bit about it and make changes to it? We hope that when it goes to committee it will undergo some positive changes that all members of Parliament here today, from both sides of the House, will agree with.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Crowfoot talked about this agreement earlier regarding child labour and the supplemental side agreement. If the Conservatives are sincere in their efforts to right human rights, to protect labour laws, why do they not put it into the full agreement instead of a side agreement that has no real value?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. Why do the Conservatives not put the contents of the side agreements into the main agreement? I do not know why they do not do that. It makes sense to me and probably makes sense to everyone on this side of the House. It is probably because they are side agreements and they do not have to live up to them if they are broken. That is why they are side agreements. If anything ever happens that is not correct, they do not have to live up to them because they are side agreements. It is as simple as that.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

We are debating a motion that was proposed and moved by the member for Hamilton Mountain, the NDP labour critic, to delay consideration of the bill for six months, given the serious problems with it that she outlined in her speech yesterday. We usually call it a hoist motion, and if there has ever been a piece of legislation before the House that deserves to be hoisted off the agenda, it is this bill to implement the trade agreement between Canada and Panama.

Once again, we have before us a bilateral trade agreement that was presented to the House and Canadians with all kinds of claims about how good this will be for Canada and the Canadian people. Sadly, the reality is that in the past these free trade agreements have not done much for either Canadians or for trade.

There is a debate going on about the efficacy of these agreements. Studies are showing that more often than not trade actually declines between countries after bilateral free trade agreements have been signed. This has been shown to be the situation in the United States, with the agreements that it has signed. As champions of this method of improving trade around the world, the Americans will really have to struggle with that research.

The NDP international trade critic explained earlier today that, when we look at the value of Canadian trade in real dollars, factoring in changes in the value of the dollar, this lessening of trade is in many cases true for Canada as well, perhaps with the exception of NAFTA. Canadian trade exports to countries with which we have signed bilateral trade agreements have actually gone down after the agreements have come into effect. Costa Rica is a good example. And generally, there is no clear correlation between increases in exports and these so-called free trade agreements.

In addition, some people are arguing that our trade exports with the United States would have gone up regardless of the NAFTA agreement. Even with NAFTA, the grandpappy of all these agreements, there is some question about how well it did all the things that it promised to do. The benefits of these deals are highly overrated and oversold by the governments that have put them forward to the Canadian people and the House.

The reality is that the situation of Canadians has not improved with the signing of these free trade agreements, starting with NAFTA. Where is the prosperity that was promised every time we heard about one of these agreements? The incomes of the wealthiest 10% of Canadians have increased dramatically since the implementation of the NAFTA agreement, but every other income category in Canada has either stagnated or declined. These deals have not been good for middle-class Canadians. They have been a disaster for low-income and working Canadians.

There is a real problem with bilateral trade agreements, with seeking out specific trade agreements with specific partners around the world. There is also a serious problem with the effect these agreements have on Canadian sovereignty.

We have all heard about chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement, which allows for the override of the democratic will of Parliament by corporate interests. We know that the same kind of provision is included in the deal we are discussing today. It has been included in other trade deals that have been brought forward since NAFTA, and we know that such a clause amounts to a serious diminution of the sovereignty of Canada. We have to protect our ability to make the laws that we need in order to ensure prosperity and success in our own country.

It would be great if the Conservative government spent as much time and effort promoting Canadian trade as it does in negotiating these questionable free trade agreements. It is remarkable to consider how little Canada spends on promoting Canadian exports around the world, compared with Australia or the European Union. There is probably more bang for our buck in trade promotion than in pursuing these kinds of deals.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member will have 15 minutes when this debate resumes.

Statements by members, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas had the floor before question period and he has 15 minutes in the time remaining for his remarks. I therefore call upon the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume my remarks on Bill C-46.

I was going to provide a description of the current situation of trade between Canada and Panama. As of 2007, the two-way merchandise trade between Canada and Panama totalled a modest $149 million, including $128 million in exports from Canada to Panama, and $21 million in imports to Canada from Panama. Panama at the time was Canada's seventh largest export destination in Central America and the Caribbean and Canada's 12th largest source of imports from that region.

As for the export category, what Canada sends to Panama, the key piece in the last years has been flight simulators and parts. Next would be medications and other pharmaceutical products, then machinery and equipment and electrical/electronic products, followed by agricultural goods and food products, malt, pulses, potatoes and meat, and finally paper products and aircraft.

The imports that Canada received from Panama in 2008 were heavily concentrated in a couple of areas. The key one was crude oil and refined petroleum products. In 2008 more than one-half, 55% or $11.7 million, of Canada's imports from Panama consisted of refined heavy oil. In recent years crude oil has made up as much as 86% of Canada's imports from Panama. After crude oil and refined products imports, Canada has imported small amounts of tropical agricultural products such as bananas, melons and coffee and some silver ore. Those were the key imports from Panama to Canada.

Panama is not a major destination for Canadian direct investment abroad. Canadian direct investment in Panama totalled $111 million in 2006, falling from $143 million in 2005. Panama's modest source of direct investment in Canada with foreign direct investment stocks was $50 million in 2008. With regard to services, trade in services between Canada and Panama is negligible.

That gives us some sense of the trade situation currently between Canada and Panama. It is not a big player in terms of our export business, or imports to Canada.

There are some particular problems with the deal between Canada and Panama that we are being asked to ratify in Parliament. One of them is labour standards. We have heard a lot about that in the debate so far.

Panama's record on labour standards is not great, to put it mildly. The International Labour Organization, the ILO, has raised concerns about whether workers in Panama's export processing zones actually have the right to strike, even though unions and collective bargaining are permitted. The laws establishing and regulating these export processing zones in Panama do not include arbitration or specified procedures to resolve labour disputes. There are some problems with the existing labour laws in Panama and they need some attention.

Furthermore, there has been a record of violence against union organizers, union members and labour leaders in Panama. Labour leaders have been assassinated while demonstrating and working for workers' rights. Notably, in 2007 two members of the construction union were killed. Just this past summer anti-union repression escalated in Panama with the result that several workers were killed, over 100 were injured and 300 were arrested. There is a serious problem with anti-union and anti-worker violence in Panama.

This free trade agreement with Panama would provide a maximum government fine of $15 million for labour violations to the side agreement on labour. However, these fines are likely to be very difficult to collect and even if they are collected, they are paid to a joint commission to improve labour rights enforcement in Panama, which could also allow them to be funnelled back to the government of Panama.

A fine for the violation of labour rights in this scenario is then to be used to help the government do what it should have been doing in the first place. It does not seem like much of a punishment for the failure to respect labour laws and workers' rights to be forced to pay oneself a fine, essentially, and do what one should have been doing in the first place. This is an ineffective mechanism to enforce this side agreement on labour that is part of this agreement.

In this House in the past, when we were debating the Canada-Colombia deal, we talked about the side agreement on labour but that deal amounted to nothing more than a “kill a trade unionist and pay a fine” kind of agreement. It seems that this deal is no different as it follows the same pattern as the Canada-Colombia deal.

There are very serious problems with recognizing labour rights, respecting the rights of workers in Panama and providing any effective mechanism to uphold what has been negotiated as a side agreement. As we have pointed out many times, if labour rights and the recognition of workers' rights in Canada and Panama are important to these deals, then they should be part of the main agreement and not hived off to a separate side agreement with ineffective enforcement procedures in place.

There is also a concern about child labour in Panama. Poverty is a huge issue in Panama. Many people have very low income; a dollar a day in many cases. The United Nations radio reported that 55,000 children have dropped out of education to go to work because of extreme poverty. That report came out earlier this spring. Many children in Panama are not in school and the prime cause of that is the need for them to go to work. They leave their education and go to work at a very early age.

The Panamanian government reports that 114,168 children between the ages of 5 and 17 are working in Panama, most often in agriculture. In a country of just over 3 million people, over 114,000 children between the ages 5 and 17 working because of the poverty in which their families live is a huge number. This has increased from 2008 when 89,767 children in this age group were working.

Clearly, the efforts that the Panamanian government have agreed to undertake to make universal education available to children and to ensure that child labour is no longer an issue in Panama is not working. The efforts to get children out of the workforce and into school are not working.

We need ask whether that is the kind of country with which we want to enter into a trade deal. Is that the kind of country that we want to reward with special trade arrangements when it is not making progress on this kind of very serious child labour issue?

We have also heard a lot of serious concerns raised in the debate about entering into a free trade agreement with a country that is a notorious tax haven and a centre for money laundering. Panama is regarded as a tax haven by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, as well as several other countries, including the United States. In 2008, Panama was one of 11 countries that did not have a tax information exchange agreement signed or enforced. Panama is one of only three states, with Guatemala and Nauru, that would not share bank information for any tax information exchange purpose.

This situation led the OECD, back in 2000, to blacklist Panama as an unco-operative tax haven. In response to being blacklisted, the Republic of Panama wrote to the Secretary General of the OECD in 2002 with a commitment to meet the OECD's standards for transparency and information sharing so that it would no longer be considered a tax haven. The OECD has responded to that commitment and, I think, has bumped Panama off the blacklist and onto the so-called grey list. However, Panama has not followed through on that commitment.

Panama has not, to date, substantially implemented the internationally agreed tax standard to which it committed in 2002. That standard would have obliged Panama to share information upon the request of other countries such that those other countries could effectively implement their domestic tax laws.

Panama has gone from the blacklist to the grey list with a commitment to improve things but has done nothing about making those improvements. I have to wonder whether or it is not destined to be back on the blacklist before too long.

This has been an issue for the American Congress, which is looking at a trade agreement with Panama as well, and where that deal has also been delayed because of problems with the deal. U.S. Congressman, Michael Michaud, put it this way. He said:

Panama's industrial policy is premised on obtaining a comparative advantage by banning taxation of foreign corporations, hiding tax liabilities and transactions behind banking secrecy rules and the ease with which U.S. and other firms can create unregulated subsidiaries. According to the State Department, Panama has over 350,000 foreign-registered companies.

The congressman points out a very serious problem with the legislation in Panama that allows it to be this kind of tax haven.

We need to ask whether we really want to be signing a trade agreement with a notorious tax haven and centre for money-laundering.

Again, the U.S. Department of Justice notes that Panama is a major centre for money-laundering related to the drug trade and in fact there have been very serious concerns raised about the Colon Free Zone in Panama being linked to trafficking of drugs and other illicit substances.

The International Monetary Fund notes that the Colon Free Zone is a centrally located transit area for drugs. It is a very serious accusation coming from a respected international agency and one that we should be taking into consideration as we look to negotiating a deal with this country, in a sense rewarding the country with this kind of deal. There is no doubt that the government of Panama will trumpet its success in obtaining a deal with Canada and, given the very serious problems, do we really want to make that something easy for it to do?

I think all Canadians believe that the wealthy and big corporations should not be able to avoid contributing their fair share to the development of this country. They should be paying their taxes. Should we be dealing with a country that makes it possible for them to avoid paying taxes by operating as a tax haven? I am sure that most Canadians would answer very clearly that it is wrong and that we should not be entering into an agreement with a country has not cleaned up its act on that score.

There is not a word in this agreement about the tax haven situation and not a word about correcting this failure to exchange tax information with other countries. Today in question period we heard the Prime Minister say, very clearly, that the government had no tolerance for tax havens. I have to say that we would not know it by the fact that we have this agreement before us. The government is proposing that we enter into an agreement with a well-known and notorious tax haven in the Republic of Panama and it has put this agreement forward without any mention in the agreement of dealing with that issue. It is a very serious problem.

New Democrats are not opposed to trade. We are not opposed to fair trade deals. We want to ensure that Panama meets its international commitments and that it continues to develop, but this trade deal is not the mechanism to ensure that. We are not talking about ending our relationship with Panama. We are not talking about ending the trade that exists there or looking for other opportunities to expand that trade. We are not talking about ending diplomatic relations with Panama. However, what we are saying very clearly is that this deal does not meet the kinds of standards that Canadians would want us to uphold. Canadians would want to ensure that it was a fair agreement for Canadians and for Panamanians. Unfortunately, this agreement does not meet the test and, therefore, we cannot support it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague outline the problems with this existing trade deal.

The issue here is that Canada has such a role to play internationally and with trade in terms of setting benchmarks, that we can actually begin to see development happen in many countries with troubled pasts, such as Panama and Colombia. We can do that by entering into trade agreements where we actually set some basic principles that have to be met, because it would certainly be in a country like Panama's interest to get the legitimation of a trade deal with Canada.

I am very concerned about the attitude of the Conservative government, which is a complete laissez-faire, roll over for whatever capital wants. In previous trade agreements it has turned a blind eye to the environmental devastation and to the horrific murders, for example, in Colombia of trade activists. In Panama, we have the issues of tax havens and the very dodgy banking practices that the government claims Canada does not support but has made no effort under this trade agreement to push back.

What does my hon. colleague think the implications are of Canada legitimizing an agreement with a country with excessive banking secrecy and the known money laundering that goes on, and how that plays out in terms of actually being able to develop a progressive agenda for a country like Panama?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, if the corporate sector and the wealthy are not paying their fair share of taxation in any country, in Canada or in Panama, then there is a huge gap in what is available to the government and to the people of that country to improve their situation and deal with the developmental issues that they face.

We face that here in Canada. We make difficult choices about how we use our resources, where those resources go and the kind of revenue the government has available to do that important work, but when wealthy individuals and big corporations are allowed to avoid paying taxes and to ship their money offshore into a tax haven, it gets even worse and it exacerbates all of those problems.

It is not an appropriate way for us to behave and it is not an appropriate way for Panama to behave. Panama has not responded to the international pressure that it has received to clean up its act on this part. There is no way that we should be entering into an agreement with a country that has been reticent to do that and has outright refused to do that. It has made absolutely no progress toward those goals.

It would not serve our people and it would not serve the people of Panama to enter into that kind of agreement and reward a government that has refused to work on those important issues.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again today we have listened to members of the New Democratic Party stand in this House and debate against more open trade, more free trade and, indeed, more trade. I have been here 10 years now and I have never once heard the New Democrats stand and endorse any trade agreements that we have made. Their talking points remain the same. They always stand and say that they are not opposed to trade, just not this agreement, that they are not opposed to trade, that they just want fair trade.

This agreement has moved Panama into a position where now it has to look at environmental practices. It has to better the environmental practices that it has at the present time. It has taken the labour agreements that we have and put in place such things as the abolition of child labour and bans against those sweat shops.

Those are some of the issues that, in the past, that party has stood and debated against. That is what these side agreements deal with. They deal with the right of the freedoms of association.

Another speaker, not the last one, wanted to know why we would even bother moving toward a free trade agreement with such a small country. It is obvious. We are committed to enhancing trade agreements. We are committed to more free and fair trade agreements. We are committed to the Americas, to South America and Central America. We have trade agreements with Colombia, with Chile and with many other countries, and Panama is there.

Why are they opposed to Canada being able to--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Burnaby--Douglas.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Panama has shown itself to be very resistant to influence from anybody with respect to cleaning up its act in some of these areas. It has resisted the International Labour Organization. It has resisted the OECD. It has resisted the United States in terms of cleaning up its act on tax havens.

Why does the member think that this agreement with Canada and the side agreement on labour, weak as it is, will somehow have any influence over the Panamanian government whatsoever, when it has resisted big international agencies and has resisted the United States, with which it probably has a far more significant trading relationship than it has with Canada? It is just not in the cards.

It is patently silly to suggest that what we have before us would in any way influence the government of Panama to clean up its act. The government of Panama has committed to reducing child labour and to ensuring that children have education. However, in the last year alone, 20,000 more children between the ages of five and 17 have joined the labour force in Panama. Panama is not meeting its obligations.

What does the member think is in this agreement that will magically force Panama to meet those arrangements, when all of these other agencies and countries have failed to do that? There is nothing here that is going to move Panama forward on that.

This agreement is weak from the beginning. It is not going to lead to any improvement in those serious areas.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Conservative position. The government's position is that it will sign a trade agreement, that it will be able to extract resources from Panama, and that somehow, the world will be better, but it will not ask for any firm commitments.

I want to go back to the issue of the tax havens and Panama's very dodgy and secretive banking record, especially given how much narco-money is moving around and being laundered in that part of the world.

The Public Citizen, out of the United States, in its trade campaign said that it is critical that any free trade agreement with Panama “must be conditional on the country's government eliminating excessive banking secrecy, re-regulating its financial sector, forcing banks and multinational subsidiaries to pay taxes, and signing international tax transparency treaties,” such as exist in the United States, “which Panama has thus far refused to do”.

We hear the Conservatives talking out of both sides of their mouth.

The government was in the process of deregulating our banking sector and was caught by a massive recession. Fortunately, because of New Democrats' efforts through the years to stop them from deregulating the banking sector, we still actually have banking rules. Now we hear the laissez-faire minister of the economy go on and on about how we have a regulated banking sector.

Why does the member think the government is saying that it is perfectly okay to sign onto deals with a country that has absolutely dodgy banking practices?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am any expert on understanding the mind of a Conservative or a Conservative government or someone who is negotiating these deals on behalf of the Conservative government. There is a real problem with the whole approach.

New Democrats have been very clear. We have put forward a five-point plan on how we believe fair trade deals can be negotiated. It is a very detailed and clear plan.

We have also put forward a plan on how we can test and understand the effectiveness of trade deals and how those trade deals are working out. Our plan includes performance indicators that would tell us how those deals are working out. There is a long list of them.

The government should be examining standards that are already in place that deal with the quality of employment; the impact on wage levels; prices and market concentration, including the effect of currency manipulation; public health; environmental standards; human rights standards; the level and types of investment by industry; economic diversification; food self-sufficiency; consumer safety; the effect on farms and the number of farms; access to essential services; the fiscal system; and intellectual property and copyright.

We should be examining all of those things in light of the deals we have already signed to make sure that we are doing the right thing and that these deals are fair, both to the people of the countries we signed the deals with and to Canadians.

The Conservatives are not doing any of that kind of work. They stand up and say, “It is a free trade deal, it is great, hurray.” They say that all the time. We do not have proof. We do not have the proof that they are increasing trade, and we do not have proof that they are meeting any of these indicators. We need that. The government needs to do its homework. Otherwise, it is just a lot of hot air.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the international trade committee, I am pleased to speak on behalf of Bill C-46, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. As we will be studying the bill in committee, I think it is very important to listen to the debate and the concerns of members in the House. However, it is also important to get the bill to the committee so that we can hear from our constituents, from the communities that are concerned, and from different stakeholders. I think the appropriate way to deal with issues of concern in the House is to have the committee study, consult, meet with our stakeholders, and have a full discussion. That is why I am supportive of the bill, but there are also many things I believe very strongly we should be pursuing as we move forward with this particular agreement, which Canada entered on May 14, 2010.

As we are all aware, Canada is a trade dependent nation. Although 70% of our trade is with the U.S., there is a growing need for us to diversify our trade with our partners throughout the world. The Americas are a growing market. They are our neighbours, and it is an area we have to focus on. We have, over the last few years, been focusing on the Americas.

Mr. Speaker, 80% of our economy depends on access to foreign markets for Canada's exports. I support this initiative, because I think it will improve Canadian businesses' access to these different markets.

In 2009, we exported about $90 million in goods to Panama, and we imported about $40.7 million. Bilateral trade in total was about $132 million. It is small. Panama is a country of a little over 3.3 million people, and it has a relatively small GDP of about $38 billion. However, it is an important country in that region, and not just because of the strategic importance of the Panama Canal and the investment that has been made in the Panama Canal. It is also a hub for business in commerce. It is a stable country and is a partner with Canada.

We have to recognize the fact that Panama, given its long, turbulent history, has become, over the years, a very stable and progressive economy, and it is looking for partners throughout the world. Certainly other countries have made inroads into Panama. It is only fitting that Canada, as well, would want to be a partner in that economic growth.

I would say that the growth in Panama has been nothing but phenomenal. The GDP grew by about 10.7% in 2008. That was one of the highest in the Americas. The projected rate of increase for the GDP this year is about 5.6%. These are impressive numbers given what has happened globally during the incredible economic crisis facing the world. We see a country that has really withstood the recession and the economic crisis and has moved beyond and exceeded most developed countries. We are very pleased to see that a country like Panama, in which we have taken an interest, is doing extremely well. It bodes well for the future of Panama and for our trade agreement, which can grow and provide our businesses in Canada with access to Panama.

I just want to focus on some of the issues that will be of concern and that need to be raised, particularly in terms of the issues that will be affected by this particular trade. The primary Canadian merchandise exports to Panama include machinery, vehicles, electronic equipment, pharmaceutical equipment, pulses, and frozen potato products. Canadian service exports include financial services, engineering, and information and communication technology services. Merchandise imports from Panama include precious stones and metals, mainly gold; fruits and nuts; and fish and seafood products.

There are a variety of different products we would engage with. As I said, it is a relatively small economy, but it is one that is growing. We need to ensure that we are part of that growth and that Canadian businesses share in the profit from that growth.

The Panama Canal is at the moment going through a major investment. It is a passageway for thousands of vehicles each year and plays a tremendous role in international commerce and the world economy. It is a vital, strategic canal that is expanding. It is slated to be completed in 2014. That project alone is an $5.3 billion expansion.

It is expected to generate opportunities for Canadian companies in construction, environmental engineering, and consulting services for capital projects. We have a great opportunity to play a major role in the expansion of the canal. Canadian companies can have a stake and would profit from this particular expansion.

Some of the issues that will be covered by this free trade agreement with the Republic of Panama include market access to goods and cross-border trade in services, telecommunications, investment, financial services, and government procurement. These are some of the basic issues we will be dealing with.

The deal will have the added benefit of eliminating about 99% of tariffs on current imports from Panama. It will also address non-tariff barriers by adopting measures to ensure non-discriminatory treatment of imported goods and the promotion of good regulatory practices, transparency, and international standards.

As several members in the House have stated, there are also side agreements on both labour and the environment. These agreements would be signed with the Republic of Panama. They will cover issues such as the right to freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour, and the elimination of discrimination. These provisions in the side agreements that would be signed by the two countries would in many ways ensure that both Canada and Panama have a stake in the development of human rights and labour rights in that country. We would be a partner to make sure that they were in compliance with those international obligations. Canada would not just be signing a free trade agreement with Panama. As a country, we would also have a duty and an obligation to make sure that the particular provisions that specifically deal with labour and environmental issues are, in fact, enforced. This is not just a moral obligation; it is a legal obligation on the part of Canada to ensure that if this agreement is enacted, those provisions will be looked at.

Although I support where this is going, I think we need to move forward with more robust and comprehensive free trade agreements with some of our larger partners, and not just the European Union, with which we are presently negotiating. The European Union is a very important market, and there is probably very broad support in the House to move forward with that agreement.

There are also countries that play a major role internationally. Two I would like to speak about are Brazil and India. They are important partners for Canada, and we need to move forward with some type of free trade agreements. Brazil, as we know, is a dynamic and growing economy in our hemisphere. It has a very young population and a large and growing middle class. It will also be hosting both the Olympics and the World Cup.

There is an incredible boom of investment in that country. Over the next 10 years, it will be over $100 billion. We would like to be there to ensure our construction contractors, engineering companies and different sectors of the Canadian economy play a major role with the growth in that economy. Not only stadiums and new facilities are being built, but a fast-rail link and a new metro system is as well. There is incredible opportunity for us to show Canadian know-how in a very dynamic country like Brazil.

India is the largest democracy and Canada has a very large Indian diaspora. India is growing, not just in south Asia, but across the world. It has a major influence in buying companies, certainly in the area of high technology and engineering. It is playing a major role internationally and we are very proud to see the success of that country.

India is a partner of which Canada is very proud. Yesterday the minister mentioned that he had an opportunity to meet with his Indian counterpart last Friday in Parliament. I believe he had an opportunity to discuss the possibility of some type of free trade agreement in the future. I would encourage Canada to move in that direction.

I mention those two countries because they are very large and substantial countries. We need to move forward beyond agreements with important countries but small ones. We are talking small in comparison to Brazil and India. We have signed other deals with Chile and we are now looking at Jordan. These are important countries, but nothing to the size and scale of those two superpowers of both Brazil and India.

This is where we as parliamentarians have to make a decision. I do not see what good would come out of a delay of six months to be honest. The appropriate thing to do is to move this forward to committee so that I, as a member, and other members of the committee have an opportunity to hear from stakeholders. That is the reason why I would like to support the bill and move it forward. I encourage other members to do so.

The time is now. I do not think by delaying it six months, I do not think much can be achieved. The appropriate place to raise these issues is at the committee level. There is a lot here that I have already raised and enunciated from this agreement, which merits it going forward to committee.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in this place would recognize that the member's intervention was in stark contrast to much of what we have heard from the NDP and from the Bloc Québécois. I applaud him for the fact that he is willing to discuss this in a reasonable and intelligent manner. He contributes in a positive way at committee as well.

First, we have to get this to committee. We have to take a much more thorough and indepth look at it. I think we are all satisfied to do that.

However, what I do not understand is why the NDP members would put a hoist motion onto this trade agreement. They do not support any trade agreement, so it is no surprise they do not support this one. However, a hoist motion effectively kills the bill. It does not just set it aside for a period of time. As anti-trade as that group is, I do not understand why those members would want to kill the bill.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree and concur with my colleague. Delaying this for six months does not make any sense. Nor is it of any benefit to Canadians and Canadian businesses. As I mentioned, there is a major expansion taking place in the Panama Canal. We want to be good partners and ensure we are part of that development.

On the six month delay, I am not sure what would be accomplished. If at the end of the day I believed that the NDP would be supportive of this after six months, then maybe I could see it as a rationale, but in reality we all know that is not the case.

I ask my colleagues to move this to where it needs to be, and that is at the committee stage, so we can hear from stakeholders. Right now we are depriving Canadians, Canadian businesses and stakeholders from all communities to come before committee. As parliamentarians, we should give them the opportunity to speak on their issues and concerns.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's comments, giving us reason after reason why he thought there was a good economic case to be made for this trade agreement. I do not happen to agree with him, but I want to take my question in a bit of a different direction.

I am aware of the member's constituency. I have spent some time there and know for a fact that when the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement was before the House, there was a public meeting in his riding. It was co-hosted by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and the NDP candidate in that riding, Andrew Cash. It was a packed hall of his constituents who were opposed to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

One of the reasons they were opposed to it was the free trade agreements were not fair trade agreements. They do not respect environmental protection. They do not respect human rights. They do not respect social justice. In fact, even on economic grounds, as many of the speakers on this side of the House have made clear, they are not economically viable.

When the member says he wants to have consultations in committee, is he willing to have a public meeting in his constituency so he can consult his constituents who seem to share our concern that we should engage in fair trade rather than free trade?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague that I consult my constituents on a regular basis. In fact, I did that over the summer and spent a great deal of time with my constituents on a whole host of different issues. I also attended different meetings and events with them.

I am proud of my record over the years. I like to take a bit of credit. I have been elected there six times over. I believe I probably know best what is in the best interests of the community of Davenport.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in my colleague's point about the need for opening up trade negotiations with larger countries, such as Brazil.

I am interested in that as well because Brazil and many of the countries in South America are forming a common market through Mercosur and are working toward the goals of regional self-sufficiency, national ownership of resources and those types of things.

How would the hon. member see the Conservative government negotiating, with its principles of open markets in every respect, with countries that actually want to follow an industrial strategy, which will leave them in a better and stronger position, as those countries such as Brazil are doing today?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have raised in our committee the importance of that very large giant in the Americas, Brazil. We have done a report on Brazil, but we also want to ensure the government pursues that relationship with Brazil to see if we can get a free trade agreement.

As the member had mentioned, it is complicated regarding the issue of Mercosur. Brazil was one of the founding and largest contributors to that common market. It is moving forward, along with Argentina, Panama and Uruguay. Now I believe Venezuela is also going to join Mercosur.

There is already a partnership and it is probably more complicated to enter, just like there are complications in Canada entering with the European Union, because we are entering it with a larger market. However, it is one that is in Canada's best interests. I would encourage the government to do everything possible with an agreement with Brazil, to see what obstacles are in front of us and if we can all work together to achieve that end goal. Brazil is an emerging market. I very much appreciate the fact that the member had also raised this issue in the House.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this issue really is not about trade because Canada already trades with Panama. We know that because there is about $140 million of trade going on between the countries. This issue is about the concept of free trade, which is about the removal of tariffs so goods can pass back and forth between the countries without any tariffs.

My question is about comparing the labour standards between the two countries. It is my understanding that the average wage in Panama is $2 an hour. What the bill proposes to do is to let goods that are manufactured in Panama, with a labour input rate of $2 an hour, to come into the Canadian market and compete against our businesses and our labour force that have to pay a labour rate many times more than that.

Could the hon. member tell us what he says to Canadian businesses that, if the bill passes, have to contend with goods coming into their markets and competing with those with a labour input cost of $2 an hour, when they have to pay $15, $20, $25 and $30 an hour? How is that fair to Canadian businesses?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's question, but I have some trouble understanding in what direction he is going. Is he proposing that Canada should only sign free trade agreements with countries that have the same salaries as in Canada or higher? I am not sure what that does for countries like Brazil. His colleague said that we should probably look at Brazil. We know that the average wage in Brazil is not the same as in Canada.

The reality is we have an opportunity to move forward with a free trade agreement with a country that is stable, that has very impressive growth rates, that can offer opportunities for many Canadian companies to export their goods and trade with that country. Why not support Canadian companies and industries that want to do more business with Panama?

If the member has concerns, he is more than welcome to attend our committee meetings and raise those concerns as well.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate. I see my friend the parliamentary secretary is here today and participating in the debate. I appreciate that. The member fromCrowfoot has been here all day.

Let me acknowledge to both my colleagues, who have said that we in the NDP oppose only the trade deals that the government brings forward, that they are right.

Let me tell the House why. First, we are not debating trade policy. Bill C-46 is “An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama”. It goes on to talk about environmental and labour side-agreements. We are not talking about debating trade policy from the perspective of what we want to see in that policy. We are talking about how to implement trade policy, how to nip around the edges and tinker with this piece or that piece, adding a word here and deleting a sentence there. Fundamentally, what we are looking at is free trade, full stop.

I would say to my colleagues that if they truly want to debate trade policy with New Democrats, or with me, a member who attends the trade committee 80% of the time, then I would suggest that we debate trade policy. Let us not debate implementation of free trade, which is a fait accompli. The government is not interested in talking about trade. It is interested only in talking about free trade. Free trade is one of the many aspects of trade policy: whether it is called fair trade, which I would suggest is significantly different from free trade; whether it means trade agreements like those we see in the Mercosur that Brazil has with its neighbours; or whether it is EU trade through the EU trade division. There are a great number of agreements across this globe that we have neglected to look at because are fixated on free trade.

Why we are fixated on only one aspect is beyond the comprehension of this member. Ultimately, when we look at the stats for those who are trying to work in this country, we see the poor staying as poor as they were, getting no further ahead.

Brian Mulroney said that this country would never be recognized again if we implemented free trade. So he did. He was right. We do not recognize this country.

Members can come down to Welland and take a look at where this policy, with its promise of the return of manufacturing and replacement jobs, has now taken my town. In 13 years, in terms of earnings per worker in Ontario, it has gone from third highest to almost the lowest, courtesy of free trade.

Of course, the government and the Liberals would have us believe that we were winners under the free trade model. What do we see for middle-income workers? Their income has come down 5% over the last 15 years.

I am not sure how mathematicians make minus five a plus. I know in the old days minus five and minus five gave plus 10. All I know is that when a person has a job that used to pay $22 an hour and now that person is working for $14 and the person's mortgage is still the same, that person is not better off, but worse off. If that is the minus 5%, then workers in my riding did not benefit from free trade. Yet we insist on talking about it.

The Liberals insist that we are in the way and will always vote against it. Of course we will, because it does not help workers. It does not help average Canadians. It does not help the middle class. It only helps 1% of the richest folks in this country, who are getting richer and richer by the day.

The government and the Liberals seem to have a red-blue alliance. We might call it a coalition, but they have not formalized it yet. I would encourage both parties to bring forward an open trade debate, so that we can talk about different trade policies. Let's see if we cannot find a way to make Parliament work. Let's see if we can compromise and find a trade policy that works for everyone across this country.

Ultimately, it is not about building trade policies for Panama, Colombia, Jordan, or anywhere else in this world. It is supposed to be about Canadians. We are supposed to develop trade policy that benefits Canadians. That is who we represent. We do not represent Panamanians, or Jordanians, or Colombians. Our role is to protect our citizens, and part of that protection is the viability of the economy. Canadians need work. When folks are not working, they are either unemployed, on social assistance, or out on the street somewhere. Our responsibility is to ensure that this does not happen to them.

I would encourage the blue-red alliance to come forward with a debate about trade policy. Then we can move away from this fixation of one-size-fits-all. We are told that we are all doing well. But we are not doing well at all.

The rebuttal will be that this is not true. I invite members to look at the StatsCan reports and read the quintiles, as it calls them. They show where folks are in the economic scheme of things. It is ironic that when the Minister of International Trade spoke at an event organized by the Fraser Institute, the Vancouver Sun said that the trade minister “appeared amused at the diplomatic necessity of avoiding the term “free trade” when negotiating with the Europeans”. This from a government that comes in the House and waves the flag of free trade and says all is wonderful. Yet when the minister goes to Europe, we have to call it a “comprehensive economic trade agreement”. Why is that?

If the government is certain that free trade is the be-all and end-all, then why can't the minister go to Europe and say that, although it might not translate well into French, German, or Belgian, the bottom line is that free trade is wonderful and we should simply call it what it is. Maybe it is because the Europeans do not agree that free trade is the be-all and end-all, and they want to talk about something else instead. This raises an interesting question. If this is the case for the bigger group, why not for those elsewhere?

As we look at the free trade policy, we see, starting in 1995, the gutting of manufacturing in the heartland of this country. Anyone who does not believe it should come to the auto sector today. St. Catharines had 11,000 workers in 1993; now it has 1,800. Where did those jobs go? The vast majority went to Mexico. In 1990, General Motors employed about 2,500 workers in Mexico. By the late nineties, there were some 40,000. There were less than 20,000 in Canada. It used to be the reverse.

When we opened up free trade in the North American Free Trade Agreement, we saw an outpouring of manufacturing jobs by multinationals in Ontario and Quebec. Those of us who live there, who represented workers, and who represent workers today have continued to see it. Whether it is the manufacturing of automobiles, steel, or chemicals, that is the way free trade has been for workers. If they have kept their jobs, they have seen their wages decline. They are told they must compete with Colombians, Panamanians, Mexicans, and everywhere else that fell under free trade. Companies told workers that if they could not compete with them, their jobs would be moved.

In 2008, just prior to the last federal election, a John Deere subsidiary went to workers during bargaining and said they had to deal with free trade. I know this to be true, because it is my union that represents those workers.

The company told those workers that they needed to understand that it could be moved to the States or Mexico. The subsidiary told the workers that they had to bargain a collective agreement that showed an understanding of free trade.

The Canadian Auto Workers is a responsible union. My brother from Quebec knows this; he is a Quebec director. He knows how responsible that union is.

In 2007, we bargained a responsible agreement with John Deere that said we would protect those workers. We would make sure they were not affected by free trade and that they had offsets for the company.

What did the company do in 2008? The company closed the plant, moved to the United States and Mexico, and destroyed 800 families. What did the company get in that one year period? It managed to pay lower wages, lower pensions, lower benefits. They got a cut rate for a year and then they deserted the community and the workers.

We saw the same thing at Atlas. We saw the same thing when it came to UCAR. We saw it right across the manufacturing heartland of this country.

Free trade does not work for workers, period. It does work for some folks who bleed workers dry and then discard them.

The most recent example of how free trade works is J.M. Smucker's, a big multinational company out of the United States. It just closed.

Those who like Bick's Pickles should know that as of next year a Canadian-made Bick's pickle will not be available. The plant will be closed in 2011. What will that mean for 150 workers at Bick's? It means they will have no job. What will this mean to the hundreds of farmers in southern Ontario who supply the ingredients for these pickles: the cucumbers, the tomatoes, the onions, the cauliflower? It means they will have no market for their goods. What will they do? I guess my friends on the other side will tell them that it was free trade and it was good for them.

As we move products to free trade regimes that do not have the same food inspection standards, will we know what we are buying? The CFIA's audit says we will not know what we are getting, because there is no common standard of inspection from country to country. We have equivalency inspections with a few countries in four significant areas, but pickles is not one of them.

For those who enjoy the Bick's Pickle brand, after November 2011, I would suggest they check the label. The ingredients will not be Canadian. I would suggest checking where they come from, because they might not have gone through the same inspection equivalency. That is shameful, but that is what free trade gives us.

Is that really what Canadians are asking for? In my constituency, the answer is a resounding no.

Workers get the message on free trade. They are either working for less than they did before or they do not have a job at all.

The Conservatives keep foisting this red-blue alliance on the workers of this country. The whole thrust is that free trade is good for them, when the evidence clearly demonstrates that it is not. They are worse off than they were in 1995. It is an abomination. I do not understand how anyone can stand up and try to tell us that things are better, when those of us who represent workers know that it is not true.

Why do we do this? I am not sure. I have sat on the international trade committee for the best part of a year, and I have yet to hear a compelling argument, unless we are talking about protecting the wealthiest folks in this country and allowing big corporations to do whatever they want. If that is the argument, fine. I understand that, because it works for them.

Free trade clearly works for large multinational corporations. It works for those who service them, like trade lawyers and accountants. Large corporations need a support system to keep them alive. Ultimately, those businesses are doing okay. But the workers inside those businesses are not doing well.

So in this whole sense of keeping on doing the same old, same old, one would have thought that after we got beat up on chapter 11 from a number of places we would want to strike that out. But, no, we keep leaving it in there, the old chapter 11 under NAFTA, not chapter 11 necessarily in this agreement, not the same chapter but basically the same deal. So we can have a company such as AbitibiBowater that sues us for 130 million bucks and we give it to them. Ultimately, that is what we end up with.

Let me just give folks some background about how I used to bargain agreements and what it means when we have a side deal. When the employer and the bargaining unit sit down, the reason they do a side deal is that they actually do not want folks to find it well. That is really what it is about. That is why we do a side deal, because if we were really serious about making sure it was important to us, it would be in the main body of the agreement. That is where the important stuff is, between the first page and the last page, not stuck on the back or stuck off to the side.

Yet, again, even though we had this debate with the free trade agreement between Colombia and Canada on the importance of these international agreements for the environment and with the international labour organizations about labour, as much as our entreaty to the government was that these were hugely important and they should be back in the centre of the agreement, what happened this time? They were off to the side again, with no sense that maybe it was really important and it could be put inside the agreement, built inside. Clearly they do not believe that they are important enough to include in the agreement.

I know some folks will say that it does not really matter because they are there. It does matter. That is why we do the things we do, that is why we include things in a certain order, that is why we have definitions, that is why we have collective bargaining, that is why we do collective agreements, or that is why we do contracts. Lawyers who do them will tell us that it is important where we place them.

What do we see inside the labour agreement? We actually see the ability of the corporation to get arbitration through the Patent Act. However, through the labour agreement, which is a side deal, if workers in Panama want to go to arbitration, they cannot. Think about that. As a worker in Panama, if one cannot get to arbitration, why not? It is a fundamental right, it seems. That is something that we ought to do. Yet we are still not encouraging them to follow through so workers can actually get to a place where they can perhaps seek some form of redress, some form of justice.

If that is the case, why would we not make sure that those side agreements on the environment and on labour are struck right in the middle? Fundamentally, why do we not just simply have a debate about trade? Maybe if we did that we might find some sort of an agreement, not just with the red-blue alliance but perhaps all the way through with a multicoloured approach.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Government Policies; the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, Offshore Drilling.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been up a couple of times and have gone on about the New Democrats always saying the same things. I do not want to always say the same things, but I will perhaps just make a comment.

One of the things in my riding of Crowfoot that has been always impressed upon me, especially in the agricultural sector, is that we do not want to rely just on a few countries. We especially understand this with beef. We understand it with many of our grains and oilseeds, and pulse crops as well. We cannot just rely on one big neighbour, one big country that is a trading partner with us. We have to continue to look beyond the United States, even beyond China, and attract business of some of these smaller countries.

Earlier, one of the NDP members asked why we were spending our time with small countries. The answer is that we want to build trade with every country. We want to build trade with these countries and have side agreements where we move them forward in environment and in labour.

In this bill we are going to see many advantages for Canadian farmers. Our free trade agreements are going to be put in place and will benefit Canadians, first and foremost. In terms of the pulse industry, for Saskatchewan, which used to be a hotbed of New Democratic Party members, this would open the market, big time, for pulse crops into Panama, as it would Colombia and others.

Again, I simply want to say that agriculture is critical to our economy. It gives us another opportunity to get some of our good products into Panama.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the member for Crowfoot says when it comes to agriculture. I live in the middle of the Niagara Peninsula and residents know all about agriculture, albeit a different kind. It is one of the greatest tender fruit growing places, I would say, in the world and what has happened? Free trade closed CanGro. Will there be canned peaches in this country anymore? No. Will there be canned pears? No.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

What about the wine industry?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the wine industry is doing remarkably well, but can people have peaches on their ice cream when all they grow is wine grapes? I guess that is the question I would ask the hon. member.

The bottom line is free trade took the cannery away. It is not that we could not grow the best peaches, pears or cherries in the world. We can do that. Free trade basically took that cannery away, the last one east of the Rocky Mountains. It is gone.

My friend from Crowfoot will understand, as he lives among farmers. I am not sure if he is a farmer himself, but he will know that when there is no market, it gets pulled out. That is what happened. The week after CanGro left, the peach trees were out of the ground, because they produce a canning peach, not a fresh peach.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, what does a farmer do? I agree that farmers need markets. The farmers in Niagara need markets and we need to find a way to do it, but it does not always mean that we can do it just through free trade. There are others way to do it and I would encourage the member to support that.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, looking at farmers and the effect that free trade has had on some of our farming sectors as was just pointed out, in British Columbia apple and cherry growers often cannot make ends meet because, as a result of free trade, there are subsidized apples and cherries coming in from Washington state. I am wondering whether there are going to be any ramifications for the farmers of Panama, for example.

I have some points before me with regard to the Canada-European free trade agreement. We see that this agreement will basically colonize Canada for the global corporations. Farmers' ability to save, reuse, exchange and sell seed will be destroyed. Dairy, poultry and egg supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board will be at risk. We see that using farm-saved seed could cost the farmer his or her farm, that this agreement with Europe will enable corporations to obtain the precautionary judicial seizure of infringing property, land, equipment and bank accounts for alleged violation of intellectual property rights. The agreement will prohibit subnational governments from giving local contracts.

Does my hon. colleague see this kind of negative spinoff effect on countries that we deal with, when we try to impose our free trade on them?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague who sits on the agriculture committee as the NDP agriculture critic does a wonderful job on behalf of farmers across this country.

Farm trade policies are probably one of the most difficult pieces of trade policy we can enter into because it is food. There is intrinsic value to that, obviously, because it is something we all need. Some of us may not need a car, but we certainly need to eat. So the policy becomes extremely difficult. What happens is that we do not have the ability to work back and forth. It is not just us in this country who make impediments; we see them across the world. When we develop those types of policies, there always seem to be winners and losers.

Ultimately, for some small countries, in the fact that we are larger than them, especially small countries such as Panama, et cetera, there is the potential for them to be a loser, just as we have been a loser in some of the free trade deals that have come at us from the bigger countries.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, what we see here is yet again the unmasking of the NDP's real agenda on the economy and trade. We sat here for dozens of hours listening to the NDP invent bogus facts about the supposed systematic human rights violations in Colombia.

I went down for the inauguration of the new president of Colombia last month in Bogota. The NDP has continually talked about assassinations of union leaders. I learned from the United Nations human rights representative in Colombia that most of the labour union assassinations were people such as local teacher union leaders assassinated by the FARC, the communist far-left guerrillas.

What this demonstrates is that the NDP was not really concerned about human rights in Colombia, because it is not raising human rights in one of the more relatively stable democracies of Central America, Panama. It is opposed to trade. The real question is this: why is it that the NDP refuses to raise the living standards of people in these developing countries who know that the best way forward to higher living standards is access to external markets?

Why is it that the NDP criticizes our dependence on the United States' export market but opposes every single effort to expand and diversify our export markets through additional trade agreements? Why?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his question. I did hear it and I appreciate his comments.

I said at the beginning that we were not opposed to free trade, if he wanted to talk about trade policy. We said, basically, that we do not believe in the model the government presents to us, which is a free trade model. There are other models of trade out there that we would be happy to sit down, investigate and discuss.

Clearly we understand we are a trading nation. We understand that we need to continue to trade. We are saying there are other ways to do it besides the free trade model, and we would like to explore them on this side of the House.

The government, in its wisdom, if we can call it that, has decided with its friends in the Liberal Party that the only model it wants to look at, the only model it would use for a template, is the free trade model constructed in 1988 by Brian Mulroney. That is the decision the government has made.

We are asking government members to bring forth some others that we have suggested and let us explore them. Why not do that? It seems to me that if this is a House that wants to make Parliament work and wants to cooperate, let them bring those forward and let us sit down as part of the trade committee and actually have a discussion about trade models. Why is it always assumed that the one model fits all situations and somehow it is good for all of us, all of the time? No one lives their life that way. There is not one of us in the House who does the same thing every day, all the time, always. We do not do that, but we seem to be struck in this rut when it comes to free trade.

I suggest that the government bring forward another model that we have suggested we might want to look at, and perhaps it will find an agreement from this side.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak to Bill C-46, the Canada-Panama bilateral free trade agreement.

We all know that in August 2009, the present government concluded negotiations with the Republic of Panama for a comprehensive free trade agreement designed to augment a previous agreement, the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, called FIPA, that was signed between the previous Chrétien Liberal government and the Panamanian government in 1998.

The agreement before the House for debate includes service trade liberalization, principles and government procurement provisions, as well as one of the government's favourite processes, which is to sign side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment. I will say that we New Democrats are proud to say that those two things ought to be in the main text of any agreement, not in a side part of any agreement.

On September 23 of this year, the minister tabled the implementing legislation, Bill C-46. It behooves us to review the four main components of this, which include: free market access in goods and services, and that includes government procurement; investment protection provisions; labour agreement sections; and then an agreement on the environment.

I hasten to point out that we in the New Democratic Party are all eager to support trade agreements that benefit a majority of Canadian workers, farmers, small businesses and consumers. We all want trade agreements that work to achieve the larger societal goals of economic justice, poverty alleviation, healthier communities, pollution reduction, human rights and a healthy environment.

Unfortunately, my review of this documentation and the facts that surround it lead me to conclude that the Panama free trade agreement does not meet these goals.

I will review a couple of general thoughts before I go into some of the details.

First, it is important to point out that this deal is not about trade. I hear many members on the other side of the House comment that if one opposes this deal, one must therefore be opposed to trade. That is simply a red herring and it is a strawman argument. That is not the case at all and anybody who has any intellectual honesty will recognize that at once.

Canada trades with many countries of the world. We trade all the time. We trade with Panama and have been for a long time. The statistics that we have covered many times in this House show that we have an annual trade allotment of about $140 million a year with Panama. That is a small amount, of course, but it shows that trade is going on between the two countries.

Trade goes on between Canada and many countries.

The issue before this House is one of to whom we should advance the preferential concept of free trade. Let us pause and just reflect for a moment about what free trade really means. Free trade means the mutual elimination of tariffs on goods and services between the two countries. It allows goods and services to flow across the border into each other's country with no duties whatsoever attached to them.

In my view and in the view of the New Democratic Party, we have to take a very considered and judicious approach when we consider to whom we should advance such a powerful and preferential concept as free trade. We should decide very carefully with whom we will have this relationship because, of course, these agreements do not operate in a vacuum. They do not operate in theory. They have tangible, practical effects that would actually affect the lives of Canadian businesses and consumers.

I want to talk a bit about why I personally oppose this agreement.

First, there is the concept of understanding Panama's current labour situation. This past July there were reports of a new wave of anti-union repression in Panama. This resulted in several workers killed, over 100 injured and over 300 trade unionists arrested, including leaders of the SUNTRACS and CONATO trade unions.

This followed the government of Panama's reaction to protests against new legislation that restricted the right to strike and freedom of association, and that sought to enact provisions that would lead to jail for up to two years for any workers who took their protests to the streets. I am going to pause here. That is a country which, this past summer, enacted legislation that said it would jail its own citizens if they protested a governmental action peacefully in its streets.

I have heard some talk about how Panama is an emerging democracy. I have not heard any member of the opposite side explain how a government that is pursuing legislation that jails its citizens for expressing their views in their communities is a country with which we should hasten to do business.

The fact that that happened while this negotiation was going on, I would argue, does not bode well toward thinking that any labour protection that is in this agreement would provide any real protection of labour rights in Panama, as it lacks any effective mechanism for enforcement and the Panamanian government, quite clearly, intends to ignore it. Despite what it may have said or paid lip service to, its actions this past summer certainly cause one to think that its actions may not be consistent with its words.

According to the OECD, Panama is an offshore banking centre and is considered one of the most notorious tax havens in the world. Nothing in this agreement deals with the tax haven or the lack of transparency issue. A NAFTA-style free trade agreement would broaden the effects of FIPA and increase the corporate incentive for tax evasion. It would also provide multinationals with additional tools and incentives to challenge Canadian regulations.

I am going to talk for a minute about why that might be important to us on a societal level as opposed to on a financial level.

I am the New Democrat critic for public safety. I am engaged in many discussions with all members of this House, but particularly with my hon. colleagues on the government's side, about the need to have safe communities. I have done a bit of research on this issue. I would like to share that with my colleagues in the House and I hope they will pay attention to what I am about to say.

I did some research through the Library of Parliament and found out that a study was done and it was published this year by Cornell University, not by a trade union group or a left-wing think tank. This is an academic study that was published by Cornell University. It quotes research which says that some 75% of all sophisticated drug trafficking operations use offshore secrecy havens. The studies also show that drug money, and not the Euro market, was the principal cause for the phenomenal growth of the Caribbean havens in the 1970s and 1980s.

The study says that it is evident to all who have studied the offshore banking business that the growth has been fueled by the phenomenal increase in cash from the U.S. drug trade. Of the criminal cases identified by IRS investigations, that is the Internal Revenue Service in the United States, from 1978 to 1983 that occurred in the Caribbean, where, I would point out, Panama is located, 45% involved illegal transactions derived from legal income, that is tax evasion and otherwise legitimate trade. In the other 55%, illegal income was involved and 161 cases dealt with drug traffic. Of those, 29% involved the Cayman Islands and 28% involved Panama.

The government, stands in this House every day and lectures everybody sanctimoniously about caring for communities and cracking down on drug trafficking, just proposed in this House a free trade agreement with a country that is the number two launderer of drug money in the Caribbean. I have not heard any member say anything about that. The government wants free trade with drug traffickers. Of course, anybody who reads the paper would have known that, because Manuel Noriega, the ex-president of that country, is still serving time in jail after being convicted of massive narco-crimes.

That is the country with which the government wants to hasten to sign a free trade agreement and says that we are just opposed to trade. No, we are not. I am opposed to trade with drug havens and tax evaders, where drug money from drugs sold on the streets of the United States and Canada ends up in Panama, gets laundered and sent back here, and the government wants to make it easier.

I read something else that I want to share with my hon. colleagues. I read what this agreement does. Under the investment transfer provisions of this free trade agreement, it specifically says that nothing should impede the transfer of funds, either into or out of each country, from investments covered by this agreement.

Therefore, money between Panama and Canada under this agreement would actually flow without any controls whatsoever. Has anybody considered that if we sign this agreement, we will be making it easier for drug money to flow between these two countries? Are there any facts I have stated that any member in the House would dispute? Do they dispute that Panama is a known tax haven? No. Do they dispute that drug and narco-traffic occurs in Panama and it is one of the major sources for that in the Caribbean? No, I do not hear that. Do they dispute Cornell University academic research? I would be interested to hear their arguments about that.

I also want to talk a little bit about agriculture because I heard some members opposite talk about how this agreement would be good for farmers. When I read this agreement, it states that Canada would not eliminate over-quota tariffs on supply managed goods such as dairy, poultry and eggs. Additionally, Canada would not eliminate its tariffs on certain sugar products. Therefore, when it comes to dairy, poultry and eggs, this agreement does not even deal with that issue.

Nothing in this agreement will affect tariffs between the two countries on those issues at all. It is a complete red herring to mention that this agreement has anything to do with increasing or improving the lives of farmers because the agreement does not cover it. It retains the tariffs. If members want to sign an agreement that removes tariffs, they can do that, but this one does not.

[An hon. member]

Not on supply management.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Not on dairy, poultry and eggs. Dairy, poultry and eggs, I might point out, are three of the major sources of income of many of the farmers across this country.

I also want to talk a little bit about free trade, the concept in general, and this is about the relative labour market. When we allow products to come from one economy into another, it behooves us as parliamentarians to ensure that our businesses and workers are competing on something like a level playing field.

The average wage in Panama is $2 an hour. If people are making goods and setting up businesses in Panama and they want to export products, the archetypical widget, into different countries, where would they set up that business? Would they set it up in Winnipeg, in Saskatoon, in Vancouver, in Toronto or in Kitchener where they might pay $15, $16 or $20 an hour, wages that Canadians need to raise a family, or will they set up that business in Panama where they pay $2 an hour?

I was in the private sector for 16 years working for a union and we dealt with hundreds and hundreds of private sector employers. I listened at bargaining tables many times as those business people explained their businesses. I will tell the House exactly where they will set up their business. They will set up their business in Panama. Something else those businesses would say to me, because they have said it to me many times, is that they cannot compete with businesses that are setting up and paying their workers $2 an hour.

I want to hear someone from the government explain how Canadian businesses, which are expected to pay living wages, workers compensation premiums, employment insurance premiums, private pension contributions and training costs, leaving their wage costs to be probably up around the $20, $30 or $40 an hour mark, sometimes more, will compete with Panamanian businesses if we allow products from Panama to come into our country tariff-free?

That is why New Democrats oppose this deal. It is not because we are opposed to trade. By all means, let us continue trading with Panama, but let us not give up the important social policy tool, the economic lever of putting tariffs at the border on certain goods that are coming in so that we can ensure that our Canadians businesses and our Canadian workers are competing on a level playing field, because that is all they want.

Canadian businesses and workers are some of the best in the world. We do not need preference. We do not need hand-outs. All they ask for and all we ask for is a level playing field or something similar to that.

My colleague in the Liberal Party said that if that were the case, we would never sign a trade deal with anybody because nobody pays those kinds of wages. Actually, many countries in the world do. All of the EU countries do. We should be looking to the many countries in South America that are bringing their standards up. We could also be looking at a phased in reduction of tariffs. As those countries start bringing up their labour standards, their wages and their environmental protection, we can start phasing down our tariffs.

There are many other mechanisms and policy levers that I refer to as “managed trade”. Some of my colleagues have called it “fair trade”. I believe those concepts are prudent, conservative, moderate and they give our economy time to absorb goods and services that come from very different economies. It also acts as an incentive to those other countries to raise those standards.

I want to talk briefly about what this agreement says about the environment. It says that both Canada and Panama would be required by this agreement to not weaken their environmental regulations. I have done a bit of research and the environmental legislation and regulations in Panama are, and I will charitably say, not world-setting. Its environmental standards are weak and all this agreement does is obligate it not to weaken them further. Does it require that country to improve its environmental regulation? No, but it could.

Under a New Democrat proposal, sitting at a trade table, that is exactly what we would do. We would sit down and say that we would talk about giving the country preferential access to our market on a number of conditions, and one of the conditions would be that it work with Canada and we would both commit to improve our environmental standards.

What kind of agreement asserts progress when it just says that we are not going to get any worse? That is not progress. That is the status quo. That is stagnancy.

One of the excuses the Canadian environment minister and the government uses for not implementing the Kyoto accord, or any of these numbers, is that they cannot do it unilaterally if the rest of the world does not do it. The government will not do it if China and India do not do it.

Why then does the government sign a trade agreement with a country that does not obligate that country to raise its environmental standards? One would think that would be the logical trade policy the government would take if in fact its rhetoric about not improving our environmental standards were true.

Coming from a prime minister who said that Kyoto was a socialist plot, I am not sure I believe the government has any real commitment to climate change amelioration, or any real attempt to improve the environment of this world.

I want to conclude by talking a little about Canadian businesses and what trade policy should consist of.

I come from Vancouver where we have a vibrant, healthy business sector with many small businesses that are actively engaged in trading goods and services around the world, primarily in Asia. I talk to these businesses on a weekly basis. They explain to me what their challenges, ideas and dreams are. What they want is managed trade. I do not have any business person coming to my office saying that he or she wants a complete tariff-free agreement with a country.

Tariffs have been around in this world for a long time. The reason they have is because they serve a purpose. Tariffs allow us to use policy levers to encourage good behaviour and punish bad behaviour. To sign an agreement in an organic world, a dynamic world, one would want to maintain those levers.

I encourage the government to utilize those levers for the kinds of issues and policies with which I think all Canadians agree. We want to improve the standard of living for Canadian workers and their families. We want to improve the business opportunities for Canadians, particularly the small and medium business sector so they can compete on the world stage. However, I want them to compete on a fair basis, not on one that is based on untrammelled access to our markets where we have to rely on the good graces of a country that has a poor record on just about every measure we can think of, and that is Panama.

I encourage all members of the House to think seriously about this agreement and to vote in a manner that encourages our workers and businesses to prosper on the world stage.

Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

Under provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Second Reading

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I will address some of the disappointing comments that the member from the NDP has raised not only about free trade with Panama, but also free trade in general. The NDP seems to always approach these issues as a zero sum game, that somehow by helping other countries it is to the detriment of Canadians. In fact, when countries work together, it benefits everyone. It is a non-zero sum, when the rising tide raises all boats.

The best economic choices that Canada can make is through free trade. This was demonstrated spectacularly with the free trade agreement with the United States, which the NDP opposes still to this day, in spite of everyone recognizing that it was good. The NDP also fails to recognize that not only do Canadians benefit by trading with countries like Panama, but the Panamanians benefit. The best social policy, the best foreign aid is to invest in countries like Panama to help those people improve their quality of life. The best environmental program, the best foundation for democracy is economic development. This is simply what the free trade agreements do around the world.

Will the NDP members recognize this is an ideological issue for them, that they do not support free trade with the United States, Panama or anyone else and it is harmful to the entire world? We would end up all poor if we follow the NDP philosophy.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my great disappointment that a minister who is responsible for democratic reform would not be concerned about or address his comments to the fact that this summer the Panamanian government proposed legislation that would jail citizens for protesting policies in the streets. That does not sound very democratic to me and it certainly is not consistent with what I think is the minister's mandate, which is to try to pay attention to improving the democratic conditions in our country and around the world. That is the point.

The minister talks about ideology. I have not heard a more ideological commentary than I just heard from him. The Conservative government has been pursuing what can only be described as an ideological approach to trade. It is not really interested in improving the lives of people in different countries. What it is interested in doing is signing free trade agreements with countries whose ideologies it supports.

I will quote the Prime Minister. This is from the prepared text of his speech when he was in Panama. He said, “You talked about the need, especially during these difficult times, to open doors to neighbours and allies”. The Prime Minister is the one who is seeking out trade agreement with allies. What does that have to do with establishing human rights? What does have to do with establishing trade agreements with countries if the real goal is to raise the living standards of people in those countries?

This is really about, and Canadians are not fooled, the Conservatives are picking countries to sign trade agreements with to bolster their ideological relations. That is why they picked Panama with a right-wing government. It is why they picked Colombia with a right-wing government. I do not see the government proposing a free trade agreement with Venezuela or Bolivia. Maybe it should look at that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the very first lesson we learn in economics is normative and positive and that the rule of economics is not to describe what should be, but only to describe what is. Yet whenever we stand in the House and describe what is, the Conservatives say that the New Democrats are spoilsports because we talk about the murders of union leaders, environmental devastation and the fact that Panama is one of the dodgiest drug havens on the planet. They tell us to believe in free trade and everything will be all right.

It is the Conservatives' blind faith, as G.K. Chesterton said, in the horrible mysticism of money. As long as money can travel around the planet, as long as capital gets what it wants, we are all supposed to believe that things will be better. However, we have said consistently, time and time again, that for a trade deal to work, we have to look at the effects of that trade deal and we have to look at whether it actually works on the ground. Economies should be about that. We should be looking at what really is, not what Conservatives think should be in their neo-con Milton Friedman flat earth society in which they live.

Having seen this group week after week, month after month, year after year with its failed ideology, how can it have the nerve to lecture anyone else about the economy? Could he comment on that?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

That was very astutely put, Mr. Speaker. Let us talk about accountability because this is a word that the government tends to use a lot, but I am not sure it knows the meaning of it.

The neo-liberal policies of the government, which were put in place by the Liberals in the early 1980s, has really been in place in North American for the last 25 years, for a generation. Therefore, let us take stock. Let us hold them accountable for those policies.

What has happened in 25 years. The gap in wealth distribution in Canada is wider, and that is a fact. The government does not like to talk about facts. It is more about ideology and argument, but check the facts. If any member on that side can tell me that I am wrong, show me the numbers. Statistics Canada and every reputable economic group will tell us that more people are poorer today than they were 25 years ago and the rich are richer.

Also, there is no question that the average industrial wage in 2008 was lower in per capita terms and lower in real terms than it was in 1980.

I worked for a trade union until 2008. I know what people made in 1992 and I know what they made in 2008. In some cases they made less money. In most cases, even with their minor increases in real terms, Canadian workers are worse off today. To boot, and this is the third factor, most Canadians in 2008 worked more.

We work longer, for less pay and the distribution of wealth in the country is worse. That is the record of 25 years of neo-liberal economics.What I have heard today from the government was said 25 years ago. It did not work then and it does not work now. Let us hold the government accountable.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the NDP talk about free trade, and I appreciate the intervention by my hon. colleague. This the reality, and it is quite simple. That party has never supported a trade agreement. Free trade, fair trade, it all means no trade to the NDP members. They are not interested in jobs and opportunities for Canadians. They are not interested in raising the standard of living for their fellow Canadians. They are interested in keeping everyone in poverty and in the dark. That way those members get a host of people who actually believe that misinformed and ill-informed rhetoric. The only thing worse than the misinformation and the rhetoric is the condescension and the patronizing tone that delivers it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the lowest form of argument is an ad hominem attack, where all the member does is use rhetoric and attack the other member and characterize the argument, instead of using facts and figures to show where the debate does not make sense.

I did not hear one fact in the hon. member's comments to dispute a single thing I said.

I would like Canadians to hear that intervention and hear the intervention of my speech and determine which party really sounds like it is trying to take a back faced logical approach to this trade agreement. I hope the members take a more thorough, sober and realistic view of the facts than he just did.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, who have held a very important debate in the House of Commons and have spoken very eloquently on many of the trade issues we have with these very difficult countries the Conservative Party has chosen, in its wisdom, to work with.

Once again we have another free trade agreement on the discredited NAFTA model of trade and investment that enshrines investors' rights over democratic processes. The country, of course, is Panama, a real model of progressive and enlightened government.

In a February 2009 letter to U.S. President Obama, 55 members of the House of Representatives warned of the danger of getting into a free trade agreement with Panama. The representatives said:

We also believe that Panama is not an appropriate U.S. FTA partner. A Government Accountability Office study identified Panama as one of only eight countries—and the only current or prospective FTA partner— that was listed on all of the major tax-haven watchdog lists. Panama has long been the key target of both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and other tax transparency entities for its resistance to international norms in combating tax evasion and money laundering. Indeed, Panama is one of few countries that has refused to sign any tax information exchange treaties.

The representatives go on to say that they support designating Panama an offshore secrecy jurisdiction under U.S. law, which would place restrictions on the use of this country by American corporations as a way of avoiding taxes. The representatives end their comments by pointing out that Panama is one of the top locations in the world used by multinational corporations to avoid taxes.

This agreement would make it easier for a Canadian company to avoid taxes by simply setting up a shell company in Panama. I am sure that the Prime Minister's business friends give two thumbs up to this type of arrangement so that they can quickly move into these types of tax havens. Let us allow the rich to avoid paying their fair share of the taxes in this country. Why not?

What else is Panama well known for? It is the second most important country for flags of convenience. Panama does not pay attention to the importance of maintaining secure and proper ships around the world. Instead, it allows companies to register their ships, which may or may not be rust-bucket, single-hulled oil tankers that are a danger. Panama has a habit of doing things that are not in the interests of the civilized world but are in the interests of the corrupt side of the corporate world.

What is the government thinking by getting into bed with this type of government at this point in time? We should be reaching out for fair trade agreements with South American countries that want to build better lives for their people. We should be supporting that kind of effort.

Most South American countries would not get along with the kind of agreement being proposed here. Most countries in South America want control of their own resources. They want to build their own states. They are a little tired and turned off by 30 years of imperialism on the economic front throughout South America, which quite clearly has led, in many countries, to democratically elected governments that are now saying that they want their right to control their resources and economies. They want to make the right moves so that their people can move ahead. That is the nature of the South American movement.

It is quite clear, when we talk about getting into arrangements with larger countries in South America, that they are not interested in these types of free trade arrangements. They want to protect their people and build their countries, as we should be doing.

Today in the Calgary Herald, Premier Brad Wall talks about the Potash Corporation takeover. He is starting to realize what we told him months ago, which is that this deal is not what it is made out to be, that when we give up control of a resource to a huge multinational corporation, it has the ability to transfer taxes out of this country. Mr. Wall said:

We don't have the final estimates yet, but there's a real risk in terms of a substantial, potential decrease in corporate income taxes. We will balance the desire that we have for a positive investment climate with also the need to think long term.

What good words from the premier of Saskatchewan. How does that fit together with what is going on in this investment deal with a major tax haven in the world?

Perhaps we are on the right track looking for a hoist motion on this particular free trade agreement. Perhaps the world is changing. Perhaps there is a consciousness developing among other parts of our political society. Perhaps people are beginning to realize that the free trade arrangements they have counted on as a panacea for our development are not as good as what they thought they were going to be.

When we postponed moving this free trade agreement forward, just as we worked so hard to forestall the free trade agreement with Colombia, we are trying our best for Canada. We are trying our best to move past the type of thinking that characterized the eighties and nineties and to move toward the type of thinking that most resource rich countries are now taking toward their resources.

Canada is the only energy-exporting country in the world without a national presence in its own energy field, in its own oil and gas industry. This is just another example of where we are as a country in terms of where the rest of the world thinks it has to go. Bright, intelligent people around the world know, in this day and age of declining resources, the importance of holding onto those resources. That does not speak well for free trade agreements that have been the dominant ideology for so long in this country.

In 1991, Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, and Uruguay negotiated a regional trade agreement. They wanted a common market in South America. They wanted to work together in that region. Why are we not supporting that effort? Why are we not reaching out to those countries under the conditions they want to put forward and that they see as important? These are bigger markets.

The Mercosur pact represents 270 million people. It is a massive market, but we have to go to that market on its terms. Those countries have made that part of their development. Cleverly and carefully, those countries have created their own ideas about trade. If we want to participate with them, we have to do so through their own ideology.

The NDP works hard in the House to stand up for Canada, to stand up for things that we see as important for our economy. I respect what the Conservatives have tried to say. I wish they would respect our point of view as well and recognize that the world is changing and that we must adapt to that change.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in listening to my NDP colleagues talk about trade, but I am never quite sure what they are arguing about the economics of it.

Is my colleague arguing that the Panama trade deal will be bad for Canada's economy, or is he arguing that the trade deal will be bad for Panama's economy?

If he is arguing that the agreement would be bad for the economy of Canada but Panama would gain from it, then it would be good for Panama's development as a third world country. If he is arguing that Canada would gain from it, why does he think I should vote against the economic interests of my constituents, since agriculture will be the predominant beneficiary of the reduced Panamanian tariffs, thereby permitting better access and more competitiveness for Canadian agricultural products?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that this agreement would play in the direction Panama has already established for its economy, which is that of a state that promotes quasi-legal and illegal activities under the guise of its tax laws and shelters and the way it treats many of the issues in front of it.

What Canada is doing with this agreement, really, is playing into an illegal operation in Panama. That is unfortunate.

If the hon. member thinks that the role of the Canadian government is to continue to foster the development of these illegal and improper activities in world markets, he should be fine with this agreement.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as members will recall from my participation in the debate yesterday, one of the big concerns I have about this free trade agreement is that labour rights, in fact, are part of a side agreement only.

Earlier today I heard members of the government side say that this is all right; a side agreement is still part of this free trade deal, so all is well.

In fact, all is not well. First of all, the side agreement is completely inadequate, because it simply asks governments to acknowledge the labour laws in their own countries. Under those labour laws, we know that just this last summer there was more anti-labour repression in Panama during which workers were killed, 100 were injured, and 300 more were arrested. Clearly, Panama's labour laws are not up to either Canadian standards or international standards.

The big problem with side agreements has been demonstrated in a different kind of labour context. In my own hometown of Hamilton, Local 1005 of the Steelworkers had a side agreement with a company, which they thought the company would honour, in much the same way the government has faith that its side agreements will be honoured. In that side agreement, cost of living increases were guaranteed to pensioners, steelworkers, who had worked hard all of their lives, had bargained pensions, and were counting on those cost of living increases to make ends meet.

However, the company decided unilaterally that since it was only a side agreement, it would ignore those obligations. Pensioners now are not getting the cost of living increases.

I want to ask the hon. member for Western Arctic whether he agrees with the government that side agreements are good enough to protect workers' interests or whether those side agreements are not worth the paper they are written on.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, coming from a region of the country that relies on the federal government to set the deals for resource extraction in my region, I know perfectly well how difficult it is to achieve results, whether they come from side deals or are straightforward.

In many cases, it is simply that money talks. The deal works out in this fashion: people who do not have the advantage lose out. To me it is clear that what one has to look at is the good intent of the government one is dealing with, whether one is talking about one deal or another.

It really comes down to the track record of the government one is dealing with. What is the best indicator of future performance? It is past performance.

What we see in Panama is a past performance that is pretty straightforward. What will future performance be? It will be somewhat similar.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise as well to speak in favour of the hoist motion, specifically because of the extremely inadequate side agreement on the environment.

We went through this whole dialogue on the free trade agreement with Colombia and yet again we are having the same inadequate documents tabled before this House. Since the serious issues raised about both the side agreements on labour and environment that were held in this House, there has been not one second of public dialogue or debate on what direction we want to go in our trade agreements with other countries.

Quite some time back, when Canada entered into the NAFTA, the three countries decided that they would not, at that time, incorporate labour and environmental considerations into the text of the binding trade agreement. Since that time, a number of governments, including the U.S. in the last U.S. election, and some Canadians have raised the bar and said that maybe it is time to revisit that, that if countries are going to claim that environment is as significant as development, maybe they better step up to the plate and actually put them on par in the balance.

I have taken the time to look at the side environmental agreement and I have to say that it is beyond shameful.

This place actually brought forward a trade agreement with the United States and Mexico but it has a lot of problems. The environmental provisions should have been incorporated into the NAFTA or at least within the side agreement, which is called the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. This was an effort to create a genuine independent body with a budget and with some senior leadership that y would further the dialogue with the trade partners to try to incorporate environment into trade.

We have seen in the trade agreements that the government has brought forward that it absolutely does not believe the words when it stands in the House and says, “We must balance environment and development”. Nothing is clearer to this House than this free trade agreement that the government has tabled before this House. It has told us clearly how significant it thinks environmental factors are in trade and development.

As I have mentioned, there is significant downgrading from the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, simply in the structure. Under the North American agreement, there is a council of the environment ministers of the three countries. In the Panama agreement, it is a committee of representatives. Who are they? Are they lower echelon bureaucrats? We do not know yet. We can guess who they will be because we have seen what has happened in Colombia. There is no full-time commission, no budget and no independent secretariat. Who is going to lead this so-called dialogue with the public? If the public requests that there be a dialogue on some of the environmental implications of this trade agreement, who will lead this topic?

We know that in our country it is a time of restraint. Are we to believe that Panama has surplus dollars, that its government can come up with the millions of dollars necessary to further these open dialogues on the environmental implications of trade and development?

There is no joint public advisory council. In the North American side agreement, it created a public advisory council and appointed people from industry, public interest groups and trade unions to the council of ministers. So much for participation and so much for the Conservative Party grassroots governance. There is no joint public advisory committee and no national advisory committee to our government on our relations with Panama under this agreement. Unlike the deal with the United States and Mexico, there is no duty to hold public meetings with the committee. Everything is behind closed doors.

The main argument for bringing forward the side agreement on environment in the NAFTA was that we needed to ensure that none of the partners in these trade agreements watered down their environmental laws to have an economic advantage. That is the whole purpose of incorporating environment and trade.

In this agreement, the word “enforcement” does not even exist. The government has taken out entire parts of the side agreement. Missing from this agreement is the obligation on the parties to ensure effective enforcement of their environmental laws. It is not in this side agreement.

In the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, there is an entire framework of how we deliver effective environmental enforcement. That framework has been endorsed by the World Bank , the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Circumpolar Institute on Environmental Law and the International Network on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement which our government belongs to.

In the Panama agreement, it has been replaced with two pathetic provisions. The government has pulled out of this framework at least 15 factors that are necessary for a country to have effective environmental enforcement and, instead, we have that the parties will encourage voluntary best practices of corporate social responsibility. It would be up to the corporations to decide if we are going to care about environment in Canada and Panama from now on.

Second, we have that the countries will promote voluntary-based measures. That is absolutely reprehensible. There are no investigative powers. One of the most important aspects of the North American agreement is the power of the secretariat to look into allegations of failed enforcement. There is no investigative power and no right of the citizens of either country to raise concerns and ask for an investigation.

There is also no article, which is in the North American side agreement, where the countries hold each of the signatories accountable for an ongoing pattern of failure to enforce environmental law. That is absolutely critical to the credibility of any fair trade agreement.

Perhaps it is understandable that the government would be fearful of committing to a process where it could be held accountable for effective environmental enforcement when, almost daily, it is being taken to court for the failure to enforce its laws. Just a few weeks ago, we had two first nations and two national organizations, for the fifth time, suing the Minister of the Environment for failure to comply with his own legislation on endangered species. I cannot even begin to count the number of cases brought by citizens against the federal government for failure to comply with the federal Environmental Assessment Act.

It is the same with public participation. All the strong measures in the North American side agreement are missing. We have the nice preamble but nothing is binding. The government has essentially eviscerated any kind of commitment to environmental protection in trade through this agreement. What is worse is that it has not taken a progressive forward-looking measure but has taken these measures and incorporated them into the body of the trade agreement.

I need say no more. The government has clearly stated its position. It does not believe that environment is part of trade and development.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 5:30, the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from September 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada-Panama Free Trade Act

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-46, particularly about the amendment proposed by an NDP member.

To begin with, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois will support this amendment because it means that debate about the bill will be delayed, potentially killing it. We are against this bill, and we said that during the first debate.

It is important to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois opposes this bill mainly because Panama is a tax haven, a country that promotes tax evasion. It is unbelievable that the Conservative government, supported by the Liberals, wants to conclude an agreement and adopt a bill to implement that agreement with a country that promotes tax evasion, when we have seen over the past two or three weeks that rather significant capital belonging to Canadians had been transferred to the HSBC Bank in Switzerland. In essence, this constitutes a form of tax evasion. The government tells us that it has started recovering some of the money, but it is a double standard. On one hand, it says it wants to recoup this money but it is not going to great lengths to do so, and on the other hand, it wants to conclude a trade agreement with Panama, a country that openly promotes tax evasion and is on the OECD grey list of tax havens.

France, among other countries, has taken very serious measures to fight tax evasion. French parliamentarians believe that this type of tax evasion absolutely must stop. They have taken measures to impose more taxes on companies that want to set up in known tax havens. France has established a black list, which was published in February 2010. It includes a number of Latin American and Asian countries, Anguilla in the Caribbean, Belize in Central America, Brunei in Asia, Costa Rica in Central America, Dominica and Grenada in the Caribbean, Guatemala in Central America, the Cook Islands and the Marshall Islands in Oceania, Liberia in Africa, Montserrat in the Caribbean, Nauru and Niue in Oceania, Panama in Central America, the Philippines in Asia, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines in the Caribbean. Panama is clearly on the black list of countries that promote tax evasion.

In Canada, we have a government that wants to promote trade with a country that has been blacklisted by other countries for promoting tax evasion.

We are short on money, and the government says we have a massive deficit. And yet it wants to negotiate and sign agreements with countries that promote tax evasion. These agreements will favour businesses and individuals that invest in these countries in order to pay less in taxes. That makes no sense, and is a complete contradiction.

The Bloc Québécois is not against free trade agreements. On the contrary. We have often said this. The Bloc Québécois was the first party to introduce the idea of an agreement with the European Union. We were in favour of a free trade agreement with the European Union, and these negotiations are now under way. We are absolutely not against trade agreements. Take NAFTA, for example, which Quebec fully supported.

What we are saying is that we must take advantage of the globalization of markets to try to level the playing field with trade regulations, to ensure they are fair for workers in other countries and workers here, for the different companies and for the environment. We must ensure that free trade agreements are not signed at the expense of the people of another country, of their environment or ours. We must look at the measures beforehand, instead of rushing to sign agreements, which only leads to serious repercussions in terms of the environment and labour rights. It is quite possible that these agreements would be better negotiated from a multilateral perspective.

What we are saying is that yes, we must be open to trade, but not just any old way. We believe that in order for trade to be mutually beneficial, it must first be fair. A trading system that results in exploitation in poor countries and dumping in rich countries is not viable. There is a downside, as I just mentioned. The Bloc Québécois will never tolerate a system of free trade that would result in a race to the bottom. We worry that an agreement like the free trade agreement with Panama will result in a race to the bottom.

The absence of environmental or labour standards in trade agreements puts a great deal of pressure on our industries, especially our traditional industries. It is very difficult for them to compete with products made with no regard for basic social rights. The Bloc Québécois believes that child labour, forced labour and the denial of workers' fundamental rights are a form of unfair competition, just like, or even more than, export subsidies and dumping. Prohibition of these practices is widely accepted at the international level, as reflected by the large number of countries that have signed the International Labour Organization's eight fundamental conventions. We must have a way to protect ourselves against such practices. We need an overall vision, a policy geared more to multilateral than bilateral agreements.

Trade agreements and trade laws do not protect our businesses and our workers from this social dumping. If a country wants to benefit from free trade, in return it has to accept a certain number of basic rules, with regard to social rights in particular. Environmental organizations and human rights groups have been concerned about this issue for a long time. More recently, though, it has become a major economic issue. Quebec has proportionally more industries threatened by competition from Asia than the rest of Canada. Quebec is at the forefront of this debate.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois is urging the federal government to revise its positions in trade negotiations in order to ensure that trade agreements include clauses ensuring compliance with international labour standards as well as respect for human rights and the environment. In their current form, side agreements on minimum labour standards and environmental protection lack a binding mechanism that would make them truly effective. The Bloc Québécois believes that if Canada wants to have credibility on this front, it should immediately sign on to the International Labour Organization's fundamental conventions against various forms of discrimination, forced labour and child labour, as well as those in support of the right to organize and collective bargaining.

Once again, we will support the amendment put forward by the NDP so that, ideally, this bill will eventually be withdrawn.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning I want to make a Hansard correction on behalf of the member regarding Bill C-46 because in his black list of countries with tax haven status he had mentioned the Dominican Republic, but he had meant to say Dominica, so I want to correct that on his behalf.

I think it is very interesting on the difference in approach on the issue of tax havens between France and Germany vis-à-vis the Canadian Prime Minister.

In France, the French government drew up its list of tax haven countries and it was very proactive. It applied taxes against these companies that do business in Panama. It taxed their dividends, service fees, royalties and interest paid.

What does the Canadian government do? Exactly the opposite. It waits until an employee of a Swiss bank turns over bank records to the French government and now we have the Prime Minister going cap in hand to Switzerland to talk to the Swiss finance minister about getting more information from Switzerland.

Revenue Canada has been given the list of these Canadians who have been investing in the tax havens, and guess what Revenue Canada does? It gives them an amnesty. There is a totally different approach. We have a very soft approach whereas the Germans and the French have a very tough approach.

I would like to ask the member--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Saint-Maurice--Champlain.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for asking the question. And he is quite right to suggest the Hansard correction regarding what I said earlier. I said the Dominican Republic was on the black list, but I meant to say Dominica. I will make sure that is corrected, right after my speech.

My colleague is quite right. It is very strange that this government is promoting tax evasion by trying to pass this bill to enter into a free trade agreement with a country that is on France's black list and on the OECD's grey list of tax havens.

It is a complete contradiction for the government to say it will address a few of those issues with Switzerland. Why this double standard? We simply do not understand. That is why we completely oppose a free trade agreement with Panama. I mentioned several countries that are on black lists or grey lists, so what country will be next, after Panama?

Does the government have a policy on free trade, or is its policy to encourage as many free trade agreements as possible with tax havens? We cannot help but wonder.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, my follow-up question for the member is this. After France put Panama on the black list, guess what happened? Panama signed a tax avoidance treaty. After Panama signed with France, it now has eight signed agreements.

Where is Canada in all of this? Canada is pushing ahead with a free trade agreement and it is not even one of the eight countries that Panama signed a tax avoidance agreement with.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, the member is quite right. France is very advanced in that regard and we have to wonder why Canada, which also wants to enter into free trade agreements, is not equally forward thinking. It must be consistent and not invest in tax havens, on the one hand, and not invest in other countries that do the same thing, on the other hand, or enter into free trade agreements with them. It makes no sense.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I am pleased to be speaking about Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama. I am also pleased to be speaking after my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who does such excellent work on the Standing Committee on International Trade.

First of all, it is never easy to keep track of the Conservatives because they go off in all directions, which is why they got such a bad grade at the UN. That is part of the problem. They are not focused enough, they cast too wide a net and they are not building a solid base. The result is inevitable. And we can see it in the agreements that this government is signing.

To begin with, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois does not support Bill C-46 concerning the implementation of a free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

Yes, Panama is one of the most developed economies in Central America, but the Bloc Québécois cannot ratify a free trade agreement with this country as long as it is on the OECD's grey list of tax havens. This is very important.

We know that the citizens who are listening to us work very hard and pay their taxes. Some of them are retired and continue to pay taxes. We often forget that. The economic situation is not easy, which means that we cannot revitalize our economy. This is the whirlwind that the Conservative Party got sucked into because it decided to forgo a traditional economy. This is a choice that the Conservatives made, notably by not supporting investments and the forestry industry.

In recent budgets, the Conservatives invested more than $10 billion in the automotive sector, but barely $200 million in the forestry industry, which is nevertheless Canada's primary industry. Without forestry, the development and industrialization of the past 50 years would not have taken place. Unfortunately, the decision to not support one segment of our traditional economy forces us to attempt to open markets in other economies. That is what the Conservative Party is trying to do by signing agreements with other countries. In this case, it is Panama. However, this country is on the OECD grey list of tax havens.

The Conservatives' message is that we can do business with tax havens and that we will avoid paying taxes in Canada, all the while hoping that our companies will create jobs here. However, we are increasingly seeing the good jobs leaving Canada, right under the Conservative Party's nose.

We must examine what the Conservatives have been doggedly working on: destroying the traditional economy, including the forestry sector. They have attacked it repeatedly. I am saying this because the forestry crisis started well before the banking crisis of the past two years. The forestry crisis started five years ago and businesses had sounded the alarm well before that.

The Conservatives decided to take other action rather than helping the forestry industry. This inevitably led to lower family income. There are fewer high-quality jobs and this affects our retirees and seniors, who must make an additional effort and continue to pay taxes year after year. There is no possibility of indexing the assistance that could benefit or be available to them, or the very basis for retirement income. The increase in old age security is negligible and does not even pay for a coffee.

The Conservatives decided not to invest to protect our traditional jobs in forestry and other industries, and they are shifting the tax burden to seniors and retirees. This is a choice the Conservatives are making, and the Bloc Québécois is not fooled.

The Conservatives are trying to get good press, with the Liberals' help. We must not forget that the Liberals supported the last two budgets. They let them pass by sitting down and not voting. That is how the Liberals do things. They have no backbone. We know them, and we have known for a long time that that is how they are. They have given moral support to the Conservatives as they shift from a traditional resource-based economy to a capital development economy. They have chosen to have huge mining companies that are going to invest in foreign countries and hire foreign workers.

That is not what the Bloc Québécois would have chosen to do, and it is not what the Bloc Québécois has always stood up for. We want to keep our jobs and our money in Quebec and the rest of Canada. If we can help Canadians by standing up for Quebeckers, then so much the better. That is what we do every day in the House. We have to prevent the Conservatives from continuing to damage the traditional economy, and one way to do that is to stand up against this free trade agreement with Panama, a country that is on the OECD grey list of tax havens, as I have said many times.

Today, here in the House of Commons, we were treated to quite a sight during question period: the Bloc Québécois members were asking the minister in charge about the cases of tax evasion involving the HSBC bank that were discovered by the French. Capital was being held in Switzerland and other countries by people from different countries who were evading tax. The government likes to brag about recovering money, but it is dead-set against prison terms for individuals who defraud the people of this country in this way.

That is unacceptable. Our constituents work too hard, or have worked too hard, if they are retired. Yet today we learned in the news that the French discovered that Canadians were evading taxes. We learned this through the news. It took a report from the CBC for this government to wake up. In fact, it had not decided to investigate Canadians who were evading taxes by putting their money in Swiss accounts. The Conservative government realized that it had no political choice, since it is a minority government, and could be defeated any day. As soon as there is a crisis on the horizon, the Conservatives try to put out the fire. That is what they did by trying to recover the money, but they forgot that tax evasion by a citizen is a violation of the Criminal Code.

Someone who is accused of stealing a litre of milk from the corner store must pay for the milk and face criminal charges. So I do not see how someone who diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars from Canadian tax authorities could simply walk away by writing a cheque and facing no criminal consequences.

That is how the Conservatives work. They are trying to destroy the traditional economy, as they did with the forestry sector, and open up new markets with tax havens like Panama. We have never supported that; we will not support it today; and we never will. We will always be against the way the Conservatives, supported by the Liberals, choose to govern by taking away from the poor to give to the rich.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his comments today.

The fact of the matter is that France did show some leadership with regard to chasing people who are investing in tax havens. First, it compiled a list of the tax havens. I think it was 17 or 18 countries, and then it proactively levied a tax of 50% on dividends, interests, royalties and service fees paid to anyone based in France to a beneficiary based in countries on its black list, which included Panama. That is what France did.

Guess what? In short order, what did Panama do? It lined up and signed a double taxation avoidance treaty with France. As of now it has eight signed treaties. That is an example of a country that was proactive and got results on tax havens.

What does Canada do? It waits until it gets some tax information from a former employee of the HSBC and it offers them amnesty if anybody wants to come forward and confess their sins. Then we have the Prime Minister going cap in hand to Switzerland to beg the prime minister of Switzerland to help out.

That is a totally different approach than what the French and the Germans have done. Those two countries know what to do in this situation because they are getting results.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite right, especially since Canada is headed for a record deficit of more than $54 billion. The men and women who are watching us, the workers and the retirees, have no hope that there will be a change in their personal situation in terms of the income the government provides, whether it is old age security or employment insurance, to those who need it.

It is even more frustrating when a political party, the Conservative government supported by the Liberals, decides that it will not ask the rich to pay their fair share, while those who suffer the most have no hope of seeing their income rise. They could at least have decided to take from the rich, who have been spared through tax avoidance measures, and improve support for seniors, the unemployed and those without work. That will never happen with this Conservative government supported by the Liberals. Never.

We have to fight hard against free trade agreements such as the one the Conservative government is about to sign with Panama, a country on the OECD grey list of tax havens.

My NDP colleague is right. I hope he will vote with us against this bill.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his intervention in regard to this bill. We heard his comments in regard to the tax haven that Panama offers. Canadians are incensed by the fact that there are those who defraud the rest of us when they refuse to pay their taxes.

I wanted to ask him about the labour side deals. I have been looking at this agreement and there is, of course, a labour side deal. Unfortunately, it does not protect the men and women who work in this country or in Panama. Without real teeth in labour negotiations and deals, workers both here and in Panama are lost. They are going to be as victimized as the rest of Canadians who will never see those tax fraud artists brought to justice.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. As I was telling her, it is even more unfortunate given that the Conservative government, supported by the Liberals, is trying to establish a new economy. It is trying to sell it to us as economic development. However, an entire sector of our traditional industry—I am referring to the forestry industry—has been left to fend for itself. I have trouble understanding that. I can understand that the Conservatives are trying to play politics with this, but I hope that the people will not be deceived.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-46 today. It is certainly a bill I have been looking forward to speaking to for the last little while.

I enjoyed the two previous speakers. Certainly, the Bloc has put a lot of effort into dealing with the issue of tax havens. Clearly, that is a very important point to which we should have been paying attention in this country for many years already. It is extremely unfair to have corporations and individuals essentially hiding their money in foreign tax havens, basically to save taxes, but it is essentially robbing Canadian taxpayers and stealing from the Canadian public.

The tax dollars that are collected by the government are used to build infrastructure and provide services in this country. A lot of tax haven participants are people who take full advantage of our roads and medical system. Yet, they insist upon putting half a million dollars in a Swiss bank to try to hide income.

It is good to see that after all these years, at least two countries, France and Germany, are actually doing something about it. However, it took them forever, too, to get the ball rolling, and by the way, it had more to do with actually two disgruntled bank employees. The first bank employee worked for a Liechtenstein bank and when he left, he took his computer diskettes and actually sold them to the German government. The German government have chased down the German tax evaders and collected. I am not sure whether it is half a billion dollars, but quite a bit of money in back taxes.

The German government gave the information to the Canadian authorities two years ago. A small number of Canadians were involved, most of whom are from the beautiful province of British Columbia. Guess what? Revenue Canada offered an amnesty to these people. Why would we need an amnesty if we had the names of the tax evaders? I assume they are offering the amnesty because they want people to voluntarily walk in and declare their undeclared income.

Since then, another employee from the HSBC in Switzerland went on the run to France and he too carried a lot of information on maybe 5,000 taxpayers. I believe 160 of them are in Canada and their names have been turned over to Revenue Canada.

Now we have the Prime Minister going to Switzerland this week to talk to the Swiss prime minister to try to get more compliance from Switzerland. The French government did. The French government collected a list of, I believe, 18 tax havens around the world and decided to be proactive. Unlike Canada, which is totally reactive and acts as though we are surprised when something happens. We wish it would not happen because it causes us some inconvenience. The French government levied a tax of 50% proactively on dividends, interest, royalties and service fees paid by anyone based in France to a beneficiary based in the countries on its black list, which in this case included Panama.

Once this happened, it did not take long before some of the 350,000 corporations that are hiding assets in Panama, the French participants of the 350,000, started to get concerned and put pressure on Panama. They will have to take their money out of Panama. In view of that, the Panamanian government simply went cap in hand to France and asked to be removed from the list because it is bad for business, and Panama agreed to sign the taxation avoidance treaty with France.

It signed the double taxation avoidance treaty with France and now there are eight countries that have negotiated tax agreements with Panama.

However, it was not done by coercion. France did it by getting tough on Panama. It got it by taxing its own corporations who were actively doing business in Panama. That is how France got results.

Panama ratified its agreement with Mexico on June 21. I believe the agreement with Barbados is being signed. It has also reached agreements with Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Qatar and Spain, but that is it.

Did we see Canada on this list? Absolutely not. What is Canada doing that the other countries are not doing? Canada is going further. Canada has a free trade deal. Canada is proposing ratification and implementation of a free trade deal with the very country that is a haven for some of our taxpayers. This is a perfect opportunity to follow in France's footsteps and these other eight countries, and demand that before we implement anything, before we pass anything in the House, that we get Panama's agreement on these taxation avoidance treaties.

Once we implement the agreement, once we pass it through the House, what is the incentive for Panama to do anything? There is absolutely none.

We should be proactive as the French were, as the Germans were. When the Prime Minister gets back from Switzerland talking to the Swiss prime minister should get on a plane and visit the Panamanian president, and demand that he sign the double taxation avoidance treaty with Canada, so that we can be number nine. Only when he has done that, then we should be looking at proceeding further, but not putting the cart in front of the horse which is what we are doing.

This is a government that talks about being tough on crime. The government is soft on crime.

We have mentioned many times that the number of white collar criminals put in jail in the United States is 1,200. The number in Canada is one, two convictions both against the same person.

The Americans feel their system is not tough enough and they want to get tougher. They are recalibrating, recalculating and reregulating the whole financial services industry.

Let us look at what the United States is doing in this case. The United States is dealing with a Panama treaty as well. Guess what? Fifty-four congressmen have demanded that President Obama forgo the agreement with Panama until Panama signs the tax information exchange treaties, so we have activity going on there.

I do not know if anyone has mentioned the situation with AIG. AIG, the House will recall, received huge bailout money from the American taxpayers only two years ago. Guess what? It is one of the 350,000 foreign registered companies operating in Panama and it is suing U.S. authorities right now to keep, I believe, $306 million in back taxes that it wants to hold back on because it has been using the Panamanian tax haven. Is that not sweet? The taxpayers bailed it out in its time of need with huge amounts of money. The next year it turned around and rewarded itself by giving employees huge bonuses and now it is suing the taxpayers to keep its ill-gotten gains through tax havens like Panama.

These are the types of companies that we are dealing with. We have to get tough with them. It is about time the Prime Minister started doing something, rather than just pretending that he is tough on crime. He is soft on white collar crime.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could expand on his discussion in regard to the tax haven and the fact that companies and individuals are dumping money in tax havens.

I wonder if he could also address to what is happening to union workers on the ground. I note that in July there was a new wave of anti-union repression in Panama, resulting in several workers being killed. Over 100 were injured and 300 arrested, including the leaders of SUNTRACS and the CONATO trade union.

My colleague has a great interest in the rights of workers in Canada and abroad. I would like to hear his thoughts in regard to this kind of overt violence against men and women who are simply seeking fair compensation for their work or the ability, I think more accurately, to fend for themselves and their families.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. There has been a new wave of anti-union repression in Panama. This is hardly a good time to be implementing a free trade deal when a situation like that is developing in that country. Several workers were killed. Over 100 were injured and over 300 were arrested, including leaders of the trade unions.

We are considering this at a time when trade with Panama is actually very small. We only have $132 million in trade with Panama. Even if we were not to proceed with a free trade deal, this trade would not go away. There has been some suggestion on the part of the government that somehow if we do not sign a free trade deal with Panama or any other country that we will stop trading with them. That is not going to happen. There has been trade with Panama for many years and we will continue to trade with Panama for many years with or without the free trade deal.

Let us not put the cart in front of the horse. Let us get the tax avoidance agreement signed with Panama while we still have some clout. Eight other countries have signed agreements, including France. France received compliance from Panama. Why can we not do the same thing? I would ask the Prime Minister to pause a bit, to follow in France's footsteps, and maybe in the whole area of tax havens.

I want to ask the government about its arrears situation in GST and income tax, corporate taxes, and other kinds of taxes that it may be a little slow to collect from some people. The fact of the matter is that the government could collect a lot of this money if it followed what France did when it formulated its black list.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, the discussion in regard to the fact that money is not being collected leads me to a question that pertains more to Canada's reality. My esteemed colleague has indicated he has questions for our government with regard to tax evasion here.

More specifically, I read in the paper today that the government has determined that $33 million is owed in terms of unpaid taxes and suspect it is far more, yet the government is laying off 500 civil servants, many of them at the Canada Revenue Agency. We know that for every $1 invested in a worker at CRA, $5 is recouped in terms of revenue. I wonder if my colleague would comment on that.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is correct. The fact of the matter is that tax evasion has been a big problem for many years. We cannot provide services and infrastructure to the taxpayers and the citizens of Canada if we allow corporations and wealthy individuals to simply take their money offshore. As long as tax havens are available, people and corporations will gravitate toward those tax havens. It has to be a concerted international effort to shut these places down.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona and especially the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for outlining some of the key concerns that New Democrats have with Bill C-46.

Some of us have ridings that have been impacted by trade deals or agreements that have seriously affected the ability of people in our ridings to make a living. I just have to point to the softwood lumber agreement. My riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan is still feeling the effects of that agreement. It was supposedly going to be great and resolve all kinds of issues. In fact, it has meant that we continue to ship jobs south. People in my riding are certainly very concerned about this move toward the kinds of trade agreements that simply do not benefit Canadians.

We have often heard from the other side of the House that New Democrats are opposed to trade and that is absolutely not true.

[Ed Fast]

When is the last time you voted for a free trade agreement?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

What New Democrats feel is really important is that it is incumbent upon us as legislators to perform the due diligence, to examine those kinds of trade agreements to ensure that—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, we need to ensure that they are of benefit to Canadian citizens.

A member across is asking when is the last time a New Democrat agreed to a trade agreement. We have not because we do not see a benefit to Canadians. Often we are accused of just opposing things. We have actually had some proposals about what trade agreements should look like. New Democrats talk about fair trade, not free trade. I want to talk about a couple of those elements, because they are absent from this agreement.

New Democrats believe that a trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade. Equitable trade is an important aspect of any agreement.

We also believe there are a number of overall strategies that should be in place when we are looking at trade agreements. These include a comprehensive, common-sense impact assessment on all international agreements which demonstrates that trade deals that Canada negotiates are beneficial to Canadian families, workers and industries. The government should not sign any trade agreement that would lead to a net job loss. I referenced the softwood lumber agreement earlier and the impact that has had on jobs in our communities from coast to coast to coast.

Trade agreements that Canada negotiates should support Canada's sovereignty and freedom to chart its own policy, support our ability to be a competitive force on the world stage, and support the principles of a multilateral, fair trade system. Of course with these trade agreements and what is happening with foreign takeovers of our industries, that kind of impact assessment simply is not happening, especially around the issue of sovereignty.

A fundamental principle that all trade agreements must promote is the protection of human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any product that is deemed to have been created under sweatshop conditions, forced labour or other conditions that are not in accordance with fundamental international labour standards and human rights.

Another fundamental principle is that all trade agreements should respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems.

There are other elements that we propose are important to any fair trade agreement. We simply find that the agreements that come before the House do not include those elements.

This Panama bilateral free trade agreement has four components: free market access in goods and services, investment protection, labour protection and an agreement on the environment. The labour protection agreement and the agreement on the environment are side agreements. They are not even incorporated into the trade agreement.

I want to touch on three aspects of this because I only have a brief period of time.

Regarding labour co-operation, we have seen this in other agreements. Under the Colombia free trade agreement, we saw what was being characterized as pay a fine, kill a trade unionist. In Colombia, we have certainly seen continuing violence against trade union members.

When we look at the Panama free trade agreement, we see that it is going to make it easier for Canadian and foreign corporations to flout Canadian labour laws, to pay their workers in Panama an average wage of about $2 an hour, and not have to pay for pension or sick leave benefits.

In Canada, we have laws that protect workers. We have some minimum standards. I think many of us are concerned about the erosion of some of those standards. We only need to look at what is happening with private sector pensions in Canada, but workers in Panama simply do not have access to the same level of benefits as in Canada, nor is there anything in this agreement that would ensure that workers in Panama would not be subjected to conditions that we would simply find intolerable here.

The labour co-operation agreement within the Panama free trade agreement does not have any vigorous enforcement mechanisms. As I mentioned, this is a very similar template to what was used in the Colombia free trade agreement. Because there are not these kinds of protections, that should be of concern to this House. In the Colombia free trade agreement, there had been a recommendation made for a full study on any kind of human rights violations before we proceeded with that agreement, and that did not happen.

It is the same thing with the side agreement on the environment. It has no effective mechanism to force Canada or Panama to respect environmental rights. The agreement commits both countries to pursue environmental co-operation and to work to improve their environmental laws and policies, but it can only ask both parties to enforce their domestic laws, and if they do so, there are very few remedies if they violate their own laws.

I would argue that what we have here is an agreement which, if Canadians truly understood both the labour and the environmental aspects of it, they would be saying not to sign onto it.

A number of other members have touched on the issue of tax havens. I am going to raise that issue as well because the government says it is going to crack down on tax havens and yet we are signing onto a free trade agreement with a country that has a notorious reputation for being a tax haven. I want to touch on a couple of aspects around tax havens and the investor portion of it.

The trade deal does not provide investors or labour with a level playing field. While under chapter 11 investors have the right to seek binding arbitration, they can pursue independently a trade union in Panama that does not get to pursue a case to arbitration. They can file a complaint that would lead to an investigation report, but it is up to the government to seek remedies and damages. I mention that because chapter 11 has been a serious problem for us and we feel that this is another way of simply brushing some of the issues under the carpet.

Other members have talked about the opposition in the United States to this free trade agreement. When members of the U.S. Congress speak out quite vocally, it is important for us to pay attention.

In a letter signed by two members of Congress in April 2009, they indicated that Panama's industrial policy is premised on obtaining a comparative advantage by banning taxation of foreign corporations, hiding tax liabilities and transactions behind banking secrecy rules and the ease with which U.S. and other firms can create unregulated subsidiaries.

According to the state department, Panama has over 350,000 foreign registered companies. We can almost guarantee that those are shells that allow the flow-through of money to avoid taxation in the countries where those companies actually operate. The member for Elmwood—Transcona mentioned that AIG is very keen on these tax havens in Panama, and we heard about the court cases and whatnot that are unfolding.

An article on the Dow Jones Newswires says that tax haven questions could trip up the Panama trade pact. It says that the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, listed Panama as one of the 30 tax haven jurisdictions that have committed to international standards on bank secrecy but have not yet substantially implemented those standards. The member for Elmwood—Transcona mentioned that there are eight countries that now have agreements with Panama. But, as usual, the devil is in the details.

With its track record, its history of secrecy, its unwillingness to supply information, one would wonder why at this point we would be willing to sign an agreement without some of those guarantees, some of that transparency and accountability that the Conservative government always references being in place to protect Canadians and Canadian companies.

New Democrats will be opposing Bill C-46, and I think with very good reason. We encourage other members in the House to take a close look at some of the flaws in this agreement.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan packed a lot into a short amount of time and pointed out some of the ideological flaws that exist. I want to ask her about a specific one.

She talked about the tax havens. I would like her to bring this home to what the impact on average Canadians might be if this trade agreement were to go ahead, if Panama were to maintain these shell corporations that evade taxes here in Canada while making their profits here in Canada and other countries. What would be the implications for working Canadians, for governments and for our economy to sign a so-called deal with the devil, as they say, sign a deal with a party that is a known violator of international tax laws and the trade deal does little or nothing to correct that? What would be the impact on Canadian families if Canada were to go ahead with this flawed agreement?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that often gets lost in these conversations is what it is our taxes pay for. Not only do Canadian families benefit from taxes that are paid in this country, whether it is good schools, education, health care or roads, the TransCanada Highway, but corporations also benefit from taxes that are paid in this country.

When corporations pay their fair share of taxes in this country, they get an educated workforce. They get people who go to kindergarten through grade 12, graduate and go on to universities, which are also publicly supported. They get access to workers who have access to a publicly funded, publicly delivered health care system. They get access to the roads and, let us face it, municipal infrastructure which is also supported through federal tax dollars with various agreements that are put in place.

We need to turn this conversation around and talk about the corporations that are avoiding their responsibilities, getting a free ride in Canada by getting access to benefits that the rest of Canadians are paying for through their tax dollars and they are not contributing their fair share to the upkeep and maintenance of our infrastructure. We need to be putting hard questions to those corporations that are evading their tax responsibilities in this country.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that Germany and France have actually been collecting a lot of the back taxes from the people who have been investing in these tax havens.

France showed us how to do it. France got its black list together of 18 countries, and scared the companies. France levied a tax of 50% on dividends, interest, royalties and service fees paid to anyone based in France to a beneficiary based in the country on its blacklist, including Panama. What France did is it scared its own companies. France was taxing them right at the source.

No one, that I know of, has ever done that before. Look at the results. Panama rushed over and signed an agreement, exactly what they wanted. Panama signed a double-taxation avoidance treaty with France in the last few months, and now eight countries are on board. That is how to get action.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would argue that responsible government is about making sure that people are paying their fair share, that people are making sure that somebody is not getting a free ride.

I talked earlier about the benefits to Canadians and to corporations when everybody pays their fair share of taxes. One of the benefits they get is a qualified workforce. A qualified workforce includes first nations, and I know that first nations often come up as a topic of discussion because they are the labour force of the future.

Just imagine if those corporations were paying their fair share of taxes and children on reserve and off reserve were getting access to an education that was equal to other Canadians. Looking to the future, 15 or 20 years from now, those young aboriginal kids would be the future employees of these corporations. That is being responsible corporate citizens. That is paying their fair share of taxes to make sure that their legacy and their workforce is available.

There are examples of other countries making sure that they are collecting those taxes. Canada should look to some of those other models.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter this debate today to talk about the proposed trade deal between Canada and Panama, our neighbour to the south. It is an interesting and engaging debate, because it brings up philosophical differences between the progressive politics of the New Democrats and the anti-progressive politics of the Conservatives, when it comes to approaching trade negotiations with other countries.

It is worthy of note that New Democrats have supported fair trade deals throughout our history. We have empowered governments to say that they must trade in the world. We are a trading nation, but we must trade on terms that are ethically and morally correct, in the eyes of contemporary and future Canadians. A trade relationship with another country is an opportunity to share values, to exchange the best of both countries in the way of products, ideas, management of markets, responsible extraction of resources, and protection of the rights of workers.

We have a government in office that is interested in any trade deal, as opposed to a good one. It crows over the number of deals it has made or has in progress. However, I would suggest that a bad deal is worse than no deal at all. This can be true for both sides.

All the government seems to be interested in doing is ticking another number off on the trade-deal front. It goes into negotiations with the notion that we will make a trade deal, regardless of the terms or the net benefits to Canadians, and ignoring the grievances that will be caused to people on the other side of the deal, in this case the Panamanians.

There is a philosophy underpinning this approach. It says that any trade deal will automatically bring greater democracy and accountability to the trading nation, particularly if it is a country like Panama, which has suffered for many years under various dictatorships and foreign influences. We saw the episode with Noriega. We saw the U.S. influence through its corporate lobby pressure, using the CIA and whatnot, and the ripple effect that occurred throughout Central America.

I have worked in Panama and in various surrounding countries, and one can see the erosion of democracy at a foundational level when outside countries exert irresponsible influence. Panama, having recovered somewhat from this, still struggles with some of the basic principles of transparency and accountability.

In that regard, it shares a lot of similarities with the current Conservative government. It agrees that accountability might be dangerous for the sitting regime, it does not call ministers to account, and it feels that allegations of corruption should remain allegations, without any actual investigation. Perhaps this is why it has been able to march in step to a trade deal that does not address some of the most fundamental values of Canadians. I will go into some of them.

It is important for members to keep in mind the real impacts on constituents and working people. As a trading nation, we should always seek the most favourable terms for ourselves and our trading partner.

We must also seek terms that align with our own values and beliefs, not just the belief in trade. That is a fine and noble principle, but it is also important to leave the planet a little better than we found it. If one is part of a labour union, one's life should not be on the line. Fair wages for an honest day's work should be a principle embedded in every government policy.

We have fought and struggled for these principles in this country. Sometimes these struggles have resulted in protests, violence, and great disruption to our national fabric, but we have come out the other end. We still have many struggles to go. Pay equity is a fantastic example: working women still earn only 78¢ for every dollar a man earns doing the same job. These are struggles we must face and counter. I would suggest the current government has not devoted enough time to issues like this.

First nations, mentioned earlier by my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan, are still living in conditions of poverty that no Canadian, regardless of political background, should accept. We have much work to do together.

However, when we engage in trade, when we engage in the effort to deal with another country and export the best of ourselves, our ideas, our products, our innovations, and our industries, this benefits us and the country we are dealing with as well.

For the riding I represent in northwestern British Columbia, trade is inherent in who we are and what we do. From time immemorial, the first nations of our region have traded across the continent and in fact around the world. Just this past weekend I was at a celebration of the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Tahltan Declaration at Telegraph Creek, British Columbia. One of the issues that came up and was celebrated was that the obsidian arrowheads the Tahltan people have made for thousands of years have been found in Africa, Europe, and South America, traded hundreds and hundreds of years ago.

It is a natural orientation for us in the northwest. We have things that other people want. But the principle was always that we would never degrade our own environment, our own quality of life, to enable that trade. We certainly would not want to export misery and enable other places to do harm to their people through our trade. Whether we were trading fish, arrowheads, or modern minerals, the companies and the communities that I represent seek to have a true net benefit, putting people to work in our region, putting food on the table and allowing good things to happen, while enabling other countries to receive the benefit of any technological improvements.

We have come to a strange and unusual moment in the international trading market. Prince Rupert, British Columbia, for example, has been the hub of fish processing for many decades. But now we are seeing job after job lost. Fish caught in British Columbia waters are put in freezer trucks, transported on highways to another port, put on freezer ships to China, processed there, then put back on a ship and sent back to us, to be sold at 15 or 20 times the original value. Somehow, the government says this is the rational market at work. It says this is the way things ought to be: a fish steak eaten in Prince Rupert and caught 50 kilometres away goes around the world to get back to our plate. It is a kind of insanity, and it leads us to a degraded, unsustainable world. The local impacts are significant and serious.

For the mining sector, which is now undergoing a renewal in my part of the world, exploration rates are through the roof, and companies are spending more and more money seeking out those minerals. We have seen an evolution from within the mining sector itself, brought about by companies that 50 years ago maybe did not do such a great job. They left behind mines that polluted, and they treated the local first nation population with disrespect, not hiring locally as much as they should have. These companies are now signing protocol agreements with first nations. They are co-operating in revenue-sharing streams, giving guarantees of local hiring, and adopting environmental standards that go far beyond the the weak and watered-down regulations that the government has provided. These companies have come to realize that the social licence to operate is critical.

In these trade deals, there is social licence to operate. There is a social test that we have to put these deals through. We must ask governments in this trade deal and the previous ones if they are willing to commit the deal to measurement. They say these deals will open up labour markets. They say they will improve working conditions and will not degrade the environment. If they are so confident, they ought to be able to specify environmental and labour standards in the agreement itself, rather than in side agreements, and measure compliance with those standards. We need to see the before and after. Show us the benefit. Are they willing to commit to that type of accountability, that type of transparency? Of course not. That is a shame and it brings great suspicion on the deal itself.

If it is so great for the labour community in Panama, if it is so great for the environment of Panama, if it is so certain that nothing bad will come out of this, then let us measure it. If we cannot measure something, we cannot manage it. Certainly, the government is not interested in abiding by any of these principles, which I believe are fundamental Canadian values. When a government operates outside the values of the country it represents, then that government is not capable of making good deals. This is certainly not a good deal.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could comment on this: I remember a time when the argument for NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, was that it would lift people in the developing country out of poverty. Contrary to that, what we saw was an exploitation of these same people. Young men and women worked in factories, manufacturing clothing or car parts, and they were paid so little that they could not afford to buy the very clothing they were making. They were compelled to send their own children to work at an age that would make most of us very concerned.

What occurred was child labour and taking advantage of young people: many of the people subject to this kind of exploitation were young women. These free trade agreements did not help the people who were struggling. I wonder if my colleague would comment on the young people, the workers of Panama.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the tragedy is that trade deals like NAFTA could have helped. There was an opportunity available to a previous Conservative government to put into the deal something that would result in a net benefit to both sides, to the working people of Mexico, the United States, and Canada. Instead, we saw the operation of the maquiladoras just across the border in Mexico continue at a rampant pace.

We should ask the Americans how the border is doing these days. One of the promises of NAFTA was that illegal immigration would go from a flood to a trickle after the signing of NAFTA. The Americans are building a massive fence along the border. The problems are maintained because, when we have bad trade deals, we do not actually affect the foundational problems of an economy. The foundations within the Mexican economy encourage people to leave, because they are exploited ruthlessly in some of these factories, and much of this exploitation is directed at women and children.

“Women and children first” was the old patriarchal slogan. It was not meant this way. It did not mean they could line up first for the exploitative jobs. But that is what happens, and it happens time and time again. Will it happen in Panama? Absolutely. We have seen it in NAFTA, and we saw it in the so-called softwood trade deal. It was supposed to be a benefit.

This week I will be in Bella Coola. They have virtually lost their entire forestry sector, in part because of the softwood lumber deal. Now they are also under floods and in a state of emergency, compounding the troubles the community is going through. But they are resilient. They are willing to work and they want to work. They want to work in the things that they know how to do, which is producing the resources the world wants. But they need a government that is a partner and a supporter of small resource communities across Canada. They built the country, for goodness' sake, and government after government has allowed them to erode and die slowly, town by town. That has to stop. These trade deals compound on one another. They do not achieve enough benefit for either us or our trading partners. They help only the few, the rich. It has to stop.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Etobicoke North, the Environment; the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, International Aid.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sudbury.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-46, which would implement a bilateral free trade agreement with Panama.

As we do with all free trade legislation, I along with my NDP colleagues have carefully examined the details of this bill. We need to ensure that any free trade agreement we sign is progressive, that it looks closely at the treatment of labour activists and equality for women and minority groups, and that it contains provisions for environmental protection.

Unfortunately, this free trade agreement with Panama falls short on the protection of labour activists. While there are provisions for labour protection, there is no means with which to enforce this part of the treaty. It seems that the provision is there to placate critics without trying to accurately tackle the issue.

This is a real issue in Panama. July saw a massive crackdown on union members and labour leaders in Panama. New legislation was brought forward by the government, which limited the rights of workers to strike and even their freedom of association, including provisions to jail for up to two years any workers taking their protests to the streets.

These are rights that are enshrined in article 23 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and in the declaration of the fundamental principles and rights at work of the International Labour Organization. Yet the Government of Panama seems happy to trample on 60 years of international law.

If this were not bad enough, when the citizens took to the streets to legitimately and democratically highlight their opposition to this legislation, the government reacted violently. More than 100 protesters were injured, some fatally, and more than 300 protesters were jailed, including the leaders of the SUNTRACS and CONATO trade unions.

The government is clearly not committed to the rights of organized labour, and its violent reaction to the protest shows that a toothless labour provision is simply not enough. If this government were serious about the labour protection, then this free trade act would have a real means to enforce the labour provisions. Without it, the provisions are worthless.

When considering this free trade agreement with Panama, we must also look at Panama's tax code. Panama is recognized both by international bodies like the OECD and by other countries as a tax haven. Tax havens allow large corporations and rich individuals in Canada to shelter their income from the government and avoid paying the tax they owe the government.

While thousands of Canadians are struggling to pay their bills, I cannot understand why this government would try to ratify a free trade agreement with a country that is allowing people and corporations to evade paying their taxes. Let us not mince words here. Those people who are avoiding paying these taxes are stealing from the average hard-working Canadian.

This government, which claims to be tough on crime, is happy to have different rules for these high-earning criminals than for the average Canadian. It claims it wants to crack down on tax evaders, but while it talks the talk, it certainly does not walk the walk.

When the government got the names of Canadians illegally sheltering funds in Europe, it offered them a voluntary disclosure program, which is nothing more than a partial tax amnesty. Sure, they had to pay some interest and penalties to the CRA, but these are not people who accidentally filed their taxes incorrectly. These are people who purposely hid money from the government for the explicit reason of avoiding paying taxes. This is not a mistake. It is criminal intent.

If someone steals a TV from your home, the police do not just get them to return the TV and give you ten bucks for your trouble. This is effectively what the government did to these tax evaders. It was an economic slap on the wrist maybe, but certainly it was very lenient punishment. They certainly were not treated like the typical criminal would be.

It is not just that this free trade agreement does not try to put in place a provision to deal with the shelter of income from the government. It is also that the free trade agreement will undoubtedly create additional loopholes, which will be exploited so that even more income is sheltered offshore.

Think of what we could do with the extra tax revenue, which we are not already losing. How can the government tell people that it cannot afford to cut the federal tax from home heating or increase payments to pensioners when it is happy to sign off on a free trade agreement that allows for so many individuals and corporations to avoid paying taxes?

The bill points to an increasingly worrying trend where the government is trying to hollow out the role of the state. It is happy to allow foreign takeovers without really studying the effects on the communities that are affected.

Look at the year-long strike that took place in my great city of Sudbury after the Conservatives approved the sale of Inco to Vale. The government refused to step in and protect the members of USW Local 6500 and the whole community, which also suffered.

When the strike was over, it loaned Vale $1 billion. Now the government is making it easier for corporations and individuals to avoid paying tax by sheltering their money illegally in Panama, and it will then use lower tax revenues as an excuse to cut important state services.

The bill does nothing to support hard-working individuals in Canada or in Panama. In fact it undermines them, in Canada by cutting the federal tax revenue and in Panama by giving the government international credibility on labour issues when it is violently and undemocratically cracking down on union members.

The bill is an insult to anyone who works hard and pays taxes while rich individuals and corporations avoid their responsibilities.

This is why I will not be supporting the bill.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for an excellent presentation on the bill.

The fact of the matter is that no fewer than 54 United States congressmen have demanded that President Obama forgo the agreement with Panama until Panama has signed the tax information exchange treaties, which by the way, France got in short order when it started taxing the French corporations that were part of the 350,000 that are operating in Panama.

The fact of the matter is that the Americans also know Panama is a tax haven. In fact the justice department of the United States says that Panama is a major conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers. Therefore it is not only a tax haven like we are normally used to but it is also a conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers, says the U.S. justice department, and money laundering activities. I do not know how much worse it can get.

Surely the government would not want to be associating with and helping to facilitate drug traffickers and money launderers when it purports to be tough on crime. Obviously when it comes to white collar crime it is very soft on crime.

The Prime Minister is off to Switzerland with cap in hand to talk to the Swiss prime minister about getting information on our people hiding money in tax havens. We give amnesty. That is how we treat people who cheat on taxes.

Yet the French government simply took the bull by the horns, got a list of 18 tax havens in the world and brought in tough tax regulations on its own companies. That caused them to start putting pressure on the Panamanians who were now going to lose business. When they saw they were going to lose business, guess what. They went to France and signed the agreement. There are eight agreements signed now just in the last few months, and Canada is not one of them.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's question brings to mind the year-long strike we just had in my community of Sudbury with Vale Inco.

What it brings to mind is that, if we go back 40 to 50 years, we remember that the steel workers were actually out demonstrating in the streets. And they just did this; the steel workers just did this over the duration of that strike. To see what happened in Panama when the government violently cracked down on striking workers, it sends fear to think what would be happening here.

Fortunately we have been able to advance, but we need to be able to support countries like Panama to be able to advance, to move forward so people can democratically protest in the street.

We need to be progressive when we are looking at fair trade agreements. The point that my hon. colleague brought up is that this agreement is not fair. It is an open door to almost anything, tax havens and so on. There are not enough protections in the agreement for the environment; there are not at all enough protections for labour activists; and we need to continue to make sure there are protections in it for women's rights and minority groups.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I was wondering why, in a period of economic recovery, the NDP is so opposed to free trade and helping Canadian businesses and families succeed. This trade agreement will actually eliminate tariffs on 90% of the products that we ship to Panama. This will help agriculture. This will help forestry. This will help the business sector grow and expand. It will help families have jobs. In fact, in the pulp and paper industry I understand that 30% more can go into Panama once this deal goes through.

Why would those members be opposed to that? It just blows my mind. I wonder if the member could explain that.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, here is something that will help continue to blow the member's mind.

We are talking about fair trade, fair trade to ensure environmental protections, fair trade to ensure rights for labour activists and women's groups and minority groups. We can continue to trade.

My hon. colleague talked about the agreements that France has signed with Panama. Has the government even asked Panama to look at those similar types of agreements? Or does it just say that it is an open-door policy, so Panama can shoot and kill labour activists and destroy the environment, we can sell a few more pigs and that is great? Farmers in my community have told me they do not want blood on their hands, if we are looking at trading with places like Colombia and Panama.

The important thing we need to do here is ensure that we talk about fair trade.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues this afternoon to speak to this bill, a bill that is us causing some real concern.

New Democrats have a tremendous interest in everything fair and just. I do not see much fairness and justice in moving ahead holus bolus in the way we are. We have seen so many free trade agreements come before the House in these last few months. This is another in a series of agreements that the government has chosen to aggressively move toward signing, without really considering the long-term and short-term ramifications to workers, the environment and particularly to the people of Panama, as we challenge them to live up to some of the international accords and agreements that so many countries have signed, such as the environment, the rights of workers and that kind of thing.

I spoke on the Colombia free trade agreement not that long ago. I will make some of the same arguments tonight that I made then because it is not that dissimilar an agreement to the one in front of us.

Canada is entering into an arrangement with a country that has a questionable track record with regard to looking after its workers, protecting the rights of workers to organize and protecting the environment. Not to speak of the impact that all of this will have on the domestic economy of Canada, which is what we should be most concerned about right now.

Across Canada we are working hard in community after community, with provinces doing their bit. However, the federal government in many ways is missing in action, because it is so focused on these kinds of initiatives.

We are pulling ourselves out of the recession and are trying to find ways to create work, get people back to work and get our own local domestic economy in place. We need to rebuild communities that have been challenged, threatened and shattered so badly.

The collapse of the global economy and the financial system was in many ways affected by the rush of countries, like Canada, the United States and others around the world, to deregulate and get into global trading in a way that was not well thought out. In doing that, they forgot that the end result of anything we do, in terms of an economy and trading and work, should benefit people, communities and the country.

The free trade agreements all started by the late 1980s, early 1990s when Brian Mulroney and his government of the day delivered the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Then we saw the Jean Chrétien-Paul Martin Liberal government come into power. We thought it would revisit and rethink some of this and in fact sit down with our partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement and fix some of the obvious shortcomings. However, it did not do that. It did more, from right-wing ideology point of view, to fast-track free trade, not only with the United States but with Mexico as well.

In doing so, it got us into a vortex that has seen the lives of working men and women in Canada become less and less valued. The standard of living has been reduced. The amount of money being spent on programs to support people has been reduced significantly. The role of government has been questioned and reduced.

If we are to continue down the road of free trade agreements, and particularly in this instance of a free trade agreement with a country of questionable labour practices, we end up with is a local domestic economy in Canada that is less than it has the potential to be.

In the mid-nineties and into the late-nineties, Paul Martin moved to deal aggressively with a deficit and tried to create an environment in Canada that was more conducive to this free trade regime. As he began to see the result of that deficit fighting, the program cutting, the government reduction and an improving economy, instead of rethinking that approach to public life in Canada and reinstating some of the programs and money that flowed to provinces and municipalities to support people, he began to give huge corporate tax breaks.

We were told and bought into a way of thinking that we could reduce government spending, which is another way of speaking about reducing deficit because all governments have a deficit and they keep it in balance with the GDP, et cetera. However, as we reduce government spending and the role of government in the public life of a country and as we deregulate more and more industry and reduce the amount of taxes coming in through business and corporations, a number of things begin to happen. One is the government loses its ability to intervene, to be helpful and to support the people that it is elected to serve. However, the thinking is if we do that, we make ourselves more attractive to foreign investment. That is why we can then sign on to more of these free trade agreements. People want to come here and take advantage of some of the human resources and natural resources that are available to us in Canada. However, the rules that attend these free trade agreements are not necessarily in the best interests of the people in the jurisdiction in which the agreement is being implemented.

For example, I was up in the Northwest Territories two weeks ago at a poverty conference. People from every community across those territories gathered in Yellowknife to speak about poverty. Two members of the legislative assembly in the Northwest Territories moved a motion to introduce an anti-poverty strategy, something that six other provinces have done.

In developing this strategy and looking at the needs of the people they are trying to serve and trying to improve the lot of citizens in the communities that they work in, they are turning to their provincial governments. The provincial governments in turn, as they roll out their anti-poverty strategies, are looking to the federal government for involvement, to be engaged, to give leadership, to come to the table and provide resources.

However, the federal government is saying that it does not have the money because it has a huge deficit to deal with now because of the collapse of the economy and the difficulty in the financial world. The government of the day is putting together a plan to deal with the deficit that will be in keeping with the track record we have seen over the last 10 to 15 years our country.

Before we do anything else, before any other priority, including dealing with poverty, we have to ensure we are creating a climate—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. member for York South—Weston.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to what my colleague was saying. I was very interested in the case study with respect to the Northwest Territories and its legislature in developing an anti-poverty strategy. Surely he would agree that an anti-poverty strategy in an underdeveloped or developing economy is creating jobs.

If this treaty creates jobs, and there are protections in side agreements with respect to civil rights issues, human rights issues and the rights of employees, would he agree that the climate he was just starting to allude to is the kind of climate that we need to set an example of with fair trade between ourselves and developing economies? It is good for the economies of those countries and ours if it is fairly done.

Would he agree that this is the kind of climate we want to create and that this legislation is an attempt to take albeit a modest step in that direction, but one that will trickle down and benefit the people in Panama?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, that question allows me to finish my thought.

If we are talking fair trade, I have no problem. I do not think anybody on this side of the House in the New Democrat caucus has any problem with fair trade. The problem is with the kinds of trade agreements we are and have been entering into.

The environment we seem to be creating is causing poverty like we have not seen for a long time, particularly following the collapse in the financial world over the last two years. We are trying to make Canada attractive to foreign investment to the detriment of the people of Canada.

The thinking is this. If we reduce corporate taxes, which takes money out of government coffers, reduce government spending and cut programs, then we become more attractive to foreign investors that we want to take advantage of our resources. This is what in many ways then creates the lack of resources we need to deal with some of the very difficult challenges that poverty presents in places like the Northwest Territories. That is the point I am making.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, could the member answer the following questions?

I understand in part what he is saying, but it does not seem to compute. Does he not see this as a good first step for the people of Panama and Canada? How does it help the people of Panama if we do not remove artificial barriers, if Canadians do not buy their products, if Panama is not able to sell its products here? How does it help the people of Canada if they do not have more choices, if they cannot buy more products and sell more products to Panama? I just do not understand how this does it. Could the member answer those questions?

Also, would he mind answering the question that is on the minds of most Canadians? New Democrats are using a type of technicality to thwart the democratic will of the people of Canada and the majority of members in the House. Could he answer why NDP members are so anti-democratic and why they do not want to help the people of Canada, farmers in particular, and the people of Panama?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, does he not feel I have a democratic right to stand in this place and make my case on behalf of the people who elect me? If that is not democratic, then I guess we could have further discussion about that.

He asked a question about the people of Panama. Certainly the NDP has a concern and interest in the welfare and well-being of the people of Panama. However, if we simply enter into agreements with it on trade without insisting on strong regulation where human rights are concerned, for example, the government of Panama will think it is fine to continue with the track record that it has shown over the last number of years such as trade unionists being killed simply for exercising the democratic rights that we take for granted in Canada.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

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.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I actually have the same questions for this member that I had for the last one because they simply were not answered. Again I ask, is this trade agreement not a great first step for the people of Panama, a great first step for their ability to have the things we enjoy here in Canada, the great employment rights that we have, the right to speak our minds, and to have the democratic right to vote?

In this place we all want to have an opportunity to vote on this piece of legislation, except for the NDP members, but they are trying to use some sneaky tactic that is allowed in this place, and I agree to it, but it quite frankly allows a very small minority in this place, a very small number of people who represent a small number of people in Canada, compared to the rest of us, to actually hold up a piece of legislation that would help the rights of people in Panama.

It will actually allow the products of our farmers to be sold in Panama and it will help Canadians, Canadian trade, and the people of Panama. Certainly, the influence Canada has in the world will assist us to trade with Panama and help the people there.

I wonder if the member might answer that question and why we cannot have the democratic right to vote today.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member said the questions are not being answered. I think he is just not listening to the answers.

Why would we want to take on trade deals with people who actually kill trade unionists, who kill their workers? This is basically the same type of labour cooperation agreement, without any vigorous enforcement mechanism, the same template, that was used in the Canada-Colombia agreement: kill a trade unionists and pay a fine.

In the Canada-Peru FTA as well, the labour side agreement does not deliver an effective mechanism for the protection of labour rights. Once we see that, we will be glad to support fair trade agreements.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, the--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would like to ask for a little bit of order in the House. This is a period of questions and comments and I would ask members to wait until they are recognized. The hon. member for York South—Weston.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the House has no hesitation in supporting the spirit of what the member has laid out in terms of respect for human rights and in particular, the rights of trade unionists without being victimized. There is no argument with that.

However, when I was sitting on the natural resources committee, we listened to the forestry industry that she had cited and we had all kinds of representations before the committee that talked about the advancements that had been made by the Danes, who had taken a lesser quality fibre, had used innovation and developed new markets, and developed a very vibrant forestry sector.

The objective of these kinds of relationships is to have investment where investment is needed. Was that investment not needed in the forestry industry? I am not saying that this agreement will achieve all of that, but is it not a step in the direction to the transfers of capital and investing in Canadian industries and sectors, and reciprocally in Panamanian sectors that will benefit the have nots.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate the comments my hon. colleague has made, but let us be clear here. If we look at northern Ontario, how many people have actually lost their jobs in the forestry sector? Has this actually been beneficial? We are looking at signing an agreement where Canadian and foreign corporations, who move to Panama, flout Canadian labour laws and pay their workers in Panama an average of $2 an hour. That is about $300 a month. Let us look at that in reality: no pensions, no benefits, no sick days.

Canadian law states that workers enjoy certain minimum workplace safety laws. Corporations in Panama do not have to do that at any cost. We are seeing people die. Let us really respect human rights.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do have some points to make on this particular bill. Obviously, you saw me stand up several times asking questions--

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

No, you didn't. You never got up.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I had recognized the member for a number of questions and when I asked to resume debate, no one rose so I began to read the motion. I believe I must continue at this point.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The vote is deferred until tomorrow after government orders.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. chief government whip is rising on a point of order.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek I believe you will find unanimous consent to proceed with the vote on the amendment on Bill C-46.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the amendment.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek you will find unanimous consent to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion with the Conservatives voting no.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals vote against the amendment.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois vote in favour of the amendment.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is in favour of this amendment.

[Helena Guergis, Independent, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, against.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I vote against the amendment.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #100

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The House resumed from October 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate on the free trade agreement with the country of Panama. It is an opportunity that I would not want to miss.

Trade is important in my part of the world on the east coast of Canada and in the province of Nova Scotia. We have a long history of trading with all of the east coast areas, such as the Caribbean and Panama. For the life of me, I find the opposition to this agreement a bit difficult and ingenuous.

We already have a long-standing trading relationship between Canada and the country of Panama. We are only trying to set clear parameters and rules and have them apply to that trading relationship but for some reason some people and parties in this place are completely against having rules-based trading. For the life of me, it makes no sense.

As all members in this place know, this is a time when we need to open doors for Canadians, to level the playing field, to create new commercial opportunities and to work with our partners around the world to help Canadians succeed. Panama is a perfect example of a partner with great potential. Canadian manufacturers, exporters and producers, including small and medium-sized producers, need access to markets like this one in order to compete.

In 2009, our two-way trade in merchandise totalled $132.1 million. Key Canadian products, including machinery, motor vehicles and parts, pharmaceutical equipment and pulse crops were some of the driving forces behind this success. Canadian businesses want a deeper partnership with Panama so that they can take full advantage of this dynamic market and what it has to offer.

It is time to deliver on what our businesses and economies need to succeed.

Once the Canada-Panama free trade agreement is in place, trade in these and other products, like pork, beef, fish and seafood, paper products, construction materials and equipment, would become easier for Canadian companies.

Members of the House should recognize just how the Canada-Panama free trade agreement would benefit other regions. Let us take Quebec, for example. In 2009, Quebec merchandise exports to Panama totalled $30 million. These exports fell mostly in the areas of meat, vehicles, machinery, pulp and paper board, pharmaceutical products and scientific precision instruments.

Once implemented, the free trade agreement will eliminate current Panamanian tariffs on vehicles of up to 15%. It will eliminate current tariffs on pork of up to 70%. These are just a few examples of how this agreement would benefit Quebec sectors of export interest.

We have also mentioned in the House, Panama's focus on infrastructure investments which also present great opportunities for growth and infrastructure-related exports, such as machinery, a strong sector in Quebec and Ontario. I do not understand why the Bloc Québécois is against the bill that would provide so many economic opportunities for Quebec.

In Ontario, merchandise exports to Panama totalled $29.3 million in 2009. The key products driving these exports were pharmaceuticals, industrial and electrical machinery, vehicles and scientific and precision instruments. The free trade agreement would eliminate current Panamanian tariffs on a variety of products that are of interest to Ontario exporters. For example, once in force, the agreement will eliminate current tariffs on pharmaceuticals of up to 11%. The agreement will also eliminate current tariffs on industrial and construction machinery of up to 15%.

As everyone in the House knows, these difficult economic times have made our manufacturing sector vulnerable. This sector, in particular, needs new opportunities for growth and our government is acting by providing these opportunities through the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

Canadian exports, particularly goods, are already at a disadvantage when compared to many of our main competitors. If we delay the passing of this agreement, like the NDP and the Bloc Québécois would want us to do, we risk seeing Canadian exporters and investors further disadvantaged in Panama. We would be setting our companies up to compete on an uneven playing field in a market where we see economic potential.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement would also benefit Canadian businesses in the western region of our country. In 2009, total merchandise exports from western Canada amounted to $22 million.

In Manitoba, producers of precious stones and metals, as well as those of iron and steel, would benefit from the elimination of current Panamanian tariffs of up to 15% on their exports. Our agricultural producers in Saskatchewan would be able to export their pulses and cereals without facing tariffs of up to 15% and 40% respectively.

More broadly, Panama maintains tariffs averaging 13.4% on agricultural products with tariffs reaching peaks as high as 260% on some of those products. This agreement would eliminate tariffs on 94% of agricultural exports from Canada to Panama.

The power-generating machinery and information and communication technology sectors in Alberta would benefit from the elimination of Panamanian tariffs of up to 15% on their exports to that market.

In British Columbia, exporters of fats and oils would see the elimination of Panamanian tariffs of up to 30%, while wood producing exporters would be able to export their product to Panama without facing tariffs of up to 15%.

Closer to home, in Atlantic Canada, we would also benefit from the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. In New Brunswick, producers of frozen french fries would no longer be faced with Panamanian tariffs of up to 20%. Paper and paperboard producers would see the elimination of tariffs of up to 15%.

Nova Scotia exporters of Christmas trees would be able to have their products enter the Panamanian market without tariffs of 15%. Vehicles and parts exporters from the province would also benefit from the elimination of current Panamanian tariffs of up to 20% on their products.

I want to raise one more point before I conclude my speech. I am sure everyone in the House read the Edmonton Journal this morning and Paul Vieira's article out of the Financial Post that was in there. He states, which is worth repeating:

It's easy to brush off or ignore the federal government's attempt to play up the virtues of its recently negotiated free-trade deal with Panama. The country has a GDP of $28.2-billion, which pales in comparison with Canada's $1.5 -trillion economy, and exports to Panama were a rather meagre $91-million last year.

If that is all that people can see in this agreement, then it all stops there. We need to look to the future, and not just for the future of Canada but also for the future of Panama.

Rather than focus on the country's size, we should focus on the crucial piece of infrastructure in that Central American country, the Panama Canal. Experts tout that the super tankers coming from China will need to pass through a bigger and refurbished canal set to open in 2014 to drop off goods to the U.S. ports and the Canadian ports in the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.

The way Asian trade has been growing and will resume growing once we get a recovery with momentum, it will overwhelm existing Pacific ports. Panama is the key country in the trading block known as the Central American and Caribbean region, or the CAC. This part of the world is small but its economies are indeed growing and are expected to advance at a slighter faster pace than many of the advanced economies in the years ahead.

There are advantages for Canadian companies in this region, as the companies are relatively easy to get to. They are in the same time zone. At least, when it comes to most of the Caribbean, language is not a barrier as English is widely spoken or understood, as well as French, leading some companies to eye the area as possible locations for call centres or other back-office operations. Canadian banks have invested heavily in the Caribbean. Mining companies are also active in the region.

Why would we not want to increase trade with Panama? Why would we not want to put rules-based trading in place where we already have trading? Why would we not want to strengthen our trading agreement with Panama with the inclusion of an agreement on labour and the inclusion of an agreement on the environment? Why would we not want to see life for Panamanians improve?

I, for the life of me, cannot understand the opposition to this deal.

Finally, it has been a pleasure to speak to this bill and I move:

That this question be now put.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The motion is in order.

Questions and comments on the speech, the hon. member for Halifax West.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, my hon. colleague from South Shore--St. Margaret's spoke about the long trading history our province of Nova Scotia has had the Caribbean region.

I think of the Caribbean region as a little more than Central America as the history of trade because we think of the many years over which Nova Scotia would ship fish to the Caribbean and then the ships would not come back empty. They would come back with things like molasses and sometimes some other liquid products from sugar cane that were well known and a source of considerable wealth in his part of Nova Scotia and other parts of Nova Scotia. Particularly during the time of prohibition in the U.S., the region was known for the movement of some considerable quantity of rum.

What does the member see in this agreement in terms of benefits for businesses in Nova Scotia and their workers but also in terms of the benefits for people in Panama.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly true, particularly in the coastal areas of the riding that I represent, that there was a lot of trade and there still is ongoing trade with the Caribbean and Central America. One of the main products that was shipped down to Central America was fish. However, interestingly enough, a lot of dynamite out of the Dynamite Wharf on Mahone Bay Islands was shipped down. A lot of the schooners coming out of LaHave shipped a lot of fish and dynamite down there and absolutely brought rum back. It was a great commodity with a great marketplace in Atlantic Canada.

Based on that history, we can see the advantages for Panama, for Canada and particularly for the east coast today.

I will go back to my original statement. Panama is an area that is growing and it is looking for partners throughout the world. We will see the twinning and the opening of the second Panama Canal in 2014. The infrastructure development that is going on there today is tremendous. There are opportunities there now for Canadian companies and businesses, including east coast companies. We have the ability to provide logistical support when the traffic moving through the Panama Canal increases by about 30%. This is a part of the world that is growing already by 3% to 4% and we expect will grow by much more than that when the economy starts to improve. It is also a part of the world, as I mentioned before, that is not only in our same time zone and has the ability to dialogue with Canadian companies in English and in French, but it is also a part of the world in which we should be interested. We should want Panama, the rest of Central America and the Caribbean countries that need opportunity. They have a growing population and we want them to do well, and they will do well, especially if we reinforce the trading opportunities that we already have with them.

It is not as if we are not trading with Panama now. We will continue to trade with Panama. To have rules based trading only strengthens those trading opportunities for Panamanians and for Canadians.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is aware that the Bloc Québécois' position has always been clear: Panama is a country on the OECD grey list of tax havens. Before the treaty is ratified, we would like the government to sign a tax information exchange agreement banning income tax exemptions for subsidiaries created by Canadian companies in that country. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade to get the message that the Bloc Québécois will never promote setting up Canadian subsidiaries in tax havens. I hope he will support the Bloc's request.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the question goes back to my original statement that rules-based trading can only improve the situation that already exists for trade between Canada and Panama. However, we should be clear that the Minister of Finance has already written to his counterpart in Panama, asking that it undertake its obligations. The government of Panama has made a commitment to undertake obligations for tax information sharing with the OECD. That should answer the hon. member's question.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama. I will allude to those agreements as well with respect to the environment and labour co-operation. We definitely need to have a holistic approach when we talk about trade.

The Liberal Party supports sending the bill to the trade committee for further study. The Liberal Party, as the party of free trade, has always promoted efforts to expand the access of Canadian companies to foreign markets. We understand the importance of allowing companies to succeed not only domestically, but abroad as well. After all, we are a trading nation and 80% of our economy depends on exports. Therefore, we must always look for new opportunities to break down barriers and bolster trade.

Ideally, we would like to see Canada open up markets on a multilateral basis. It is important that we recognize we can do much better if we have a multilateral approach. However, with the Doha Round negotiations of the World Trade Organization currently stalled, that means Canada has to focus on bilateral agreements, and that is understandable. The agreement with Panama is one of those agreements that should be pursued. It will provide access to a small but very important Panamanian market.

I have a few key statistics to set the context when I talk about market size. First, Panama has a population of 3.5 million, but, more important, it also has a GDP of $26.2 billion and it is growing. There is some economic growth there as well. Last year we exported over $90 million to Panama and imported $40 million, with a total bilateral trade of $132 million. There is definitely some potential there.

However, the current expansion of the Panama Canal is where there are real opportunities for Canadian companies. Construction, environmental engineering and construction firms will have the opportunity to hopefully gain access to that major initiative.

In 2008, I had the distinct pleasure, along with my colleagues from the trade committee, to travel to Panama to see the canal first-hand. I had the opportunity to look at Panama as a possible jurisdiction for free trade and to pursue a free trade agreement with it. I saw the canal, which carries such a large portion of the world's trade, and marvelled at the engineering that allowed for its creation. I also saw the dynamic and modern city of Panama, which is a business hub for that region. The message conveyed to us was that Panama was stable. It is a modern country that has made significant progress in terms of development and democracy over the years.

Panama has also taken tremendous pride in reclaiming the canal from American control back in 1999. The canal's ambitious expansion is part of a sense of ownership and the understanding that the canal is key to the country's future prosperity.

However, there are some concerns I want to raise with respect to this debate. It is good that we are pursuing this free trade agreement, but it has very minimal impact in the context of our overall trade. While our competitors, other countries, other jurisdictions are pursuing aggressively courting other major developing economies like China and India, Canada is lagging far behind. I believe we are going about this in the wrong way in how we pursue our trade policy.

Canada should be focusing its trade agenda on larger growing markets like Brazil, India, China and Russia, where there are more opportunities for Canadian companies. By focusing on large markets, we can set the template that can be easily transferred to small markets, thereby speeding up the overall negotiation process.

To that effect, the Liberal Party recently presented, as part of our platform and as part of our international outlook, a global networks strategy, which really articulated a trade policy agenda going forward. That would work as a means to generate economic opportunities with the countries I alluded to before, the emerging major powers.

This proposed agreement would provide an opportunity to look at areas of trade and investment, financial services, transportation, higher education, research and development, energy, natural resources and a whole range of areas. I wanted to take this opportunity during the debate in the House to mention this because it is so important that we do this.

It is important for us to look at trade as a means to gain access to markets. This is the first time in over 30 years that we have had trade deficits, something which has alarmed many businesses. Small and medium-sized enterprises in my riding have had to close their doors because of lack of opportunities, not only in the domestic market but in the foreign market as well.

Panama is a first good step, but the real opportunities are in countries like China, Indian and Brazil.

Going back to the comment I made earlier, with respect to having a holistic approach when it comes to free trade. I mentioned that the agreements on the environment and labour co-operation were very important. We also need to talk about this when it comes to trade.

As Canadians, we value market access and market fair play. We want to reduce tariffs. We want to promote economic opportunity. However, we have a responsibility that goes beyond that, too. We have a responsibility, as global citizens, to invest and ensure that we hold ourselves and our trading partners to the best possible environmental standards, that we take this opportunity to talk about labour co-operation and labour standards and ensure that countries comply with international standards. We also have a responsibility to address issues of human rights.

The Liberal Party has always talked about this kind of approach. We have not only talked about free trade but fair trade as well. We have also very much promoted the importance of the environment and labour. It is something we have discussed with regard to many trade agreements and it is important we do not miss the opportunity in this debate.

Tremendous progress has been made in Panama. I saw it first hand. However, I believe we can continue to improve the situation there and also create a framework of going forward for other free trade agreements as well.

As I indicated, in terms of investment abroad, it is not only important to simply to have a free trade agreement with Panama. It is also important that we invest in the trade commissions and foreign embassies abroad that provide support to businesses.

There are many examples in my riding of businesses, particularly the small and medium-sized enterprises. Larger corporations tend to have that infrastructure in place. The small and medium-sized enterprises are looking for opportunities. Not only do they need market access, but they need the market intelligence, the data, the relevant information to better understand the market so they can better position themselves.

I would encourage the government, when it does invest or does pursue these free trade agreements, to also look at areas and means as to how we can really bolster our foreign embassies and trades abroad because it is so important.

Above and beyond pursuing a global network strategy in terms of free trade agreements and investing in foreign trade commissions, we also need to start putting together Team Canada missions. The Liberals pursued this very aggressively in the 1990s. It was an opportunity for us to really brand Canada. I realized this as a result of my travels abroad, even when I was in Panama, Colombia and other jurisdictions. It is very difficult to talk about free trade because some of the perceptions and stereotypes that exist do not necessarily reflect the economic reality and potential of Canada.

It is important that we brand Canada. It is important that we work together, all parliamentarians, in travelling abroad with business leaders and leaders from all sectors of the Canadian economy to brand Canada and to show that we have enormous potential. It would give us the leverage needed to ensure we could successfully pursue other bilateral trade agreements. This would be a step in the right direction. However, we need to ensure that we also pursue some of those key markets, as indicated, which are very important to our businesses, as well.

I would like to take this opportunity again to say that the Liberal Party looks forward to this debate and discussion. We would like to take this into committee, study it, bring forward witnesses, talk about issues that have been raised in the House and ensure that we promote trade in a manner that really benefits the economy as a whole. However, I would like to, from a local perspective, from my constituency of Mississauga—Brampton South, take the opportunity to emphasize the importance of focusing our resources and our strategies around promoting small and medium-sized enterprises and giving them the tools they need to succeed not only domestically, but abroad as well.

There is enormous potential with Panama because of the expansion of the canal. I am confident the Canadian companies that have expertise in engineering and infrastructure would ensure we could meet the requirements of Panama. We will be able to pursue that after we push forward this free trade agreement. This is really encouraging because a lot of companies in my riding and across the country would benefit from that. I hope all parliamentarians take it under consideration as part of our economic recovery going forward.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague. We lament the fact that he is no longer the trade critic for the Liberal Party. The one time, since I have been in Parliament, where the Liberal Party did not act as a sock puppet to the Conservative trade deals, regardless of how bad they were, was when he was trade critic. He came back from Colombia and stood with the New Democrats and the Bloc and said no to the Colombia trade deal. That was a proud moment for the Liberal Party. It was the last time that it took any principled position at all on trade and it was under his leadership as trade critic.

As the member well knows, the biggest problem with the Panama trade deal, and the elephant in the room, is the dirty drug money laundering that takes place in Panama. It is tied for worst in the world, according to the IRS, for drug gang, dirty money laundering. It is a tax haven. It is a fiscal paradise.

The Hells Angels are listening to the debate and saying, “Great, the Conservatives are helping us yet again by bringing absolutely no regulation on dirty money laundering in Panama”. We had the parliamentary secretary saying that the government would send a letter and ask the Panamanians to stop the dirty drug money laundering. The member knows that this is a crock. It is ridiculous.

Given that there is nothing that deals with dirty drug money laundering, with the Hells Angels use of Panama as a tax haven, why is the Liberal Party supporting a deal that so clearly goes against the interests of Canadians, against our Canadian police officers who are trying to fight dirty drug money laundering? Why is the Liberal Party capitulating yet again to the Conservatives on a trade issue?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the comment made about the current trade critic. The member for Willowdale has done an exceptional job for the Liberal Party, for our caucus and for her constituents in representing trade issues. She very much promotes free and fair trade. She is very much concerned about human rights and so is the Liberal Party.

When it came to the free trade agreement with Colombia, we worked very hard in committee to raise legitimate issues with respect to free trade. We worked very hard with the then trade critic as well to ensure we had a side agreement to address those issues. This party is not only committed to free and fair trade, but also to human rights. I am confident that our member for Willowdale will address these concerns if the bill is sent to committee.

With respect to the question around money laundering, again this has been raised on numerous occasions. If this is a legitimate concern, then I legitimately believe that this can be addressed during the committee hearings. I am confident that we can find a solution to deal with this issue, if it does exist to the extent that the member describes it.

This is an opportunity for all of us to come together and find a solution. As I said before, it is absolutely critical that we pursue free trade agreements. It is unfortunate that any time we talk about free trade, the NDP finds some excuse to oppose it. It is frustrating because we need to find opportunities for companies, especially in foreign markets, to expand, grow and create the jobs that we need, so we can have a quality of life not only for ourselves but for future generations as well.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want my Liberal colleague to be well aware that the Liberal Party's current position is in line with the position it has taken in the past. When Paul Martin was prime minister and Liberal leader, he signed a tax treaty with Barbados that did not include an information exchange agreement. That encouraged Canadian companies to set up subsidiaries in order to evade Canadian income tax. I know that Paul Martin himself benefited from this.

Once again, is the member aware that this is the good old Liberal way: signing agreements with tax havens where friends of the party can set up subsidiaries and avoid declaring and paying tax on income, because they would be exempt from declaring it here in Canada?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the member, when he asks his question, that referring to the integrity of the former prime minister is something I do not think is a proper assessment in this debate. When he pursued free trade agreements, he did so keeping in mind Canada's national interests, and that includes Quebeckers as well.

The businesses that had opportunities to succeed in these free trade agreements not only existed in other parts of the country but in Quebec as well. Quebec companies very much rely upon free trade agreements and opportunities abroad with respect to economic opportunities, for creating jobs and ensuring they have an opportunity to succeed and create a footprint that can really make Quebec and Canadians proud of the opportunities we have with free trade agreements.

As I indicated, any questions on money laundering or tax evasion will be addressed in the committee hearings. This is where some of the work will be done and it will allow us to have the opportunity to ensure we deal with it in a manner that is in our national interests.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

This is important because we are talking about the position of the Conservatives and the Liberals. The people who are watching have seen what their position is. The main reason why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this agreement and will not support it is that Panama is on the OECD grey list of tax havens.

I will read the four OECD criteria for determining whether a country is a tax haven: nil or nominal taxation; a lack of transparency; laws or administrative practices that prevent the effective exchange of information; and indications that the country is attempting to attract investments that are purely tax-driven and not for economic activity.

One way a country can deal with one of these criteria is to sign a tax information exchange agreement with other countries, and that is what the Bloc Québécois is calling for. The European Union and the United States are working to that end. They have shown that they want to sign a free trade agreement with Panama, but they are dragging their feet because, with the recent financial crisis, the leaders of those countries are very reluctant to develop trade with countries that promote tax evasion. That is a fact.

I understand that the Liberals support this agreement because, when they were in power, they led the way with this sort of agreement. None other than the Liberal leader, who was the prime minister of Canada at the time, promoted a free trade agreement with Barbados. His own companies benefited and got huge tax breaks. The problem is that, when we ratify an agreement with Panama, we will be telling Canadian companies that if they set up a subsidiary that has its own income in Panama, they will not have to declare that income here in Canada.

We do not want that. We do not want the government to encourage Canadian companies to evade taxes and use their income to create subsidiaries in Panama just so they can avoid declaring that income here in Canada. Why would they not do that if there were an agreement that let them do business with Panama? And to top it all off, it would be legal to create subsidiaries whose declared income would not come back to Canada.

What the Bloc Québécois is asking for is simple. We want a tax information exchange agreement, which is what the OECD calls for. Such an agreement must not exempt Canadian subsidiaries in Panama from income tax. This would be equitable and logical.

All the taxpayers here in Canada pay their taxes and work hard to pay those taxes. They are seeing their pension income decrease. It is happening, and the media are telling us that the main pension funds have a solvency ratio of 87%, which means they have a shortfall of 13%.

I think that the people of Quebec and Canada should expect the government not to sign trade or free trade agreements with countries that are on the OECD's list of tax havens. This is not Canada's list; it is the OECD's. In response to that, the Conservatives told us today, through the parliamentary secretary, that the Minister of Finance wrote a letter to the leaders of Panama. He told them that they must do what is necessary to be removed from the OECD's list of tax havens.

A lot of good that does to have the Minister of Finance write a letter. They will take that letter and file it away in the circular file. Thank you very much. Why? Simply because being a tax haven has its advantages. That is the reality. These countries have no intention of co-operating, and that is why Panama is on the OECD's grey list of tax havens. If Panama had wanted to co-operate in the past, if it had wanted to be respectful of other countries, it would not be on the grey list of tax havens.

Why does the government want to sign an agreement at any cost and as quickly as possible, if not to encourage Canadian businesses to set up subsidiaries there? Sure, they want to do business in Panama, but by setting up subsidiaries that will enable them to evade taxes on their revenues.

The Liberal member says that we can discuss this in committee, but a discussion will not work. Either we sign an information exchange agreement that prohibits tax evasion by Canadian companies or we do not sign the free trade agreement with Panama.

The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party want to sign the agreement anyway, without requiring a tax information exchange agreement and without requiring that Canadian companies not establish subsidiaries, whose revenue they would not have to declare in Canada. This inevitably encourages tax evasion. What will happen? The same thing that has happened over the past two months. At France's request, the HSBC Bank had to provide a list of clients with Swiss bank accounts, which included some Canadians. Canada did not care. In the past, the Liberals did not care, just as the Conservatives do not care now. France did care because the French people were tired of paying taxes while the rich evaded taxes.

Today, Canada has had to come around because we have a minority government. The Conservatives were afraid of paying the political price. Canadians on the list given to France are being asked to pay up. We know very well that tax evasion is a Criminal Code offence. However, the Conservative government has not indicated that people who evaded taxes will face criminal sanctions.

Today, the Conservative Party, supported by the Liberals, will sign a free trade agreement, supposedly for the sake of potential trade between Canada and Panama. By the way, Panama is a small country. That is not the issue. Yes, we can do business with Panama, just as we can with other countries. It is worthwhile. However, we cannot do business with a tax haven and legalize it in an agreement, in an international treaty, that would allow our Canadian and Quebec companies to create subsidiaries that would be exempt from paying tax on their Canadian revenue. We would be encouraging them to evade tax.

The Bloc Québécois stands up for all Quebeckers, not for the few rich people who might take the opportunity to establish subsidiaries in Panama and, with the free trade agreement, legalize the situation. That is what the Liberals did with Barbados when then prime minister, Paul Martin, had interests in that country. He signed a free trade agreement with Barbados to legalize his own personal business. The Conservatives are doing the same thing for some of their friends.

I find that sad. Quebeckers and Canadians work too hard in order to pay their taxes to then have a few rich and privileged people do business with a tax haven and establish subsidiaries that they would then be allowed to use to hide revenues that should be declared in Canada and therefore taxed in Canada. It is simple: when a subsidiary is established in a tax haven, which, as the OECD explains, imposes no or only nominal taxes, the company pays no tax on business done with that country. In this case, the country we are talking about is Panama. And the company would be crazy not to do this, because the Conservative Party, with support from the Liberals, would ratify this agreement without requiring a tax information exchange agreement, which the Bloc Québécois and the OECD are calling for, and without requiring that tax-exempt revenues be covered by this agreement. A company that establishes a subsidiary in Panama would then be subject to Canadian laws and tax rates, not Panamanian tax rates. This would be a good way for Canadians and Quebeckers to do business.

This would also be a good way for the public to know that everyone doing business with Panama is paying their fair share of taxes, just like the citizens. Once again, the Conservatives are succumbing to the Liberal phobia of allowing the rich to avoid paying taxes.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the economic arguments for free trade agreements are very compelling on a number of points.

There are some side issues, and they are part of this debate. The United States signed an agreement with Panama three years ago, and the Panamanian Congress ratified it 13 days later. But here we are three years later and the U.S. Congress has still not ratified the Panamanian agreement.

Is the member aware of the reasons that the Americans have not proceeded with ratifying that agreement?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at a time of financial crisis and stock market crisis, I can understand why the Americans do not want to sign or ratify any agreements with countries that are known tax havens.

I appreciate my colleague's question. Of course he was on the Liberals' side back when he was defending the treaty with Barbados, which is also a tax haven. I am very disappointed that the Liberals are siding with the Conservatives and have not examined their consciences regarding some of the bad decisions they made when they were in power. Once again, the Liberals are not offering any change. It is not surprising that they are having such a hard time these days, and it will only get worse in the weeks and months to come.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as with the Canada-Colombia agreement, the Liberals and the Conservatives are refusing to listen to the public. As the member is well aware, only the Bloc Québécois and the NDP were able to address the constant human rights violations in Colombia. The Conservatives, on the other hand, wanted to support the government in Colombia. Panama has some of the worst tax loopholes in the world. Yet the Liberals and the Conservatives want to endorse the actions of a country that is a known tax haven.

Why are the NDP and the Bloc Québécois the only parties that are listening to Canadians? Why do the old parties—the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party—always go along with the lobbyists instead of listening to people who want a fair and equitable tax system and want us to put an end to tax havens instead of helping them grow?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. He was against the free trade agreement with Barbados for the same reason we are discussing today.

At the time, the most powerful and most significant lobbyist was the Prime Minister of Canada; he had interests in Barbados. I can understand why friends of the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party force the government to sign a free trade with a country, when signing such an agreement legalizes the business they do with that country.

I am very surprised. The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party say we will improve the treaty in committee, but there is nothing to improve. Either we sign a tax information exchange agreement before signing the free trade agreement, or we do not. There is no room for negotiation. That is how it works all over the world. The OECD is asking that exchange agreements on personal information, tax information in particular, be signed.

The Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, on behalf of a few of their supporters who will make money in Panama, a known tax haven, are thumbing their noses at the right approach to politics, an approach the Bloc Québécois has been using since it arrived in the House in 1993 and the approach the NDP seems to be using.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after hearing interventions from the Conservatives and the Liberals around this bill, I am saddened to have to stand in this House, although I have enjoyed hearing the speeches from the Bloc.

As members are well aware, when we talk about Panama we are talking about a country that is tied for the worst money laundering tax haven on the planet. That is according to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. This is the reason the U.S. has not ratified an agreement with Panama, and yet the so-called anti-crime Conservatives are pushing ahead with this deal with a drug gang, drug money, money laundering, tax haven country.

The Conservatives are bringing it to the House of Commons with the explanation that the reason there is not one word in this agreement that in any way would close off the money laundering, close off the drug money, is that they sent a letter to the Panamanian government. They did not say how, whether it was sent by snail mail or by email. That somehow resolves the money laundering issues that made the U.S. Congress say no to this deal, say it is not going to pass this deal, and which are the reason the U.S.-Panama agreement has not been ratified.

For the Conservative government to pretend it is somehow anti-crime is a real crock when put in the context of presenting this bill, because this bill does not deal in any way with money laundering or drug money and does not in any way close those loopholes. The bill in fact widens them. Hells Angels across the country are rejoicing. The Conservatives have done something incredibly stupid and appallingly irresponsible, but they expect members of Parliament to ratify it.

In a normal functional Parliament, all three opposition parties would say, no, this is irresponsible and they are not going to ratify this deal. Sadly, the Liberal Party is once again endorsing Conservative action. We have seen this before. We saw this with the softwood lumber sell-out, which cost tens of thousands of jobs across this country and crippled many of our softwood lumber communities, and yet the Liberals just rubber-stamped it.

We saw this with the shipbuilding sellout. We had in this House hundreds of shipyard workers from across the country pleading with us that members of Parliament should put in place protections for this key strategic industry, our shipbuilding industry. The Liberals endorsed the Conservative action. That was irresponsible.

We have already cited the Colombia trade deal, a massive sell-out of human rights, a complete repudiation of Canada's principle, a principle and a value that the vast majority of Canadians share, that we do not reward regimes for killing trade unionists and human rights activists in their countries. Yet the Conservatives and the Liberals endorsed that government and the actions of its intelligence service and paramilitary and military groups and the ongoing killings of human rights advocates and trade unionists in Colombia.

Now this bill has been brought forward, which implicitly endorses the idea that Panama can be a tax haven for dirty drug money laundering.

When the IRS says Panama is tied for worst in the world, one would expect the Canadian government to be a bit more responsible. The Conservatives have not been responsible. They have not dealt with it in any way, and that is why the NDP is standing up in the House and saying this is irresponsible.

Canadians are calling out for a fairer tax system, calling out for an end to the shell game where big Canadian corporations and the wealthy can transfer their money overseas and not have to pay taxes on it, while the hard-working middle class and poor Canadians have to work and pay their taxes. They contribute to their country. Here we have the Conservatives, with Liberal support, saying they will facilitate money laundering, facilitate tax havens and let people move money to Panama and not have to pay taxes on it. That is absolutely irresponsible. It is the only word one can use to describe it.

Then we have to think that because the Conservatives have taken this irresponsible action that there must be some merit to it and maybe it is because they have some strategy around trade. Sadly, not even that is the case.

When we look at all the bilateral agreements Canada has signed, such as those with Israel and Chile, the famous shipbuilding sellout, the EFTA deal, the one with Costa Rica, when we look at all those FTAs, in case after case after case we sign the FTAs and exports to those markets from Canada drop. That is the absurdity to all of this. We have a lot of free trade cheerleaders but not a lot of them are doing their homework. They are actually not looking at the export statistics.

The government will say it is going to throw out some figures that are in constant dollars and say that shows a growth in trade. However, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, a man who I admire, actually was able to say that we have to take real terms to talk about the cost of the Canadian deficit and debt. He actually talked about that. There is one financially literate member among the Conservatives.

Here we have a situation where not a single Conservative, in real terms, has looked at the export figures that have actually declined. I compliment the parliamentary secretary because he understands the difference between current dollars and constant dollars. Nobody else on that side appears to know the difference. People who know the difference know that our exports have declined in every single bilateral market. Therefore, there is a fundamental problem.

Now, Conservatives will say that maybe exports have declined in real terms, maybe we do not know what we are doing with money laundering, but surely this contributes to prosperity. Again, we have to look in real terms and talk about constant dollars to get the most recent figures about what has happened to family income in Canada. If we go back to the NAFTA days and the signing of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, sadly, we will see that for middle class and poorer Canadians, in every single case there has been a decline in real income.

We sign these bad trade agreements, transfer out Canadian raw resources and have them processed and value-added overseas. We outsource the jobs that were in Canada before, take the good family-sustaining jobs and replace them with service industry jobs that are lower paying. We have more burger flippers than we have ever had before in this country, but we have lost half a million good manufacturing jobs largely because many of these trade agreements are structured so that Canadian companies can take their factories and manufacturing capacity overseas.

When we look at the overall income of the average Canadian family, it is no secret why the debt load of the average Canadian family has doubled over the past 20 years. It is because real income has declined for every single income category except one, and that is the real reason why we are seeing this dirty drug money laundering bill today. The wealthiest of Canadians now take 52% of all Canadian income, most of the Canadian income pie, and those are the folks who would love to take their money to Panama and not have to pay taxes on it. We are seeing a hollowing out and a very bad, dysfunctional export strategy.

In this corner of the House we are standing up for the average Canadian family and saying that, if the government has such dysfunctional trade and export strategies, it is up to us in this NDP corner of the House to say no to bad trade deals and no to deals that are irresponsible. That is what we are doing.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

There will be five minutes for questions and comments on the hon. member's speech when the debate resumes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read a second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

To begin, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois does not support this bill, mostly for the same reasons that it is against so many bills concerning the implementation of bilateral free trade agreements between Canada and certain countries. In this particular case, there is the additional issue of Panama being a tax haven, one that is on France's blacklist and the OECD's grey list. The latter lists countries that have committed to exchanging tax information but that have not substantially implemented the rules.

We know that some countries are tax havens. The OECD has come up with four criteria to determine if a country is a tax haven. Countries wanting to do business or trade with countries that are tax havens must ensure that those countries do not meet these four criteria.

There are tax havens with tax rates so low as to be non-existent, with no transparency when it comes to their laws, specifically their tax laws, and with legal or administrative barriers to sharing information. They attract investments simply for tax reasons, not for any economic activity per se. One of those countries is Panama.

The Bloc Québécois wants Canada to ensure that it can do business transparently, that it can get all available information on, for instance, Canadian or Panamanian businesses that want to do business here, so we can see where the money goes, who is paying taxes and how much.

We are calling on the Conservative government to sign a tax information exchange agreement with Panama. At present, we have no guarantee that any tax information exchange agreements with Panama have been signed or that such agreements provide a tax exemption for subsidiaries located in jurisdictions with which we have agreements. What does that mean? It means that Canada signs many bilateral free trade agreements, and Canadian subsidiaries that operate on islands or in countries with which we have such agreements should, theoretically, bring profits earned there back to Canada in order to pay taxes.

Canada does not force them do so. In fact, in 2007, the Conservative government expanded the definition of designated countries in the Income Tax Regulations in order to accommodate a country with which Canada concluded a tax information exchange agreement. Thus, income earned by a business operated by a foreign subsidiary in a country that has concluded a tax information exchange agreement is tax-exempt.

In 2007, the Conservative government made changes that distorted information exchange agreements. These agreements not only allow information exchanges, but also allow subsidiaries located in the targeted jurisdictions to be tax-exempt. That is why the Bloc Québécois is calling on Canada to implement a real tax treaty to improve the transparency of Panama's financial institutions and effectively fight tax evasion before agreeing to ratify a free trade agreement. Since Panama is a tax haven, we believe it will be easy for companies and individuals to set up there or to invest money there. There will be no transparency, and we will not know how much money these people make, how much they should pay in taxes and whether these taxes will be sent back to Canada. That is one of the reasons we do not accept this free trade agreement.

There is another reason behind our position. The Bloc Québécois is open to trade, but not at just any cost. It is open to trade if human rights are respected. Panama has a right-wing government that adopted legislation considered anti-union on June 30, 2010. That legislation includes a labour code reform that is perceived to be repressive since it would criminalize workers who demonstrate to defend their rights. In August, the Panamanian government agreed to review the legislation. We still have cause for concern about whether Panama's government really intends to comply with International Labour Organization conventions. I think it is important to postpone signing the free trade agreement and ensure that the Panamanian government changes its attitude toward unions and workers in its country.

The Bloc Québécois is open to trade, but its focus is fair globalization. We believe that in order for trade to be mutually beneficial, it must first be fair. A trading system that results in exploitation in poor countries and dumping in rich countries is not viable. The Bloc Québécois will never tolerate a system of free trade that would result in a race to the bottom. The absence of environmental or labour standards in trade agreements puts a great deal of pressure on our industries, especially our traditional industries. It is very difficult for them to compete with products made with no regard for basic social rights.

The Bloc Québécois believes that child labour, forced labour and the denial of workers' fundamental rights are a form of unfair competition, just like, or even more than, export subsidies and dumping. Prohibition of these practices is widely accepted at the international level, as reflected by the large number of countries that have signed the International Labour Organization's eight fundamental conventions. We must have the means to protect ourselves against such practices.

Trade agreements and trade laws do not protect our businesses and our workers from this social dumping. If a country wants to benefit from free trade, in return, it has to accept a certain number of basic rules, with regard to social rights in particular. Environmental organizations and human rights groups have been concerned about this issue for a long time. More recently, though, it has become a major economic issue. Quebec has proportionally more industries threatened by competition from Asia than the rest of Canada. Quebec is at the forefront of this debate.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is urging the federal government to revise its positions in trade negotiations in order to ensure that trade agreements include clauses ensuring compliance with international labour standards as well as respect for human rights and the environment.

Is my time already up, Mr. Speaker?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Unfortunately, your time is up.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that France got results and recently signed a double taxation avoidance agreement with Panama. That is because, this past February, France became proactive and levied a 50% tax on dividends, service fees, royalties and interest paid by French companies to a beneficiary in any of the blacklisted countries. Of course, one of the 18 countries was Panama.

Clearly the proof exists that if proactive action is taken, such as France took and imposed penalties against the 350,000 companies that are operating in Panama, there will be results. Panama came to the table very quickly, and the Prime Minister should now be diverting his plane when he leaves Switzerland after meeting with the Swiss president and heading straight to Panama to make sure we get a similar agreement.

As a matter of fact, Panama has signed an agreement with eight countries just in the last few months. Guess what? Not one of them is Canada. Panama has signed agreements with Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Qatar, and Spain, all in the last six months. Yet Canada is a country that is doing a free trade deal with Panama and it is not part of those eight.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. I find it unfortunate that the government is willing to encourage trade at any cost, without any thought to what could happen, the results, the consequences.

This government has always been reluctant when it comes time to force an issue. It is as though they are scared to lose out by pushing human rights issues, fair trade and the creation of benchmarks and standards.

If I were a member of this government, I would be ashamed to not be able to put my foot down more. I would be ashamed to only be able to back the business side of things without being able to focus on getting a fair and equitable bill or agreement.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of bilateral trade agreements signed off by Canada recently and I think there is concern by many that as we continue to go down the path of a bilateral approach, it is at the cost of looking at multilateral approaches.

I do not want the member's comments about this specific trade agreement but about this method or approach to trade. Is she concerned at all about this approach to having bilateral agreements? One could argue that it distracts us from what I think most people would agree is the way to go, which is multilateral agreements, so that there can be fair trade rules for everyone, not just compounded bilateral trade agreements, which can make it difficult for everyone.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite troubling. Canada has signed more than 20 bilateral agreements. By signing bilateral agreements, the Canadian government is ignoring certain global laws concerning protective measures for workers or unions, human rights, the environment, etc.

It is all very well and good to say that these types of bilateral agreements contain laws to protect the environment and workers, but it is just hearsay. Nothing sticks to realities, to global agreements, and we should be worried. Not only is this wrong, it is not in keeping with Canada and the image it usually projects.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a bill concerning a bilateral free trade agreement with Panama, Bill C-46.

I rise today to hopefully take a look at Canada's track record regarding trade and particularly the direction that the government has taken when it comes to trade agreements. When it comes to the Panama free trade agreement, it is actually part of the cookie-cutter approach that the government has of looking at free trade as a one-off kind of thing that can be done with different countries, and by the same token, ignoring where I think we should be spending our time and effort, which is looking at the multilateral forums.

Many who are involved in trade agreements and in diplomacy are very concerned about the fact that we were not able to find success in the Doha Round. The government will say that since Doha has collapsed, the World Trade Organization talks on multilateralism have collapsed, in effect what we should be doing is just having bilateral trade agreements.

That sounds reasonable if we consider that there does not seem to be any initiative that is worthwhile to get multilateral trade agreements going on or the Doha Round going again, except for the fact that when we look at what Canada's role in trade has been historically from the beginning of Confederation, we need to ensure that we do have fair trade opportunities, that we are not going to be susceptible to larger economies taking advantage of our goods and services and resources. By the same token, we have to have access to markets.

Essentially, in a sentence or two, that is what the equation is. It is making sure we have access, while protecting our economy.

When it comes to these bilateral trade agreements, the concern here is that when we compound them and stack them up, we have to really look at what is in the interests of Canada. There have been some interesting suppositions put forward on these small bilateral trade agreements. Let us be honest here: most Canadians do not wake up in the morning and say, “By golly, we need to get access to the market in Lichtenstein, or Jordan, or Panama”.

We do want to make sure that we are not selling off our natural resources without value added, that we are not opening our markets up to the vagaries of what we have seen lately, which is very significant multinational corporations coming in and taking over our companies, dispensing with the parts of the company that they do not find profitable, and making away with the profits. That is the major concern of Canadians, not about free trade with Panama or Lichtenstein or Jordan.

Canadians are very concerned about what happens when these bilateral trade agreements compound and what is the benefit for Canada. In the last couple of weeks, there has been an interesting discussion around potash. Potash has been a real cornerstone for the economy in Saskatchewan. As we know, it was something that was a net benefit for everyone in Saskatchewan because it was a crown corporation.

Sadly, we saw it sold off, and we say this respectfully to the party in Saskatchewan or what used to be the Conservative party that exists no more. They sold it off. We now have Mr. Wall in a position where he is having to sound like a New Democrat, saying that because of the concerns of international investors, he is going to actually stand up for Saskatchewan and not let Potash Corporation be further undermined. We welcome that.

Mr. Wall has now listened to what New Democrats have said: “Do not sell it off. Do not let the Prime Minister have his way.” When we are talking about international trade, we are talking about protecting Canadian industry. I know some of the Conservatives are looking as though they are doing a pretzel dance, but that is kind of how they are dealing with the potash file. I guess they represent exactly what is happening with their position on trade, protecting, on the one hand, Canadian industries, and on the other hand, ensuring that we have markets abroad.

Make no mistake, if Potash Corporation is sold off to another country, which is essentially what is happening, the effects will be not just to Saskatchewan. The ripple effect will be felt throughout Canada. That is what we have to consider when we are looking at trade agreements. How is Canada going to benefit? The provisions in this bill, in this offering from government, are in terms of investment protection and free market access in goods and services, including government procurement, but then we get into what we have seen in previous trade agreements: a labour protection agreement and an agreement on the environment.

Unless absolute clarity on what we are agreeing to in terms of labour standards and environmental standards is embedded in trade agreements, they are not worth the paper they are written on. They can be ignored. If there are labour standards, for instance, such the ones in Panama, which are not as strong as those in Canada, essentially we are putting our workers in unfair competition with workers from Panama. Not only that, but in talking to people from Panama, as our party has, their concern is that it is in fact putting a rubber stamp on labour practices in Panama and saying that all is well and good.

I have heard the government say, time and time again, this will lift all boats up and by us signing a free trade agreement with Panama, all of a sudden it is going to have fair labour standards and fair environmental standards. We know we do not even have the capacity to have oversight on the potash deal in this country. Are we really going to have enough people to have oversight on the environmental and labour standards in Panama? I doubt it. In fact, the agreement does not have it embedded. It is a side agreement and it is a sideshow at the end of the day.

When we look at the totality of this bilateral trade agreement, it is like what we have seen in the past. There is no guarantee that we are going to have equity in terms of access to markets and protecting labour and environmental standards for those we trade with. We do not know and have actual numbers to convince any of us that this will be a benefit to Canadians, be it workers or investors. We do not know what the follow-up will be, because when we are talking about trade agreements, each of these agreements needs to be monitored. Once we sign off and say, “Here is access to our markets”, some people will take advantage of that and will have access to cheaper labour, perhaps, and able to have environmental standards that are not as strong as Canada's, but we will have to make sure that there are benefits to Canada. Who is going to monitor that?

Right now, as I said before in terms of looking at the potential sale of PotashCorp, we do not even have enough people monitoring that. For each of these bilateral agreements, we are going to need people to monitor these trade agreements. That is why it is so important to focus on the multilateral approach.

With a multilateral trade system, which used to be the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, we would have discussions and debates in Brussels and we would have some of our bureaucrats in Brussels on a regular basis ensuring that the GATT rules were being followed. We will need the same kind of thing for each of these bilateral agreements.

We should be entering into multilateral agreements. It makes sense and it is fairer. This is not the way to go. Clearly this is going to be another example of the government ignoring multilateral, going into bilateral, and at the end of the day, Canadians will not be better off.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his very good speech outlining some of the problems with this Panama trade agreement. Between the environmental, labour and tax haven issues that are outlined in this agreement, one of the things we know is that, for many of our ridings, we have been left with a bad taste as a result of agreements that have been negotiated by the government.

The softwood lumber deal was not such a great deal for the workers in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. What we have seen as a result of that is sawmills close and some of our pulp mills really struggle with access to fibre. So I have a tough time going back to my riding and talking about another agreement that does not seem to provide the kind of protections that we would expect our legislators to put in place for Canadian workers.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that agreements such as the softwood lumber agreement simply have not benefited Canadian workers and in fact we have seen job losses as a result of that. Anytime we want to talk about fair trade, we want fair trade, not free trade. We want to talk about no net job loss for Canadian workers. Could the member comment on that?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague from British Columbia is actually pinpointing is the problem with these agreements. Like the softwood lumber sellout, as some of my colleagues call it, the agreement looks good on paper to those who are negotiating it but when it comes down to individual communities and industries, we have not seen the benefit. We have seen the opposite of that.

Let us remember what happened. We had $1 billion go south to guarantee that we would have fair trade and access to markets. Now we see, in ridings right across the country, the shutdown of an industry. The irony, actually the tragedy, is that we were investing this money so that we could have access and it has had the opposite effect.

What we need to see in these agreements is not just nice side agreements on labour and the environment that, frankly, are not very effective. We need to see, just like we are taking about with potash, where the net benefit is for Canada in these trade agreements, not in theory but in actual real terms.

I am sure that at committee we will be asking to see the statistics on Panama that we will be able to take to the bank and take to our communities to ensure we are not being opened up just for some people to take what they want and leave the rest, because that is what we have seen here. We have seen our country opened up, people taking what they want and leaving most of our workers with the short end of the stick.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have always found it interesting to hear the debates on the trade deals because it seems the same issues are raised.

However, I picked up on a couple things and I wonder if the member could comment on them.

Three years ago, the United States entered into an agreement with Panama and 13 days thereafter the Panamanian congress approved the deal. However, here we are, three years later, and the U.S. Congress still has not ratified the Panamanian agreement. It does raise some questions about what is in fact the problem. We know that the implications of a trade deal with the United States and Panama will not have too much of an effect simply because 96% of the Panamanian exports are duty free and there is no competition to the major export commodities of the U.S.

There must be something more to this from a U.S. perspective and, I submit, that it would probably be relevant for the discussion and for us to know when there are free trade deals, particularly with the same country, what other countries are doing and why.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would point to the fact that it was the U.S. Congress that stopped the trade deal with Colombia and, as the member would know as well, it was not just with the present government but with the previous government. The reason was clear: the congress was not going to be entering into a free trade agreement with, as he noted, Panama, but also with Colombia because of the concerns about what was happening on the ground in Colombia.

What we need to see, before we enter into trade deals, is that there is fair play in daylight with the countries that we are going to be entering into these deals with, before, not after. This is where the American Congress has taken a strong stand. It is seen, in the case of Colombia, that there was not fair play in daylight on things like labour rights, human rights and the environment. I think that is the same reason why the U.S. stopped its negotiations with Panama.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the NDP member from Ottawa talking about the importance of a multilateral approach in trade agreements to ensure some degree of fairness in the agreements and to ensure that they benefit all parties involved, which is quite a departure from the sort of bilateral agreements this government wants to rush through.

The Bloc Québécois has always been very clear. Protectionism will not help the Quebec economy because it is based on the manufacturing industry. In its budgets, the government has been trying to limit the development and growth of manufacturing businesses by introducing policies that favour other sectors, such as the western oil industry. We object to such ploys because everyone knows that the Quebec economy is based primarily on manufacturing, and therefore on exports. International exports account for one-third of Quebec's GDP. If we include all interprovincial exports, over half of our GDP depends on the growth of our manufacturing industry.

We therefore cannot support any sort of protectionist initiatives. That is why, when we learned that the American administration had decided to include protectionist measures in its stimulus plan, some Bloc Québécois members rushed to Washington, the American capital. They urged the American government and all partners to stay away from protectionist measures because they are harmful not only to our economy, but to theirs as well. A great deal of trade takes place between Quebec and the United States and between Canada and the United States. The fabrication of manufactured goods often begins on one side of the border and is completed on the other side. The value added to goods increases on the other side of the border, and those goods come and go. We have an integrated manufacturing industry. The Bloc Québécois therefore vehemently opposes any sort of protectionist measures.

However, the common good and the ability of governments to redistribute wealth, protect the environment and culture, and provide their citizens with basic public services, such as health care and education, must always be the basis for decisions about trade rules. If the WTO's Doha round is compromised and the free trade area of the Americas is currently stagnating, is it because the negotiations were flawed? Of course. It does not mean that the multilateral system is ineffective. It comes down to some partners around the table having the impression that they will come up short. Some parties want to have more benefits and, consequently, the other parties run the risk of coming up short.

When negotiating, it is important to always bear in mind that agreements must be fair to all partners and that each party must secure the benefits it had hoped for by signing the agreements.

In the case of multilateral agreements, if the government made more of an effort around the table to arrive at just and fair compromises, we would not be in a position today of watching it rush to sign bilateral agreements with just about anyone in order to bypass others who would like to sign agreements. I do not believe we should be doing this. The Bloc Québécois' position is that it is important that efforts be directed to negotiating multilateral agreements.

That is why the Bloc Québécois was the first party in this House to call for an agreement to be signed with the European Union. This agreement is still being questioned today because it is not clear whether the government is serious about defending what is important to us at the table, namely cultural exemption and supply management. Fundamental requirements still need to be central to the debates, discussions and negotiations because there are fundamental aspects at the heart of a society's economy or identity. For example, supply management is fundamental to Quebec agriculture. There is also cultural exemption. I like repeating that in this House. Quebec is a nation where culture, the arts, literature and, essentially, everything that is at the centre of our collective identity as Quebeckers, are important to us. We want to preserve our identity for generations to come because that is what defines us as a nation. So ends that aside.

As my colleague from the New Democratic Party said in his speech, when agreements are negotiated, they have to benefit the country's economy, or the nation's, in the case of the Quebec nation. When the Bloc Québécois assesses potential agreements presented to it, one of the questions it needs answered is whether these agreements can benefit Quebec's economy.

That being said, with Panama there is another problem to add to the debate: the fact that this country is on the grey list of tax havens. None of us likes to hear in the news that companies are not paying their fair share of taxes because they shelter their capital in tax havens in various countries that protect them from having to fulfill their social responsibility. It is clear that ordinary citizens do not enjoy the same privileges that the government unfortunately continues to give rich companies to save them from paying some of the tax on their profits.

As far as Panama is concerned, I have here an article from Le Devoir, from September 29, 2010, entitled “Lutte internationale contre l'évasion fiscale—Les mauvais élèves sont montrés du doigt”. It is about singling out the offenders in the international fight against tax evasion. The subtitle refers to the release of the international forum's first report card.

This text from Agence France-Presse explained that, following a preliminary review by the WTO, Panama would probably be on the WTO list of offenders. I believe this needs to be taken into account.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member is consistent with his coalition partners against trade and against companies like Bombardier and other companies in Quebec doing business around the world. Those members do not want to see any type of free trade agreement that gives them an advantage in the marketplace.

In the agriculture sector in Saskatchewan trade is very important. We need trade. The NDP does not represent farmers in Saskatchewan, it never has and it never will.

Why is he against trade? This is so beneficial for the whole Canadian economy, especially Quebec. Why would he not just embrace this, get behind it, push it and see the bill go through?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The member mentioned a coalition. I see more of a coalition between the Liberals and the Conservatives to help major corporations avoid paying their taxes. These taxes would help us better redistribute the wealth and would give our citizens even better lives.

In response to his question, as I said in my speech, the Bloc Québécois is a strong supporter of multilateral agreements. The Bloc Québécois was in favour of signing the North American Free Trade Agreement, and is in favour of a free trade agreement with the European Union. These agreements involve several parties, who will all reap the benefits.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. entered into an agreement with Panama three years ago, but it still has not been ratified by the U.S. Congress.

It is curious because the previous questioner asked what the member had against trade when there were all these good things. In regard to the U.S., the FTA would eliminate 88% of tariffs on U.S. exports and it would secure new access and advantages to Panama investment, financial and other services and, most significant, it would open up major new opportunities for U.S. businesses and workers in the current expansion of the Panama Canal.

It would appear that there are substantial reasons why there are very strong benefits for the United States in entering into that agreement. Notwithstanding that Panama ratified the agreement with the U.S. 13 days after it was agreed upon, 3 years later the U.S. Congress has refused to give approval to that Panama agreement.

Is the member aware of any reasons why the U.S. has refused to enter an agreement, which clearly would be to its advantage?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would not want to hazard a guess as to why the U.S. Congress has not decided to go ahead with this free trade agreement, but it is clear that countries should not be in a hurry to sign free trade agreements. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that the Conservative government is in a hurry. It is rushing to sign bilateral agreements with a number of countries in order to head off other countries that are doing the same thing.

As I said in my speech, instead of focusing its efforts on this sort of thing, the government needs to sit down with other countries and really do what it takes to ensure that major multilateral agreements see the light of day, for the sake of Canadians and Quebeckers.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the bill.

At the outset, I would like to take a moment to recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. An hour or so ago he indicated that the Prime Minister had just signed a double taxation avoidance agreement with Switzerland today in Switzerland. He gave information, for which we have been looking for some time now, as to how much money has been recouped by Revenue Canada.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that last year $138 million had been collected on behalf of Canadian taxpayers under the amnesty program. He said that even more than $138 million had been collected to date this year, but he did not give us an indication of how much. I know the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister is here and perhaps he could make a note of this and get back to us with the information as to how much has been collected so far this year. I think that is a good sign.

For many years now, the banking systems of Switzerland, Liechtenstein and other countries becoming tax havens for arms dealers and drug dealers. As well, regular everyday Canadian taxpayers and corporations have been taking advantage of these tax shelters primarily because they can get away with it.

After several hundred years of Switzerland keeping its bank secrecy laws and veils in place, after 9/11 we started to see some breakthroughs. President Obama took on the Swiss banking establishment over the last couple of years, demanding information. Under the guise of finding out information about terrorist financing, he was able to break open the veil of secrecy. However, up until 9/11, up until the worldwide concern about terrorism, there did not seem to be too much concern about drug dealers, arms dealings or about other people hiding their money from tax authorities. Things have developed and progressed for the better.

Here is another bit of information that the public knows about now. A bank employee in a Liechtenstein bank two or three years ago sold bank diskettes containing thousands of names of taxpayers to the German government. In a more recent case, a Swiss bank employee did the same thing. He took the records into France and turned them over to the French government. Now the Canadian government has been faced with this information being made public and Canadian taxpayers are demanding to know what the Canadian government is doing about it.

The Canadian government is essentially offering an amnesty to taxpayers in Canada who have not paid their taxes. The government wants them to walk into Revenue Canada, declare that they have been bad and it will let them off the hook with no penalties, no jail terms, nothing more than just “pay your taxes”. That has been its approach. Now the Prime Minister has gone off to Switzerland and has an agreement with the Swiss government.

I ask the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister to take note of what France did, and it was quite substantial. Only this February, France compiled a list. There is the OECD grey list, but there is also France's black list. It put 18 countries on this list and one was Panama.

France acted proactively, and Canada should do what France did. France levied a 50% tax on dividend, service fees, royalties and interest paid by French entities to any beneficiaries in any of these blacklisted countries, including Panama, a 50% upfront tax levy. Gains from real estate and securities transactions were also subject to the same levy. In addition, France's 95% tax exemption on dividends issued by subsidiaries to their French-based parent company will be removed if the subsidiary resides in any of the blacklisted jurisdictions. France brought these rules in immediately, in February.

What happened? The results have been phenomenal. France now has a double taxation avoidance agreement signed with Panama. When Panama realized the game was up, that it would have to comply, it signed agreements not only with France, but with Mexico, Barbados, Belgium, the Netherlands, Qatar and Spain. That is since February. It now has these agreements that it refused to sign for many years.

Guess what? Canada is not one of those countries. Canada is a country that is looking at implementing a free trade agreement.

This is perfect timing for Parliament and the government to become proactive and to do what France did. It should compile a blacklist, follow the OECD's list if it wishes, and levy the 50% tax on dividends, on interest, on royalties, on service fees, all the measures that France took, then watch Panama come immediately to the table. Within weeks of the government doing this, I can guarantee the Panamanian government will be knocking on the government's door, asking to sign the double taxation avoidance agreement. That definitely would be putting the cart behind the horse because the government is not doing things in a way that would get results.

The member for Mississauga South has been desperately seeking answers from successive speakers all morning, and not getting them, about why the Americans are not ratifying the agreement. He wants to know the reasons why 43 or 45 congressmen have demanded that President Obama not ratify it. He points out that Panama signed and ratified the agreement within 13 days, yet after 3 years the United States has not ratified, nor is it likely to be any time soon.

The reality is 45 American legislators have resisted signing. Part of the reason is the Americans are aware that 350,000 corporations have offices in Panama to shelter income. In order words, they are taking advantage of the tax haven status. One of the corporations is none other than AIG. AIG received gazillions of dollars in bailouts just two years ago and it gave a huge amount of bonuses to its executives six months later. Now AIG is suing the U.S. government for $306 million in back taxes it claims it is owed because of the use of one of its Panamanian corporate entities. It wants to involve itself in tax havens like Panama—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I think if we stop the member here we could probably accommodate one question or comment. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these are important issues, tax haven status and that it is a hub for drug dealers, but I would like to set those aside. In fact, Canada is not a boy scout when it comes to drug dealers. Some people would make the claim that in British Columbia the biggest agriculture crop is cannabis.

I would like to raise the issue of human rights, which is of greater importance. Free traders in Canada for a couple of decades have suggested that we do a Central American free trade area, CAFTA. Thankfully, we have not done that, because a number of the regimes there are tremendous abusers of human and democratic rights.

In the last decade, Panama has made tremendous progress in that particular area and, approaching in a piecemeal fashion where we encourage countries that have shown progress on human democratic rights, perhaps that provides an example to other regimes in the area recently. In the past few years, Guatemala obviously has--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have to interrupt as we are rapidly approaching the end of the time allowed. I will hand the floor back to the member for Elmwood—Transcona for a very brief response.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was just finishing the answer to the question from the member for Mississauga South when I ran out of time. He wanted to know why the Americans were not ratifying the agreement.

The example of AIG is one of the reasons that the American congresspeople give for not wanting to ratify the agreement. While they have AIG people getting this huge amount of bail-out money just two years ago and paying themselves huge bonuses, they find that AIG is suing the government--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read a second time and referred to a committee and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, the Bloc Québécois and I spoke out against Bill C-46, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. The Conservatives' eagerness to ratify this agreement was one of the reasons we could not support it. About a month ago, while we were considering this bill in the House, we found that it was not in line with the Bloc Québécois' values and beliefs or those of Quebeckers.

Our position remains unchanged because we have seen no indication that neither workers' rights nor the tax haven situation in Panama has improved since then. My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I will never be able to support any agreement, treaty or government decision that does not respect these fundamental rights. We will never accept such an agreement unless we can be certain that these rights will be respected.

Before going any further, I would like to answer a question that was asked by the Conservative member for Abbotsford. After my last speech on this subject, he asked why the Bloc Québécois would not at least allow this agreement to go to committee to ensure that amendments are made that would satisfy the Bloc. I would say that if some of these problems could be fixed in committee, we would be in favour of sending the bill to committee. However, some of the problems with the agreement or relations with Panama are beyond Canada's control. For example, there is the issue of police repression of unions. As my colleague, the member for Joliette said, although we could study the issue in committee, we would be wasting our time if the Panamanian leaders have no interest in examining and addressing the situation.

That said, since I have the honour of speaking on this topic today, I think it is important to briefly reiterate the Bloc's position on bilateral agreements. The Bloc Québécois is not a protectionist party. Quebec exports 52% of what it produces, and our businesses, especially cutting-edge businesses, could not survive in the domestic market alone. That is why the Bloc Québécois supported NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and was the first party to propose entering into a free trade agreement with the European Union. Clearly, our party supports free trade.

We believe that in order for trade to be mutually beneficial, it must first be fair. This would be easy if the Conservatives were willing. A trading system that results in exploitation in poor countries and dumping in rich countries is not viable. Members can be assured that the Bloc Québécois will never tolerate a system of free trade that would result in a race to the bottom. We simply want to increase wealth and not poverty, in Quebec, Canada, and in the countries with which we are signing agreements.

We are well aware that the absence of environmental or labour standards in trade agreements puts a great deal of pressure on our industries, especially our traditional industries. It is very difficult for them to compete with products made with no regard for basic social rights. We are in favour of a real policy of multilateralism, not the shameless pursuit of profit at the expense of people's living conditions and the environment, which is all too often the case with the bilateral agreements that the government wants to sign.

I would like to remind the members of an aspect of this agreement that the Bloc Québécois finds very worrisome, and that we proclaim loud and clear every time we have the chance.

Panama is still on the OECD's grey list of tax havens, and it is even on France's blacklist of tax havens. Yes, I said France. Obviously Panama poses a problem.

While major European corporations are leaving that country because of its lack of banking transparency and its promotion of tax evasion, Canada wants to send its companies there. Does that make any sense? We need to think about this. The fact that France is pulling out of the country and we want to go in needs some serious consideration.

The Bloc Québécois feels it is imperative that, before concluding a Canada-Panama free trade agreement, the Conservative government sign an information sharing agreement with Panama. Nonetheless, this agreement must not exempt subsidiaries located in the targeted jurisdictions from paying income tax.

I want to repeat that, even though the free trade agreement signed on May 14, 2010, comes with a comprehensive agreement on labour co-operation, protecting labour rights in Panama remains a serious concern.

President Ricardo Martinelli's right-wing government passed Law 30, legislation that is considered anti-union, just a few months ago in June 2010. It is unbelievable. Basically, the law criminalizes workers who demonstrate to defend their rights. Here we are in 2010 and that government is still passing that kind of legislation. Once again, this certainly gives us something to think about.

We also know that Panama was shaken in recent months by crackdowns described as anti-union. Between two and six people were killed and about 100 were injured during violent demonstrations that were held after Law 30 passed in June 2010.

As a member who comes from the agricultural labour movement, I naturally believe that workers' rights are universal rights, and no trade agreement, no free trade agreement—and I mean none—should be entered into without absolute assurance that workers' rights will be respected. That is a fundamental principle of fair trade. That is how fair trade begins. It is not rocket science.

Accordingly, we rigorously apply that principle to all of our actions and the decisions we make. That is one of the reasons we simply could not support the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement recently. Our party acts in accordance with our values and policies.

Even though on August 5, 2010, the Panamanian government agreed to review this law, we nonetheless have cause for concern about the Martinelli government's true willingness to respect the International Labour Organization conventions. Why is the government in such a hurry to ratify this agreement? Should we not ensure that the Panamanian government is backing down on Law 30 before we make any commitment? Why not make sure the Panamanian government reverses its decision and supports labour rights in that country instead?

Without any assurance that workers' rights are respected in Panama and considering that this country is still on France's blacklist and the OECD's grey list of tax havens, it is not possible for the Bloc Québécois to support this bill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his presentation. He has raised some extremely serious points about the bill we are debating today.

I would like his opinion or that of the Bloc on the government's agenda with regard to this free trade agreement. It took the same approach with Colombia and other countries, an approach that ignores human rights, fairness and transparency. These values are important to Canadians but, as we can see, the government is taking a very different approach.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent question.

I was elected to sit in this House two years ago. I have had to take a stand on a number of issues, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement in particular. The Bloc Québécois thinks it is unfortunate that the government, which the Liberals are supporting more and more, insists on concluding bilateral agreements knowing that this will lead to situations like the one we experienced with Colombia and the one we are currently going through with Panama.

Quebeckers are in favour of free trade. We were the first to want a free trade agreement with the United States. The Bloc Québécois was one of the first political parties to support NAFTA. Our political party and the Province of Quebec support free trade, but we prefer a multilateral approach in order to avoid thorny problems arising every time.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the debate that is going on. However, I disagree with the position taken by the NDP and the answer of the member from the Bloc.

It is interesting to talk about the bilateral agreements that we have been signing as a government, but I am sure the hon. member understands that the multilateral forum, at least at Doha, has failed. As it is not moving forward, Canada has no choice but to look at bilateral trading agreements, so that we have jobs and opportunities for Canadian workers.

The Panama Canal is being expanded to double its present capacity. A lot of trade out of Asia, China in particular, will be coming to the east coast through the Panama Canal. Panama is a key country in Central America. It is a country we need to look to the future with. We need to be part of that future.

What is wrong with putting rules in place for our trade with Panama? Rules-based trading has to be better than non-rules-based trading.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments and his question.

Yesterday afternoon, we talked about this at the Standing Committee on International Trade. Indeed, the Doha Round negotiations are causing problems and leading us to sign more bilateral agreements. I think we should ask ourselves why there are problems in the Doha Round negotiations and then try to resolve them. We know that the biggest problem has to do with everything that is happening in the agriculture sector. Why not bring everyone to the table to resolve the problems in the Doha negotiations and then sign multilateral agreements?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House today and speak to Bill C-46, Canada-Panama Free Trade Act.

I rise, along with many of my colleagues who have spoken in this House, opposed to this free trade agreement. We have brought forward a critique and recommendations that speak to our concerns about this free trade agreement and about the government approach to bilateral free trade agreements.

I would like to begin with a story that I was witness to just a while ago in my home constituency. I was in The Pas, Manitoba, one of the communities that I represent, at the announcement of federal infrastructure funds that were to be used to help the local pulp and paper mill to develop a more green approach in its production.

There was quite a bit of support for this initiative. While we were sitting and talking about how important this commitment was to the plant and to the community, one of the speeches by a government member referenced the importance of bilateral free trade agreements to Canadians as a whole.

The irony is that the pulp and paper mill we were in is across the street from a lumber mill that has been shut down for a year and a half as a result of the softwood lumber agreement. Some people who were laid off from the lumber plant now work in the pulp and paper plant. This community was hurt a great deal as a result of that shutting down. Many jobs were lost. And the community was saddened by the wholesale export of trees that come from our area only to be processed south of the border or overseas.

Everybody knew that the government did not stand up for the people in my community or the people across Canada who depend on the jobs in the lumber industry. Free trade agreements are not always fair. Some have caused the loss of good-paying jobs and the loss of support for communities all across our country.

The irony is that we are hearing about how these free trade agreements will make Canadians' lives better, when in fact we know that this not the case.

Bilateral free trade agreements usually favour the dominant economy and ultimately facilitate a degree of predatory access to the less powerful economy. This is more apt to happen in bilateral agreements than in multilateral ones. In this case, Canada is the dominant economy, and this deal is characterized by imbalance.

Since this is true, why do we keep negotiating these kinds of trade agreements? Does the government not care about this imbalance? Does it have no qualms about the challenges that will come of our being given greater access to Panama, whether we are concentrating on resource extraction or on extending our export-driven interests? It is a question that needs to be asked.

Canada's reputation is built on multilateral co-operation, consideration of human and environmental rights, and fairness in our work at the international level.

We have seen, certainly in the area of foreign affairs, a different approach on the part of the government, an approach that throws away some of the core values that Canada was built on, and on which my generation was raised.

When we look at this trade agreement, there are some points that cause concern. Labour rights are something that we in Canada uphold and respect. We believe that working people have the right to form unions and negotiate for a decent wage and decent benefits. This is not the case in Panama. If we go through with this agreement, we will be going against Canada's tradition of fairness for workers.

In July, there was a new wave of anti-union repression in Panama. Several workers were killed, over 100 were injured, and over 300 were arrested, including the leaders of the SUNTRACS and CONATO trade unions. This was the government of Panama's brutal reaction to protests against legislation restricting the right to strike and the freedom of association. The legislation provides for up to two years in jail for workers who take their protests to the streets.

It is despicable for us to engage in a trade deal with a government that undertakes this kind of repression toward working people. It is something that we will continue to see as a result of the bilateral free trade agreement with Colombia. But here we have a chance to stand and say no, this is not right. This is a government that denies its own citizens basic rights such as the right to unionize and the right to strike.

Another glaring hole in this free trade agreement is the failure to deal with the fact that Panama is an offshore banking centre and a tax haven, with a serious lack of transparency that displays excessive banking secrecy. We in the NDP have been critical of the government's failure to act against offshore tax havens and tax loopholes that benefit Canadian entrepreneurs. Here we would be engaging in a free trade agreement with a country that turns a blind eye to these destructive practices and is showing no interest in correcting them.

We in the NDP stand in opposition to these elements, which accompany this trade agreement. These elements are either not being looked at or they are being viewed in an unrealistic way. The government apparently thinks it is okay to enter into bilateral free trade agreements with a country like Panama that has such disregard for principles that are important to Canadians.

On the environmental side, there is reference to the existence of an agreement on the environment. But given the government's approach to anything environmental, whether it is in our country or abroad, we doubt that this agreement will be taken seriously.

We understand the importance of trade and trading with countries. In this day and age, we would not be where we are without trade. What we oppose is bilateral free trade agreements that reject fair and sustainable trade. This rejection often generates discontent and increased protectionism. We have all seen the destructive impact of the NAFTA on the U.S. economy and, quite frankly, on our own.

To end, I would like to return perhaps to the people I represent and the way in which we have seen jobs taken away from our area, good paying, community sustaining jobs, as a result of free trade agreements that have failed to put Canadians first. This is one more example of that pattern.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member will know there are 350,000 foreign companies registered in Panama to take advantage of its tax haven status and the Canadian government has done absolutely nothing to try to get a double taxation avoidance agreement signed with Panama before it proceeds to ratify this agreement.

In February of this year, France took very proactive action. The French government levied a tax of 50% on dividends, interest, royalties and service fees paid to anyone based in France to a beneficiary based in one of the countries on its blacklist. Guess what? Within months, Panama signed a double taxation avoidance agreement with France. That is an example of where we can get results and action.

I would like to know what the member thinks about the government's lack of action, to try to implement a free trade deal with a country and not even try to deal with the issues of a tax haven.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely this is a real failure to show interest in building a bilateral free trade relationship, and certainly engaging in an agreement without dealing with such a glaring absence of accountability and transparency on the part of Panama. One would think it would be interested or enthusiastic about entering into trade with Canada. Instead of Canada saying that the government is interested but has some serious concerns with respect to the area of tax havens, and of course we are saying with respect to labour issues and the environment, the government is throwing its hands up and going for the lowest common denominator instead of making a real difference.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to stand up on this issue again and talk once more about the importance of trade to Canada, but more importantly, to talk about the principles that underpin a sound, fair and effective trade policy.

I want to underscore from the beginning something that my colleague said so well, which is that I think all Canadians understand the importance of trade to our country. I think all Canadians want Canada to have a healthy, vibrant trading relationship with countries that help to provide a sound basis to the Canadian economy and allow us to build an economy that is strong, environmentally sensitive, sustainable and fair.

I think trade relationships with other countries and Canada can be built on such a foundation. The New Democrats are constantly a voice of patience and intelligence in urging this House to pursue such a policy. The particular bill before this House is something that does not meet those criteria, and accordingly, it is something that our party is opposing.

Here are some of the reasons we are opposing this trade agreement.

This of course is a trade proposal and an agreement that would impose upon Canadians the obligation to provide very favourable trading terms to a country that I think has a very unenviable record on a number of fronts.

First, we are engaging in a NAFTA-style trade agreement with a country, Panama, that is an infamous offshore banking centre. It acts as a platform for multinationals and a conduit for opaque banking activities and tax evasion. Let me tell you what Congressman Michael Michaud, a Democrat, quoting from the U.S. State Department, recently said about Panama:

[Panama's] industrial policy is premised on obtaining a comparative advantage by banning taxation of foreign corporations, hiding tax liabilities and transactions behind banking secrecy rules and the ease with which U.S. and other firms can create unregulated subsidiaries. According to the State Department, Panama has over 350,000 foreign-registered companies.

This agreement would propose building a so-called free trade platform that would provide front corporations with additional powers and incentives to their right to challenge Canadian regulations and standards and shape trade to serve their needs, not the public interest of Canadians.

This trade deal would make it easier for Canadian and foreign corporations to move to Panama and flout Canadian labour laws, pay their workers in Panama an average wage of about two dollars an hour and not have to pay for pensions, benefits or sick days.

Canadian law states that workers enjoy certain minimum workplace safety laws and benefits. Corporations that would be established in Panama, and that this trade agreement would make easier to establish in Panama, do not have to do any of those things.

Let us stop for a moment. This is not just bad for Canadian workers, this is bad for Canadian businesses. Businesses that set up in Canada have to pay living wages and market wages. They very often have to establish pension plans and pay for health care premiums, insurance premiums, life insurance premiums, and workers' compensation premiums. In other words, they have to act like fair and responsible corporate citizens.

Canadian businesses would be affected by companies that could go to Panama, set up subsidiaries, and provide the exact same products that in many cases are being produced here, but those companies would not comply with any of that. I think any Canadian watching this debate or who follows this subject can easily see that is most unfair to Canadian businesses.

I want to talk about Panama's tax haven status. I think that is a major concern in regard to this proposed legislation.

In 2008, Panama was one of 11 countries that did not have a tax information exchange agreement signed or enforced. Panama is one of three states, with Guatemala and Nauru, that would not share bank information for any tax information exchange purpose.

The OECD blacklisted Panama in 2000 as an unco-operative tax haven. In 2002, in a letter from the Republic of Panama to the Secretary-General of the OECD, Panama committed to meet the OECD standards for transparency and information-sharing such that it would no longer be considered a tax haven.

Here we are today, in 2010, and Panama has not, to date, substantially implemented that internationally agreed tax standard to which it committed itself.

There was a study done this year by Cornell University that examined a study done by the IRS over a four-year period earlier this century. I think it was between 2004 and 2007. It found that Panama was tied for first in the country as a source of tax-laundered money emanating from the drug trade.

It is interesting that Panama is also tied to Colombia. In 1903, Panama was formally separated from Colombia, with the blessing and military support of the United States government. Today, Colombian banks retain a prominent role in the Panamanian banking system, as well as the offshore banking system in Panama. They are very active in managing the considerable assets of high net worth Colombians.

What is this about? Canadians are well aware of the fact that Colombia in particular is one of the world's most renowned narco states. It is one of the major suppliers of cocaine to North America, and there is a lot of illegally produced money in Colombia. The connection between Colombia and Panama and the way that this money is laundered through Panama is not a matter of speculation, it is a matter of fact.

These are the two countries that the Conservative government has hastened and rushed to sign free trade agreements with. I find this always very surprising, because the government likes to talk about how it is tough on crime. It talks about that for domestic purposes and tries to make it a wedge issue, to create fear among Canadians and use it as a political issue, but who does the government sign business agreements with? Out of all the countries in the world, who does it pick in this hemisphere? It is Colombia and Panama, two countries that are renowned for their drug production, for their tax evasion, and for their money laundering.

This agreement, if we leave everything else aside, would do one thing. It would make it easier for money to be laundered through the drug trade, because this agreement says that all financial transactions between Canada and Panama would be unregulated. That is just simply unsound, and it is curious.

I also want to talk a bit about the labour situation in Panama. Just this summer, in July, there were a number of trade unionists in Panama who gathered publicly. To do what? To protest in the streets. That is all they did. They peacefully gathered, assembled, and expressed their views. What happened? Over 100 people were attacked and injured, several workers were killed, and over 300 people were arrested, including leaders of the SUNTRACS and CONATO trade unions. This was the Government of Panama's brutal reaction to protests against new legislation that restricted the right to strike and freedom of association, including provisions to jail for up to two years any workers taking their protest to the streets.

That did not happen 10 years ago or 20 years ago. That happened this summer.

This is the record of Panama: jailing its citizens for having the audacity to protest legislation in the streets; killing and attacking trade union workers who simply want to gather and express their rights to join a trade union if that is their wish.

The Prime Minister, yesterday and today, is in the Ukraine, talking about standing up for human rights in the Ukraine, making it very clear to the world that, according to him, in that context, Canada wants to ensure that we promote human rights in the world, that we will not, I think, according to his words, sacrifice our principles in order to secure economic benefits or trade benefits.

Yet here at home, in the House of Commons, we are debating a bill that seeks to establish preferential trade relations with a country that absolutely obliterates human rights.

I do not think that anybody on either side of this House, including hon. members on the government side, would stand up for what happened in Panama this summer. I would like to hear from them. What is their position on human rights and signing trade agreements with a country that saw people attacked in the streets and jailed for up to two years for expressing their democratic wishes? What is their position on signing an agreement with a country that seeks to deprive its citizens of the right to join a trade union which, by the way, violates commitments made to the International Labour Organization and several treaties that Canada signed? Why would we want to sign an agreement with a country such as that?

The fact that that country violates human rights is something that should be of concern to all Canadians, and we oppose the bill accordingly.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the American Congress gets it. No fewer than 54 United States congressmen have demanded that President Obama forgo the agreement with Panama until Panama signs the tax information exchange treaties which, as I had indicated, France got in short order when it started taxing French corporations that were among the 350,000 foreign companies that are operating in Panama.

The Americans have figured it out. They know that Panama is a major conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers. The Americans are holding up the agreement. The member for Mississauga South asked the other day why the Americans are not proceeding to ratify and implement the agreement. That is why they are not doing it.

The company AIG was instrumental in getting huge bailouts just two years ago, thanks to the American taxpayers. AIG gave its directors huge bonuses only six months later. On top of that, it is suing the American government for $306 million. It is trying to get back money because of involvement in the tax haven in Panama. A situation like this is absolutely ludicrous.

The Americans have figured it out. The question is, why can the Canadian government not figure it out?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the comments of my hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona are bang on. Many members of the House are getting it as we learn more and more about this trade agreement.

It is noteworthy to point out that this agreement was negotiated relatively in secret and in haste. This Parliament is doing what a good, effective parliament does. It is scrutinizing the context in which it was negotiated. It is looking in very great detail at the facts that are involved and what this agreement would do, so that we can very carefully plot a trade strategy for our country that is based on the principles I outlined earlier of fairness, of respect for the environment, of respect for human rights, of reciprocity between the two countries, to ensure justice for our businesses and our workers.

I want to talk briefly about the environment. I note that the environment is sloughed off as a side matter in this agreement. It is not considered significant and pivotal enough to be put in the main body of the agreement. We cannot leave the environment any longer to provisions that are made as an afterthought, that commit countries to maintain what are often very poor environmental records, as this agreement does. It is important that we start making the environment a priority in these trade agreements, to make sure that countries that want to get the benefit of trade with Canada also commit to improving their environmental records, as we ought to do as well.

That is an important part of trade in the 21st century. That should be part of every agreement. This agreement is substandard in that regard.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, we seem to see this repeating over and over again. The two things that we continually talk about and which other countries have put into their agreements are the environment and labour standards and other labour issues. Yet we continually see the government leaving them as sidebar agreements rather than being included in the main body of the agreement.

My colleague is a labour lawyer and understands the importance of making sure they are in the body of the agreement. I wonder if he could comment on why it is important that those items no longer be side deals and that they be incorporated in the main body of the agreements.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Welland has also devoted his life to improving the lives of workers and their families in the trade union movement.

I have negotiated many contracts in my time. The first thing everyone knows about putting something in a side deal is that it means something. It is not meaningless. When there is the main body of an agreement and there are appendages and side agreements, it is not done for no consequence. It is done for a reason.

The first thing of note is the optics of it. What it conveys to the parties that negotiate the contract and anybody who reads it is that the parties that negotiated those agreements thought that those issues were secondary, not important enough to put in the main body of the agreement.

It also has to do with enforcement mechanisms. They are weak in this agreement for enforcing environmental and labour standards because they exist in side agreements. That is another flaw of this agreement and this bill.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the bill before us, a bill that would fast-track agreements, in particular the bilateral free trade agreement between Canada and Panama.

The fact is that the government is fast-tracking the ratification process for an international agreement similar to those that have already been ratified by Canada. I am thinking, among others, of the agreement with Peru. These agreements are designed to fast-track and increase trade between Canada and other countries. In the case of the bill before us, the agreement in question basically attempts to fast-track trade with Panama.

Panama has decided to increase its trade relations through formal trade agreements with three countries that belong to NAFTA, including Canada. We also know that the United States has negotiated and signed an agreement. Canada would be the last to do so.

First of all, we are not opposed to trade agreements that facilitate trade among countries, whether they are southern, northern or European countries. We have clearly indicated that we would like Canada to negotiate, ratify and sign a free trade agreement with the European Union, but with some conditions. And that is the point we wish to make today in this debate. We are saying yes to trade agreements, yes to free trade agreements, but not at any cost.

The Bloc Québécois has an analytical grid of the trade agreements signed by Canada, which we use to determine whether or not we should support specific trade agreements that are or may be negotiated. What are the criteria for supporting trade agreements?

First, we must ensure that human rights are respected. We cannot agree to sign and ratify a free trade agreement with a country that does not respect the most basic rights, human rights, and that allows repression and the violation of fundamental rules such as women's access to certain sectors of economic activity. We cannot allow Canada to sign trade agreements with countries that violate human rights and the fundamental rights of their citizens. That is the first criterion.

The second criterion is that there must be a minimum level of environmental protection in countries with which we will be conducting tariff-free trade. We cannot agree to trade agreements with countries that have weak environmental regulations, because that would facilitate trade and lead to agreements that are socially and environmentally irresponsible.

Furthermore, what would be the consequence of signing such agreements? It would enable Canadian companies to go to these countries to develop the natural resources, free from any environmental regulations. So a country that chose to implement serious, stringent environmental regulations would lose economic activity to countries that chose to disregard the environment in order to allow businesses to save money and cut costs, at the expense of the common good.

We cannot agree to a trade agreement with a country that has poor environmental regulations. Lastly, we cannot agree to trade agreements when workers' rights are violated and when police crack down on legitimate, peaceful protests.

These three key issues must be taken into consideration when we decide whether or not Canada should ratify or sign a trade agreement.

In this case, with the trade agreement between Panama and Canada, what analysis needs to be done? Our analysis should be based on the principles I just mentioned.

In recent years, Panama has shown that it wants to enter freely into international trade agreements. But what is Panama's record like on the three issues I just mentioned? In terms of the environment, Canadian companies, particularly mining companies, have pushed to be able to operate in Panama, where they have a number of mining claims. They saw that there were abundant natural resources, particularly gold and silver, so they decided to purchase mining claims in Panama to be able to develop these resources. That is good, it is commendable, and it is acceptable. It allows for the creation of wealth, but under what conditions is this being done? That is key. Are human rights, workers' rights and a minimum level of environmental protection guaranteed?

Canadian mining companies are currently in discussions with Panama's government to establish a new legislative framework for environmental co-operation, just as there is co-operation between Canada and the United States as part of the free trade agreements. That is what we want; that is good. We hope that these discussions between Canadian companies and the Panamanian government will lead to the most basic and most stringent environmental protection rules. It would also be good to see the government taking part in these discussions.

Before these agreements between Canadian companies and the Panamanian government are signed, can we know the outcome? Yes, Canada has signed a free trade agreement with Panama, but can we wait for the discussions between these two levels of stakeholders to finish before we ratify this agreement? That would be the socially and environmentally responsible thing to do.

There is also the issue of tax havens. We cannot agree to trade with a country that still does not divulge information and that has a secretive banking system. Panama is still on the OECD's grey list. Last year, the Panamanian government committed to signing 12 tax agreements by 2010. That is one sign that the Panamanian government wants to move in the right direction and improve its record, which is far from enviable at present.

The Panamanian government seems to be showing a desire to put an end to tax havens. Before we ratify an agreement, can we wait and see whether the Panamanian government will follow through on its commitments? It would be smart of the Canadian government to do so. In fact, that is what the American government and Europe have decided to do. The United States and Europe are not rushing to ratify this trade agreement because they want to know that the Panamanian government will follow through on its commitments.

That is what a socially responsible nation should be doing.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague did a good job of presenting his and his party's position on this bill.

Since we are discussing some of the problems with this approach to free trade with Panama, I would like him to comment on why the government so badly wants to create this kind of relationship, and not just with Panama. The same thing happened with Colombia.

Where are the Conservatives coming from, and why are they so determined to pass this kind of bill, which is against the values and interests of Canadian workers, not to mention the values of justice and fair trade, which are really important to our country?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the answer is simple. The reason that the Canadian government wants to expedite ratification of the Canada-Panama agreement—unlike Europe and the United States, where the debate in Congress is ongoing—is that it wants to give Canadian companies a competitive advantage in the Panamanian market. That is what it wants. It wants to show Panama that it is eager to proceed regardless of whether workers' rights are respected.

That is the real problem with the Canadian government's approach. By trying to ratify this agreement in a hurry, contrary to what the United States is doing, the government is showing that it does not care about workers' rights, social rights and environmental rights. It cares only about international trade and the economy. I think that is why Canada is trying to rush ratification of this trade agreement.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, like the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, I am concerned about yet more NAFTA style bilateral agreements that move our jobs offshore and cost us more and more autonomy here in Canada.

However, given the hon. member's extensive expertise and interest in the environment, I would like him to comment a little bit more and explain why the side agreement on the environment seems to have absolutely no teeth. It seems to be a feel good exercise, a kind of gentleman's agreement. Am I wrong? Does it have teeth? Will it protect the environment? Does he share my concerns?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, that will depend on the negotiations that are under way between Canadian mining companies and the Panamanian government. However, when we look at other agreements, they must ensure that national governments are in a strong position to shape environmental policies. We have not yet received that assurance. When looking at the power of chapter 11 in free trade agreements, we realize that, in the end, international agreements often rob national governments of their powers to regulate environmental matters, for example.

An international agreement must never weaken the power of nations to implement regulations concerning environmental protection. It is not true that the major multinationals will determine the rules for social and environmental protection. The state is there to protect ecosystems and populations. It is very dangerous to place this power and this recourse to international courts in the hands of any multinationals. I believe that there is cause for concern. Canada must have guarantees before ratifying such an agreement.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I rise to speak to the Canada-Panama free trade act. As I said previously in the House on both this proposed trade agreement and on the trade agreement with Colombia, the government has completely reneged on its promise to supposedly balance environment and trade, environment and development. Instead, the government has moved backward in time.

Even though the North American Free Trade Agreement has a lot of problems, at least there was a substantial side agreement on the environment. Today I will go through how the government has specifically downgraded that agreement.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House one of the reasons that I tabled an environmental bill of rights. I tabled the bill of rights because it was important for Canadians to have cast in law their right to participate in decision-making and their right to have the implications of any government decisions revealed to them.

The Conservatives ran on a platform of increased openness and transparency. In their time in power as the Government of Canada, they have done nothing but the opposite, and the tabling of this bill reflects that. First, where is the dialogue with Canadians about what they think is important in trade agreements with other nations?

Previous governments stated that they thought that balancing labour rights and environmental rights and protection were equally important to trade, and so we had side agreements. At the time, there was a lot of controversy because it was felt by many that if we were really going to put development and trade on par with environmental protection and labour rights, then they should be incorporated into a legally binding document.

The government professes to balance development and trade with environmental protection and that it believes in openness, transparency, accountability and engagement of the grassroots public and yet it has tabled trade agreement after trade agreement doing the complete opposite. There has been no dialogue with the public on what direction we should be taking in our trade agreements since NAFTA. I would highly recommend that the government initiate that dialogue because Canadians will pay the price.

Under my environmental bill of rights, Canadians would have the right to this information. They would have the right to see proposed trade agreements with nations such as Panama. They would have the right to participate in decisions about the criteria for entering into trade agreements with other nations and what would be included in those documents. They also would have the right to know whether we should move forward on the long overdue promise of putting environment on par with trade and development.

Here again, similar to the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, we have the same reprehensible document. The side agreement on environment has been stripped of any of the substance that it had under the free trade agreement with Mexico and the United States, to the point where we may as well not have the side agreement.

Specifically, we have taken away the ministers of environment meeting to discuss the major environmental implications of decisions on trade and development in the respective two countries. Under the side agreement to NAFTA, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, the government very wisely created the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. In this case, that has been taken away. Instead, there is an advisory body composed of lower echelon bureaucrats. Nothing is revealed. There is no budget in this time of restraint in our country and, most likely, in Panama as well. Where is the budget line item to adequately finance the review of decisions on trade in the respective countries?

There is no full-time secretariat, unlike the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation which established a full-time secretariat. The three countries to that agreement alternate the head and staff of the secretariat. We have no such secretariat. This will simply be another task downloaded on an already overstretched bureaucracy that, in all likelihood because of our deficit, will be cut back even further.

It is not clear who is actually going to be the watchdog for this side agreement and who is going to be addressing and responding to public concerns. Where is the line item in the government's budget with respect to providing those services for this trade agreement?

There is no full-time commission, no full-time budget, no independent secretariat. The value of an independent secretariat under the North American Free Trade Agreement is that people have a level of comfort in coming to that secretariat and raising issues. In fact under the North American agreement on environmental co-operation, under article 13, citizens of the three respective countries, Mexico, the United States and Canada, can recommend to the secretariat that particular issues of concern to the environment on a bilateral or trilateral issue be investigated independently by the secretariat with independent consultants. The council of ministers can recommend that issues of common interest be reviewed in a co-operative manner to come up with co-operative solutions.

There is no such body here where we can have a level of confidence that the government sincerely wants to pursue any implications to the environment of the trade agreement.

There is also no mechanism for open dialogue. Under the North American agreement the council commits at least once a year to meet in the open, transparently, with the public of the three countries. There is no such commitment in this agreement, so everything is going to be behind closed doors between bureaucrats.

A number of public bodies to hold the council accountable for delivering on the side agreement are created under the North American agreement on environmental co-operation. There are no public advisory committees under the side agreement with Panama.

There is under NAFTA a joint public advisory committee that includes representatives of industry, of public interest groups, of scientists and other learned people from all three countries selected to advise the secretariat and to advise the ministers. We have no such body here. There is no mechanism for the people of Panama or Canada to provide input to the governments on issues that may arise related to this trade agreement.

Where is the grassroots government promised by the Conservative Party of Canada? The Conservatives promised they would be a new kind of government. They said it would not be top down, that it would be grassroots up, that the people of Canada would drive policy. Where is the voice for the Canadian people on this agreement or either of the two side agreements? It does not exist.

As well, under the North American Free Trade Agreement all three countries created national advisory committees to advise the environment ministers of the respective three nations on the issues they should be bringing before the common body. I do not know what has happened to the national advisory committee under the Conservative government. Perhaps it does not exist anymore even under that agreement, but there is no such mechanism under the Panama agreement.

There is no requirement to hold public meetings. There is the opportunity to raise a concern but it is with some not yet identified body of the bureaucracy of the two countries. Where is the level of comfort? With whom will these concerns be raised: the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of the Environment, or the Department of National Defence? With whom will this be raised? There is absolutely no certainty that whatever body is established will have the full competency to deal with the kind of issue that is raised, whether it is to deal with pesticides, climate issues, access to safe drinking water, or the trade in a particular commodity that may or may not be contaminated. There is no certainty of who within the two respective regimes will be responsible for giving serious attention to those concerns.

Of greatest concern to me is the fact that in this agreement with Panama, the side agreement on the environment misses one of the most important provisions of the North American agreement on environmental co-operation and that is the right of any citizen to file a complaint that the law is not being effectively enforced. This provision was put in specifically because of the concerns that with free trade, protection of the environment may be put in second place. It gave the right of citizens in any of the three countries of Mexico, Canada or the United States to file a complaint of failure to enforce against any of the three parties. That is completely missing in this agreement.

Where is the commitment to pay equal attention to environmental protection as there is to opening the doors to trade? It is absolutely missing, as is the whole right to public scrutiny of whether or not these free trade agreements are having implications for the protection of the environment and the protection of biodiversity. This topic is being discussed in Japan as we speak. Canada is being maligned. Canada has been given the first Dodo award because we have failed.

I would recommend that the government seriously consider withdrawing this trade agreement, go back to the table, meet with people who have participated for over a decade in the North American agreement and learn from what they have learned.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is extremely knowledgeable and articulate about environmental issues. I listened with great attention, because I knew that the things she would tell us would be extremely important.

Some of us are not quite as wise about environmental issues, the regulations and all those other things. The environment and labour aspects are done as side agreements and outside the main body of these free trade agreements. We always say that there should be a holistic approach on how we do labour agreements and contracts. My colleague has articulated why we have been skeptical about having them outside the main agreement. She has articulated the reasons for including things in them that actually give them teeth, so that citizens can come forward when they have complaints and actually have those situations addressed. I thank my colleague for that.

When it comes to the environment, my sense is that the government has made it a secondary issue, rather than one of primary concern. It really should be a primary issue for all of us. It should be right at the top of the agenda rather than where it is now.

I wonder if she could explain to us how we should make it a holistic part of any trade agreement we enter into anywhere in the world, so that not only does it have teeth, but it is at the forefront of all agreements that we enter into.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised many concerns, particularly with respect to the labour side of this agreement.

It is quite straightforward how we would incorporate environmental matters into the trade agreement. We simply would treat them with the same level of seriousness.

The trade agreement provides that private corporations can go after the government for compensation if their trade, development and economic situations are prejudiced by a decision by the Government of Canada to protect the environment. We should have parallel measures in every trade agreement where the public interest of Canada would be given equal weight when some kind of a trade decision is made to the prejudice of the environment of Canada.

We simply need to raise the measures that are in the side agreement on the environment to the level of the binding trade agreement, and frankly give the citizens of Canada the standing to come before those tribunals and speak on their behalf.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona is by far the strongest MP from Alberta in this House of Commons. She does a tremendous job speaking up for her province.

I am wondering how she feels this plays back home in her region of Alberta. The Conservatives are trying to push through a deal with what is tied for the worst regime for dirty drug money laundering on the entire planet. Rather than dealing in any way in this trade deal with the dirty drug money laundering and the tax haven status of Panama, the Conservatives, in a desperate attempt to cover their own tracks, sent a letter to the government, but there is nothing in the trade deal that stops dirty drug money laundering. In fact, it is the opposite. This is going to facilitate it.

I am wondering, for folks back home in Alberta, as she is the strongest MP from Alberta, if she could comment about how Albertans are going to see Conservatives trying to facilitate dirty drug money laundering through Panama. How is that going to play back home?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his vociferous efforts on behalf of Canadians to ensure there is fair trade that will benefit workers and the environment, and trade that will benefit Canadians as well as the citizens of other countries.

I do not think that the perspective of Albertans is going to be any different from the perspective of other Canadians. Albertans are equally concerned about the loss of revenue to the federal coffers through money laundering and the illegal transfer of money, and they are equally concerned about the drug trade.

I think that Albertans are looking for avenues for fair trade for their products, for cattle, hogs, grain, and manufactured goods, particularly with respect to the manufacture of energy efficient mechanisms. They are looking for opportunities for fair trade and to get a competitive edge in the markets around the world. They are not looking to enter into agreements that are going to have no benefit to them as a people.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion that this question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The vote stands deferred until the end of government orders later today.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-46, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the second reading stage of Bill C-46.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #104

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion, with the Conservative voting yes.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

The Liberals will be voting yes.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

The members of the Bloc Québécois will be voting no.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

The members of the NDP will be voting no.

[Helena Guergis, Independent, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will vote yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #105

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)