Bill C-23 (Historical)

Canada–Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements on the environment and labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and signed at Amman on June 28, 2009.
The general provisions of the enactment specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of the provisions of Part 1 of the enactment or any order made under that Part, or the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement or the related agreements themselves, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 of the enactment approves the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional aspects of the Free Trade Agreement and the power of the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out the provisions of the enactment.
Part 2 of the enactment amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreement on labour cooperation.

Canada–Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to commence the third reading debate on the Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act.

The Canada-Jordan free trade agreement is yet another example of our government's commitment to helping Canadian businesses compete in markets abroad and create more jobs for Canadian workers here at home. We continue to see fierce competition in the global marketplace, with emerging economies and global players further establishing themselves in a wide range of sectors and integrating themselves into global value chains.

In a number of countries, Canadian firms are at a disadvantage because their foreign competitors have preferential market access under some form of free trade agreement. Like other initiatives in our negotiating agenda, the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement addresses this serious issue by levelling the playing field with key competitors who are already benefiting from preferential market access to Jordan, namely, businesses from the United States and the European Union.

Through the negotiation and signing of the free trade agreement with Jordan, our government is ensuring that Canadian firms are on an equal footing to compete with firms from across the world in the Jordanian market.

Opening doors to trade and investment is the right approach to create opportunities for Canadian workers and businesses in global markets. Our government will do everything it can to ensure that Canadian workers and businesses have the tools and opportunities to build the links needed to succeed in today's global economy. We are committed to bringing continued economic prosperity to Canadians by pursuing bilateral and regional free trade agreements. That is why we are moving forward on an ambitious pro-trade plan to help Canadians compete and win in global markets.

Over the years, Canada and Jordan have built a strong, mutually beneficial relationship and this free trade agreement continues to build on that important relationship. It is a relationship grounded in common aspirations, aspirations like peace, stability and prosperity for our citizens, and this new free trade agreement would help to move these aspirations forward.

Members will recall that, in 2007, the Prime Minister joined His Majesty King Abdullah II in a commitment to take our commercial relationship to the next level. The Canada-Jordan free trade agreement, along with related agreements on labour co-operation and the environment signed in 2009, are a direct result of this commitment. This free trade agreement would benefit both Canada and Jordan by giving Canadian and Jordanian exporters unprecedented access to our respective markets, eliminating tariffs on a number of key products.

Jordan's current average applied tariff is 10%, with peaks of up to 30% applied on some products of Canadian export interests. In fact, 67% of Jordanian tariff lines, covering over 99% of Canadian exports, will be eliminated when the agreement is first implemented. Jordan's remaining tariff reductions will then take place over three to five years.

Of course, a free trade agreement is not a one-way street, nor should it be. Jordan also stands to gain from this free trade agreement. Our government will eliminate all Canadians tariffs on Jordanian goods immediately upon entry into force of the agreement, with the exception of over-quota supply managed dairy, poultry and egg products which are excluded from the tariff reduction.

Canada's trade with Jordan is very diverse. Our top five merchandise exports to Jordan are pulses, mainly lentils and chick peas; wood; vehicles; paper and paperboard; and machinery. Our bilateral merchandise exports more than doubled between 2003 and 2011. This free trade agreement would further enhance the Canada-Jordan trade relationship.

Members will remember that our free trade agreement was just one of the agreements we signed with Jordan in 2009. We also signed a bilateral foreign investment protection and promotion agreement, or FIPA, which came into force on December 14, 2009. This agreement establishes clear rules for investment between our two countries. Canadian investors are particularly excited about opportunities in Jordan's resource extraction, energy, telecommunications, transportation, manufacturing and infrastructure sectors. The FIPA provides Canadian and Jordanian investors with the predictability and certainty they need when investing in one another's markets.

I am sure all hon. members would all agree that this free trade agreement and the 2009 FIPA with Jordan are no doubt complementary.

In addition to the free trade agreement and the FIPA, our government also signed parallel agreements on labour co-operation and the environment. The labour co-operation agreement signed with Jordan includes commitments to ensuring that each other's laws respect the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and that they protect labour rights and provide a mechanism to address labour complaints.

Canada and Jordan have also negotiated an agreement on the environment that commits the parties to maintain high levels of environmental protection, to effectively enforce domestic environmental laws and to not relax or derogate from such laws to attract trade or investment.

Canada believes that trade liberalization and environmental protection can and must be mutually supportive.

We are living in very challenging economic times and our government has made the economy its number one priority. In order to ensure that our economy continues to grow and continues to compete in the global marketplace, trade barriers are being broken down all across the world through new free trade agreements.

Protectionism is never the answer.

Demonstrating Canada's commitment through new agreements, such as the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement, is key to encouraging other countries, including developing nations, to reject protectionism and embrace free and open trade.

Our government recognizes that trade and investment are cornerstones of our economic success as a nation. Sixty per cent of our GDP and one in five jobs depend upon trade. While our economy has out-performed much of the world in recent years, we cannot take our success for granted. Hard-working Canadians are counting on us to continue expanding markets and opening doors for our businesses to succeed around the world.

That is what our pro-trade plan is all about. It is the most ambitious plan of its kind in Canada's history. The potential benefits are enormous. This is why I ask all hon. members to support Bill C-23, the Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act.

I said earlier in my speech that we should not take Canada's prosperity for granted and we should not. The prosperity that we have today is based on a number of tenets. It is based on a secure and solid financial footing. It is based on free trade agreements and jobs and opportunities for Canadian businesses and workers through those agreements.

Before I sit down I would be remiss not to ask our opposition critics and the opposition parties to support this agreement, then to move forward and support Panama and support the agreement with the European Union because that is the only way that we will maintain our place in the world and maintain markets for our Canadian businesses and jobs for our Canadian workers.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of my hon. colleague's speech.

I would like to ask the member for his opinion on a particular issue. A common issue that arises in trade agreements is the effect trade agreements have or do not have on raising or lowering the human rights, labour or environmental standards in a particular jurisdiction. The government has steadfastly asserted that by signing trade agreements it has the effect of engaging with those countries and, therefore, raising those standards in those countries.

In committee, the New Democrats put forth some amendments to the legislation that would require the legislation to have yearly benchmarks to chart the progress in the human rights, labour standards and environmental standards areas so we would know what effect the trade deals had and we could put the proof of the matter to the government's test. However, government members rejected those amendments.

If my hon. colleague believes that these agreements do raise those standards, why would the government be afraid of putting in benchmark measurements so we could see if that contention was accurate?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the question from the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway gives me an opportunity to correct a point I made earlier today in question period when I answered a question from the hon. member. I did not welcome him to the trade file. It is great to have him on board. He contributes at committee and I am expecting a positive influence from that.

The question was on engagement in labour and environmental side agreements. There is a side agreement on labour that is recognized by the International Labour Organization and it has to meet certain parameters under the International Labour Organization. The agreement on environment has a special stipulation that says that neither Jordan nor Canada can make any laws that actually derogate from the environmental rules and regulations that we have in place now in order to have a competitive advantage. The reason we have a side agreement on those two issues is because we recognize that they are important and that we need to move forward on both of those files. However, they are not necessarily trade related. They are part of an addendum to the trade agreement, not part of the official text.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to change my question because the parliamentary secretary did not answer the question by the member for Vancouver Kingsway and it was a good question.

We know the side agreements on environment and labour are there, but we also know they are not enforceable. If we are going to be able to monitor what happens on these side agreements to FTAs, then we need measurable results. We heard testimony at committee that raised some fairly startling points on labour conditions, especially for migrant workers in Jordan. The only way we will be able to tell for future trade agreements whether the labour and environment side agreements are working is if we have transparent accounting.

I think the member for Vancouver Kingsway was basically asking why the government is so reluctant to accept the motion put forward that would give us the ability as a committee to actually have the reports, see the reports and be able to make a judgment call on those as a result.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what both hon. members fail to realize is the entire issue of extraterritoriality. There are certain things we can do when negotiating with another country and certain things we cannot do because they are beyond our sphere of influence.

However, the labour side agreement is recognized by the International Labour Organization. It covers the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining, the elimination of compulsory labour and the elimination of discrimination. We have also committed to providing acceptable protections for occupational safety and health; acceptable minimum employment standards, such as minimum wages; overtime pay; compensation for occupational injuries and illnesses; and providing migrant workers, which was part of his question, with the same legal protections as nationals in regard to working conditions.

We know that side agreements on labour are important, but there is a limit under the rule of law to what we can actually impose on a foreign nation. What we are asking here is that we move forward together and embrace improved standards of labour co-operation in Jordan.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also sit on the international trade committee and I know our government has an ambitious and aggressive agenda to pursue free trade agreements. We have finalized quite a few agreements within the last few years and we are potentially negotiating a lot more.

However, what I have noticed in our committee is that the opposition either opposes or drags out all the free trade agreements.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House why it is so important for our government to implement this Canada–Jordan free trade agreement as soon as possible?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the importance of implementation as soon as possible is quite simple. It is absolutely the basics of economics. We are trading with Jordan today, as I speak here in the House. There are already agreements and deals being written and trade going back and forth from Jordan to Canada and from Canada to Jordan. We are participating in that trading relationship at a disadvantage.

As I said earlier in my speech, with average tariffs of 10% with peaks of 30%, how are our companies, our businesses and our workers supposed to compete, when we are dealing with a country that has a prohibitive 10% to 30% tariff on Canadian products? It is very simple. Let us compete on an equal footing and we will compete with any country, anywhere in the world.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going back to my question, because I have to advise my hon. colleague in the Liberal Party that it has not really been answered.

The amendment that was put at committee was to amend the legislation in this House so that Canada would monitor the human rights, labour standards and environmental progress in Jordan and report back to this House every year. We would have measurable benchmarks to chart our own thesis that signing trade agreements does have that effect, and it may. I am prepared to acknowledge that maybe an agreement does have that effect.

It has got nothing to do with extraterritoriality. It has got nothing to do with international law. It has got to do with presenting information back to the House of Commons so that parliamentarians can actually chart and measure whether or not a particular argument put forth by the government is actually correct.

I ask my hon. colleague one more time, why would the government not build in annual benchmarks so that we could see if his own argument is accurate or not?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the second attempt at the same question that members opposite could not get through committee because of the weakness of the same argument.

The reality is that the International Labour Organization will monitor the situation in Jordan. The International Labour Organization is the venue, not the Canadian government, to go to if there is any suspected abuse of the labour agreement. It is not the place of the Government of Canada to be the police officer or the judge and the jury on everything that goes on in Jordan.

We are opening up a mutually beneficial trade agreement. For any labour or environmental practices in which we expect to see change, we will use our influence with the Jordanian government and Jordanian businesses and the influence of Canadian businesses to change those.

[The Acting Speaker, 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 Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Air Canada; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, Science and Technology.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the official opposition New Democrats about Bill C-23, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The bill affords me my first opportunity to speak in this House, not only on this bill in specific terms, but also on what I think are the principles that should guide Canada's trade policy in general. I would like to start by speaking about some of those principles.

New Democrats are a pro-trade party. We understand deeply that Canada is a trading nation, and always has been. Our economic system depends, in substantial measure, upon selling goods, commodities and services to the world. We are in the enviable position of having a wealth of resources that the world wants to buy. In exchange, Canada also benefits from the importation of many products and services from around the world. These items supplement Canada's natural bounty and provide a richness and diversity that enhance the quality of living for all Canadians.

However, we approach pro-trade policy somewhat differently from what the Conservatives and, indeed, the Liberals have traditionally done. In our view, trade policy should respect and incorporate thoughtful and established values, trade agreements must meet concrete objectives, Here are some of the core principles that New Democrats believe should guide Canadian trade policy.

Trade deals must result in increased trade that benefits Canada's export sectors. Disturbingly, data is showing that in a number of cases, Canadian trade deals have resulted in imports exceeding exports, which adds to our trade deficit, costs us jobs and impairs our economic growth.

Trade deals must be reciprocal. Good trade deals allow fair access by Canadian enterprises to international markets that seek access to our own. Trade deals must create good jobs in Canada. It is vitally important that Canada encourage value-added production and enhance the value of our exports. Shipping raw products out of Canada is short-sighted and shortchanges Canadians. Good deals must raise the economic and social conditions in each jurisdiction. Respect for human rights and a concerted focus to raise the living and employment conditions for the people of the trading nations must be major priorities.

Trade deals must respect and improve environmental standards. In an interdependent world, that is increasingly aware of our need to sustain development, ensuring that commerce is done sustainably is critical. Finally, trade deals must not damage our democracy by diminishing the ability of governments at all levels to make decisions in the best interests of our citizens. All these issues must be factored in and create a balanced approach to trade.

As I have said, Canada is a trading nation and engaging in trade is demonstrably economically beneficial to Canada. It always has been.

However, that does not mean that we have to give up our sovereignty or our ability to set good policy to do so. This leads me to another policy area that is inextricably linked to trade, that is industrial policy. Trade is not only about with whom we trade and on what terms. It is also about what we produce in our country to trade. Industrial policy is fundamentally linked to trade because our industrial policy is about what we make and how we make the things that we are trading.

The guiding principle for New Democrats is that government must help create the conditions to create and develop good, well-paying, sustainable jobs here in Canada for our citizens and future generations of Canadians. As a cornerstone, a strong industrial policy would help Canadian enterprises make value-added products here in Canada. We must make the successful transition from being hewers of wood and drawers of water to an economy that is based upon secondary and tertiary production.

The resource extraction sector in Canada is incredibly important to our economy. However, wherever possible, we should be developing our resources before shipping them off to another country for them to add value. Shipping raw logs to the U.S. or China only to see those economies derive the benefits of exponentially adding value is not only unwise, it costs our citizens jobs. Shipping raw bitumen offshore instead of processing it in Canada costs our businesses profits and our economy billions of dollars.

New Democrats want to encourage a manufacturing sector that makes products here in Canada, high-quality goods made by Canadians making good wages in safe conditions under the most effective environmental protection. In fact, governments all over the world, from the EU countries to China to Taiwan, from Japan to South Korea to Brazil, are partnering with their private sectors to develop domestic industrial policies that position their enterprises to be successful on the world stage while developing their local economies.

Canada must do the same. Government assistance in market development, R and D support, incentives for sustainable technologies and support for strong education systems are vital parts of a successful trade policy.

Let me now turn to the trade agreement at hand, Bill C-23, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the agreement on the environment between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the agreement on labour co-operation between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Canada and Jordan signed a trade agreement in June 2009. It consists of three separate but linked agreements: the actual free trade agreement and parallel agreements on labour and the environment. The free trade component is relatively straightforward. It eliminates or reduces tariffs on a wide variety of goods and services.

Currently, Jordanian tariffs are quite low. While some are as high as 30%, the average tariff rate is 10%. Most tariff rates are in single digits. Jordan would eliminate all non-agricultural tariffs, which currently average 11%. These include tariffs of 10% to 30% on many products of Canadian export interest, including industrial and electrical machinery, auto parts, construction equipment and forest products. Canada would eliminate all non-agricultural tariffs in turn and most agricultural tariffs on Jordan's imports to Canada immediately. Over-quota tariffs on supply managed goods, dairy, poultry, eggs, et cetera are exempt from this deal. Non-tariff barriers would be dealt with through the creation of a committee on trade in goods and rules of origin as a forum for discussion.

Turning to the labour co-operation agreement, the labour rights provisions in the Canada-Jordan deal include both the summary in the main trade agreement of obligations on labour issues and a separate agreement on labour co-operation where the labour obligations are elaborated in greater detail. The agreement references rights contained in the 1998 ILO declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work and the ILO's decent work agenda, which are very substantive. The following commitments are made:

Each Party shall ensure that its labour law and practices embody and provide protection for the following internationally recognized labour principles and rights: (a) freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining (including protection of the right to organize and the right to strike); (b) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour; (c) the effective abolition of child labour; (d) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation (including equal pay for women and men); (e) acceptable minimum employment standards, such as minimum wages and overtime pay; (f) the prevention of occupational injuries and illnesses; (g) compensation in cases of occupational injuries or illnesses; and (h) non-discrimination in respect of working conditions for migrant workers.

In principle, a complaint regarding labour violations could lead to a ministerial consultation, a review panel for determination of non-compliance and ultimately, to the imposition of fines being paid by the offending government.

The agreement on the environment obligates both sides to comply with and enforce effectively their domestic environmental laws, not to weaken these laws in an effort to attract investment, ensure proceedings are available to remedy violations of environmental laws, co-operate on compliance in environmental technologies, and allow members of the public to question obligations under the agreement. An independent review panel process is also present.

After careful consideration of the agreement, I am pleased to announce that Canada's New Democrats will support the passage of Bill C-23. The Canada-Jordan deal is not perfect. It is not a deal in a form that a New Democrat government would necessarily have negotiated. However, after careful consideration of the deal before us, we have determined that it is worthy of support because we think it is good both for the Canadian and the Jordanian people and because it avoids the major problems that characterize other trade deals that the Canadian government has signed.

Here are some of the major reasons the New Democrats will support the bill. While Jordan is a minor trade partner, the agreement would provide net economic gains for Canada, including in value-added industries, and for Jordan. There is no real evidence of domestic harm to the Canadian economy caused by this trading relationship or agreement. In fact, trade relations and volumes have been increasing among both countries in positive fashion. The New Democrats believe this agreement would bolster business and jobs in both nations. Jordan is a moderate Arab state with a constructive foreign policy that has made, and is making, important progress in the areas of democracy, human rights and labour standards.

This agreement addresses labour standards squarely, and in particular the rights of migrant workers, which were not included in the trade deal the United States made with Jordan 10 years ago. These include elevated standards of work hours, wage protection and stronger penalties against human trafficking. They also include extending domestic employment standards to migrant workers and affording them the ability to join unions if they so wish.

Jordan has demonstrated its commitment to raising the living conditions of its workers, including raising the minimum wage twice in the last several years. Anti-discrimination commitments and provisions to raise conditions among Jordanian migrant workers will particularly help women, who make up two-thirds of the migrant work force.

At committee, the ILO testified that there is encouraging progress on labour issues in Jordan.

New Democrats supported this legislation at second reading, and at that time we stated in the House that we would consider further support if the labour situation continued to improve in Jordan. In important ways, it has.

The environmental agreement, while far from perfect, contains a benchmark commitment to enforce environmental standards. In addition, this free trade agreement contains no investor-state provision, which we generally oppose. There are no invasive chapters on public procurement or intellectual property in this deal, which are serious criticisms of other trade deals including in CETA presently being negotiated.

With no agreement, trade with Jordan will still occur given the low tariffs. It is therefore arguably better to sign an agreement that engages Jordan in a positive, constructive manner with significant commitments than to have none at all. Sometimes it is better to have good progress, if not perfect progress.

As the dominant economy in this relationship, Canada is in a strong position to ensure enforcement of and compliance with labour and environmental commitments. New Democrats will hold the government to account to make sure it does this. When we form the government, we will actively engage with all of our trading partners to ensure compliance with our agreements.

Unlike Colombia, Jordan is not a major human rights violator. Unlike Panama, Jordan is not an international money laundering jurisdiction or tax haven.

I want to read a quote from Ms. Nancy Donaldson, director of the Washington office of the International Labour Organization, who testified at committee. She said:

The government has placed employment and decent work for Jordanians at the heart of its response strategy....They endorsed the national employment strategy in May 2011...formally signed a decent work country program, or a national framework strategy, for 2012 to 2015.

The goal is to support national initiatives to reduce decent work deficits and strengthen national capacity to mainstream decent work.

...We're excited about Jordan because very recently the government has decided they are going to require all manufacturers to participate in the Better Work Jordan program. That means, frankly, bad actors can't opt out and have good actors carry the responsibility.

It's a good policy approach. There are monitoring processes, which are then reported back to the manufacturers, with remedial recommendations where there is non-compliance. Then, after a period of time, they are published for the public to know and for the brands to know.

We've been in Jordan long enough now that we are seeing some progress in a number of areas where there has been difficulty in non-compliance.

Mr. Pierre Bouchard, director of bilateral and regional labour affairs in the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, said:

To elaborate on those options and what the legal obligations are, it's important to underline that our agreement with Jordan is the first agreement where Jordan makes specific commitments concerning the labour rights of migrant workers.

These are encouraging signs. This shows a willingness and a good faith attitude on the part of our trading partner, which gives us hope that this deal will encourage continued progress in Jordan.

While the development of respect for the rights of labour and migrant workers in Jordan is encouraging, there is more work to be done. At committee, there was also alarming testimony about continuing mistreatment of workers in Jordan, particularly in the qualified industrial zones where migrant labour is used. Concerns have been raised about the ability to effectively enforce the standards called for in the labour side deal.

This agreement also has no real sanctions or penalties for non-compliance with the environmental side agreement.

While there is no investor-state provision in the free trade agreement, Canada did sign a foreign investment protection agreement with Jordan in advance of this deal, which contains the very problematic tribunal complaint mechanism that subjects governments to attack by multinational corporations, as we just saw in the Mobil decision that will cost the Newfoundland and Labrador government and the Canadian government millions of dollars for simply requiring that certain research work be done in Canada. This shows how important protecting sovereign democratic rights in trade agreements is and why New Democrats believe so strongly in doing so.

This leads to an important point. Signing an agreement is not an end in itself, and it is not the end of the process either. As with any good contract and ongoing relationship, care must be taken to monitor and enforce the reciprocal commitments if the deal is truly to have integrity and meet its stated objectives. I sincerely hope that the present government will take this care.

However, we must recognize when we see an agreement that does not have many of the provisions to which we object. We see that here. We must recognize when we are working with a partner who, while by no means perfect, as we are not, is improving with regard to human rights and labour rights. We see that in Jordan. We must recognize when we see a deal that will bring mutual economic benefit to Canada, our trading partner and our business sector. While Jordan is a small trading partner, our trade relationship is growing and we see that this agreement would bring mutual benefit. That is why I am happy to stand with my New Democrat colleagues and support this bill.

This is the beginning of a new chapter in our trade relationship with Jordan. Our countries already trade with each other every day, but this is the start of a new engagement which we, along with the government, business and other stakeholders, including, most importantly, the labour movement and civil society, believe has the capacity to bring increased economic activity, improved labour standards and a lasting commitment to environmental protection to both countries.

If these results do not occur, we can withdraw from this agreement. This agreement provides that either party can give six months' notice at any time and withdraw. This is something that is not mentioned enough. We cannot just sign a deal and assume that the market will take care of everything or that others will monitor the agreement for us. We cannot assume that the promised benefits of trade agreements will happen organically and magically without monitoring or working hard. If, as the time goes on, we determine that the benefits are not happening, we should not hesitate to use the termination clause that is present in all trade agreements to get out of this deal, if required. Promises must not just be made; they must be kept.

In conclusion, I want to say how exciting it is for me to have been named the official opposition critic for international trade at this time. Now more than ever, Canada's New Democrats are poised to form the government, but New Democrats know that this does not just happen and that the trust of the electorate is not something to be taken for granted. It must be earned.

With regard to trade, I am excited to show Canadians that a New Democrat government would put trade at the top of its agenda. I am excited to work with business, labour, all levels of government and civil society to build a new template for the trade deals we would sign, because New Democrats know we can sign deals that do not hurt our democracy by imposing restrictions on provinces and municipalities to make policy. We need not sell our sovereignty or impair our democracy by insisting on investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms that tip the balance of power away from people to multinational corporations.

We know we can unite trade policy with sound environmental protection and labour and human rights standards. We know we can have better enforcement mechanisms to ensure these are not empty promises. We know we can sign trade deals that provide a mutual benefit to Canada and our trading partners. New Democrats will write better trade agreements than the current government and the Liberals before them.

Today our world faces many large questions. Can we have a global economy that has global, social and environmental policies and open democratic governance by the economic decision-makers? Can we ensure that the benefits of increased trade produce shared gains that elevate the living standards of all the people of our world? Can we commit to a more just economic policy that sees trade as a tool to make a better world for every nation? New Democrats say yes, we can. We will continue to show Canadians that a New Democrat government would advocate positive proposals precisely to these ends.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech and endorsement of the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement. I do not know if it was an epiphany on the road to Damascus that occurred, but I have been in the House for 15 years and two things have occurred today that should be noted. Number one, an NDP member of Parliament stood up and endorsed trade and said that Canada is a trading nation, and number two, he said that New Democrats are going to support a free trade agreement. I thank him for that. That took a leap of faith and some courage, because I suspect he will have a little more difficulty with his colleagues than his own epiphany.

However, I have a question and it is simple. These free trade agreements are written on a very similar template, with labour and the environment attached to them. The free trade agreement with Jordan really is not much different than the free trade agreement with Panama. Panama is off the OECD grey list. It is no longer looked at as a major offender in the money laundering business. If New Democrats are going to support this agreement, why not support the rest?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question. I have not had a chance to review the Panama agreement, but I can say that we can distinguish our support for this deal from others, including Panama and Colombia, with some reasons at this point.

For example, Jordan has better labour standards. It has demonstrably improving labour conditions. It has comparably better human rights records. Jordan is not a tax haven or a drug laundering centre. It does not prosecute, persecute or murder trade unionists en masse. It is not pursuing serious environmental destruction policies. Jordan is not forcing citizens to relocate due to large scale industrial projects and, as I said, the deal has no investor-state provision in the text, and it protects Canadian intellectual property and public procurement processes.

I think my hon. colleague has heard the standards and principles that New Democrats will apply, and we will apply those standards consistently to every agreement. Where a country has fulfilled those standards, we will consider supporting it; where it does not, we will not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member. It is a bit of a revelation in the sense that only last week another one of his colleagues, just a few seats over, stated that the NDP would never support a free trade agreement. The only free trade agreement it would support is one that was drafted by the NDP.

Having said that, we welcome the flip-flop of the NDP on the trade file. Most Canadians would appreciate the fact that we do need to look at freer trade agreements among other countries throughout the world.

For years Canadians have benefited immensely by freer trade agreement and other mechanisms that are put into place. Canadians as a whole have concerns with regard to labour standards and environmental concerns, as the Liberal Party has had for generations in recognizing the value of these sorts of trades.

The question I have for the member is not that far off what the government member has posed. We have the Panama free trade agreement, but has the NDP developed a list of countries with which it is prepared to say that the government should be looking at developing free trade agreements? Is that something the NDP members are looking at? Are they now at a stage where they will review previous agreements as to the countries with which they support having freer trade?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the only long list I have is a list of the Liberal flip-flops that goes back decades in this country.

I believe it was the Liberal Party that opposed the free trade agreement with the United States. I believe it was Liberal Party members who said they would withdraw from NAFTA if they formed government. I believe it was the Liberal Party that said it would bring in a national child care program. I believe it was the Liberal government that said it would bring in a national housing program. I believe it was the Liberal government that said it supported and then opposed corporate tax cuts.

Really, to hear a member of the Liberal Party stand up in this House and talk about flip-flopping is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his presentation and analysis on an important issue and for his appointment to the international trade responsibility, because it is a very serious responsibility.

As he has said so well, and as others on this side have said in this House, we are a trading nation, but we need to ensure that as we engage in negotiations with other nations around the world, we do so not with a cookie cutter approach, as the government would do, regardless of which country it is, regardless of the history of relations and regardless of the circumstances. We need to ensure we recognize the values that exist between the countries with which we are doing business and with which we would engage, in order to make sure it is a positive relationship for the people, the workers and the businesses of our country and of the country with which we are partnering.

I would like to ask the member if he would speak to how important the whole question of values is, in terms of our approach to dealing with international trade.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the important work he did on the international trade file before me.

The majority of Canadians want two things in our trade agreements. First, they want a well-structured trade agreement that will benefit Canada and their communities. Second, they want us to sign trade agreements with partners that respect democracy and have a commitment to improving it and improving conditions in their countries.

Canadians do not want our government to sign trade agreements with anybody in the world who will trade will us, including regimes that have horrible human rights records and are not prepared to commit to internationally acceptable norms of conduct. That is why the issue of trade policy is much more complicated than the simplistic approach of the Liberals, depending on what year it is, if members can determine what the Liberals' approach to trade is, and sometimes the approach of the Conservatives as well, who appear sometimes to be able to sign trade deals with anybody who will come to the table with them.

What Canadians want is, first, a structured, organized, well-thought-out trade policy through which we determine which countries in the world we can engage with in mutually advantageous trade relationships. Second, we need a new trade template that does not put public procurement, pharmaceutical costs and invasive multinational state tribunal processes at work that threaten the ability of governments in this country to pass public policy in the best interests of their citizens. With those admonitions, Canadians will accept and endorse the New Democrats' approach to trade, which would see more trade in this country done on good terms.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is straying from his facts when he is off into public procurement. He is referring, I believe, to the European Union comprehensive and economic trade agreement between Canada and the EU.

The reality is that there are already WTO rules in place on procurement, and nobody is forcing anything on the provinces or the municipalities that would change their jurisdiction. They would still have jurisdiction over all the areas where they have jurisdiction now. The difference would be that in areas where procurement is open, the taxpayer would have the benefit that the best corporation with the best price would get that infrastructure contract. That would be the only difference. WTO rules are already in existence.

Would the hon. member clarify that?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very thoughtful question, and I thank the member for it.

First, I cannot comment on CETA because there has been no text released to us, and one thing the New Democrats believe in strongly is that we should see the text before commenting. At least, that is going to typify my response to reviewing trade agreements. I would urge the government to be a bit more transparent about showing Canadians what is in that agreement and I would urge the government not to sign the CETA before it has a chance to put that final negotiated document to Canadians and to stakeholders for our review.

Public procurement is a very important issue. Some 50 municipalities and towns across this country have passed resolutions concerned about the potential impact that public procurement may have on increasing or impairing the ability of multinational corporations to make good local decisions, perhaps to stir local economic development or to have local environmental policies or to access local food sources. We will wait and see what CETA says, and if it does not impair those abilities, then that will be a good thing. If it does, then the New Democrats will be holding the government to account.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at this stage of Bill C-23, which is the Canada-Jordan trade agreement.

A great deal has occurred since the trade agreement was initially agreed to in August 2008, four years ago. When the agreement was officially announced in June 2009, the Arab Spring had yet to occur. The instability that has overtaken the region in the past year has been nothing short of transformative. In this climate, the FTA with Jordan is about to unfold.

We are supportive of the bill in principle, as we have been supportive of previous trade agreements. However, we remind the government, which boasts about its trade agreement accomplishments, that this agreement with Jordan is now more than four years old and still has not really been completed. That point was raised by witnesses before the international trade committee.

It is easy to announce new so-called agreements, but it would be nice to finalize them. That seems to be a long time coming. There is a lot of talk by the government on all the trade agreements it has on the go, but we have yet to see much in terms of results. Closing deals is something that the government just cannot seem to achieve.

I would note that the CETA agreement is not near completion, although the minister said earlier in the year that it would be completed before spring. Now the minister is saying that it is going to be a considerably longer period of time.

On the trans-Pacific partnership that the government is talking about getting into, the problem is that the price of admission is the selling out of our supply management system. The members of the TPP know it and the government knows it.

I will give the government some credit, in that it has said it will not put it at issue on the table as the price of getting into negotiations. However, we are concerned about what we are hearing from TPP partners. We know of Canada's great interest in getting in and we know that one of the conditions raised by the United States and New Zealand is in fact at the price of our supply management system.

This morning I had the opportunity to tour, with a couple of members of the NDP and a member of the Conservative government, some supply management operations an hour outside of Ottawa. The success of those operations is phenomenal in terms of their ability to provide consumers with a high-quality product at reasonable prices.

Driving through that community, we see quite a number of supply management operations. hose numbers tell us of the health of that industry, not only in terms of the operations themselves but also in terms of the communities and their development. People in the community are bringing sons and daughters into the operations.

Supply management is a very successful program, and we need to ensure, no matter what the trade agreement, that our supply management system remains intact and successful in this country. I would suggest it is a model of rural development that we should be promoting to the rest of the world, rather than giving the multinational corporate sector the advantages it wants through the demise of supply management.

However, I believe it is just a matter of time before the government finds a way to transition our supply-managed system to a more open market system. In fact, we have seen the Prime Minister's statement when he signed the deal with the Conservative Party and the Alliance party. The Prime Minister himself said that he would like to see supply management basically be given some time to transfer to the open market system.

Those are the words of the Prime Minister before he was prime minister. We just simply, from this end, do not trust the government on maintaining its support for supply management when it comes down to the hard fight.

During the course of committee testimony, Jim Stanford of the Canadian Auto Workers presented the committee with facts that should be of concern to all Canadians concerned about economic growth and the real impact of trade agreements that the government is pursuing. The facts speak for themselves. We have, as a country, lost more ground than we gained through the free trade agreements that we have signed and we have actually performed better with countries that we do not have any such arrangements with. That is a concern.

According to Mr. Stanford:

I've reviewed our five longest-standing trade pacts: with the United States, Mexico, Israel, Chile and Costa Rica. Canada's exports to them grew more slowly than our exports to non-free-trade partners, while our imports surged much faster than with the rest of the world.

Mr. Stanford went on to say:

If the policy goal (sensibly) is to boost exports and strengthen the trade balance, then signing free-trade deals is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Mr. Stanford himself said that he supports trade arrangements. He respects the importance of trade. However, I think that statement spells out something that we do not have in this country that the Liberals believe we should have—that is, an industrial strategy, in terms of value added, that has to happen domestically and internally within the country to reap more of the benefits back to Canadians and the Canadian labour force from these trade agreements. I think that is what we are missing. That is something that I think the country has to work on.

Allow me to focus on the Canada-Jordan agreement itself.

We should keep in mind a cautionary note included in a recent report by the RAND Corporation, which stated:

Small states situated next to states in turmoil frequently suffer collateral economic damage. Jordan is a case in point.

There are a couple of areas of concern that were raised during the hearings by the international trade committee. Among the areas of concern are those related to child labour matters and to other labour-related issues which would best be resolved through an open and transparent agreement. I will get to a statement on that aspect in a moment

We have heard a bit about the labour conditions and working conditions in Jordan, and it is really a matter of concern. Jordan is a country with a workforce of 1.8 million, of which 313,000 are guest workers. That means they are migrant workers in the country. According to a September 2011 Human Rights Watch report:

Pressing financial needs have led hundreds of thousands of women to migrate as domestic workers to Jordan, where many face systemic and systematic abuse. This results from a recruitment system in which employers and recruitment agencies disempower workers through deceit, debt, and blocking information about rights and means of redress; and a work environment that isolates the worker and engenders dependency on employers and recruitment agencies under laws that penalize escape. Jordanian law contains provisions and omissions that facilitate mistreatment, while officials foster impunity by failing to hold employers and agencies to account when they violate labor protections or commit crimes, and belittling or ignoring a disturbing pattern of abuse.

What concerned me as I started to raise questions on this issue was the trade zones in Jordan where these plants for manufacturing garments are. They are not local companies or employers, nor do they employ local employees. These are migrant workers who are coming in. The plants are located in Jordan and there is some spinoff to the economy, but we will find that the companies are owned elsewhere, the managers are often from other countries and the workers are migrant workers, just to put into context the way that these operations work.

The International Labour Organization, the ILO, in a July 2011 report on Jordan, outlined the following area of concern. It states:

Since 2006, continuous action has been taken to improve labour law compliance in particular in Qualified Industrial Zones (free trade zones) and the apparel sector as a response to the increasing number of labour infractions in relation to migrant work in this sector.

It goes on to state:

In Jordan, labour inspection campaigns are conducted in the apparel sector, as many labour law infringements take place in this sector, mostly concerning migrant workers.

Therefore, there is a lot of concern being expressed by the ILO as it relates to this issue.

We did hear testimony that was rather disturbing and it is on the committee record. I would like to mention some of that testimony because we were told by the Jordanian representatives that there was some improvement, and I will grant them that, but it has not improved to the extent that we would like to see. Therefore, I am putting this on the record to make it very clear to Jordan that the Government of Canada is watching, the NDP is watching and we are watching.

This testimony was given by a Mr. Jeff Vogt, legal advisor to the Department of Human and Trade Union Rights of the International Trade Union Confederation, the ITUC, which is a global confederation of some 160 million workers worldwide, including workers in Canada. He gave testimony on March 29 of this year. He stated from a report that he had done:

The workers have no rights whatsoever. It's a real sweatshop. Workers are housed in primitive dormitories. The Chinese workers and Bangladeshi workers have no voice. In the dormitories during wintertime, there is not sufficient heat or hot water. Their bathing facilities are a bucket of water; they use a cup and splash water on themselves. The workers are treated with no rights whatsoever.

He went on to say:

I would say in that Rich Pine factory, every single labour right under Jordanian law and under the U.S. free trade agreement is being blatantly violated in broad daylight.

Those are pretty serious allegations. What I find troubling is that those are the working conditions so that the wealthy in the industrialized countries of the world can buy cheaper clothes. There is something wrong with that situation. We would certainly demand that the Jordanian government apply the laws that it has in place so that those kinds of working conditions do not exist.

He went on further to say:

I want to talk finally and briefly about the Classic factory in Jordan. It's the largest factory in Jordan. There are 5,000 workers from Egypt, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and China.

They have $125 million of exports to the U.S., most of it Walmart and Hanes. The workers are working 14, 15 hours a day. Maybe they get two Fridays off a month. The workers are slapped, screamed at. When shipments have to go out, they'll work 18-and-a-half-hour shifts. But that's the least of it. What we have discovered is that at the Classic factory, Jordan's largest factory, there are scores and scores of young women guest workers who have been raped at the Classic factory.

He goes on and explains further.

The fact is that, even though Jordanian representatives have come before committee and talked about the laws, from what we are hearing in that testimony, they are not being forced aggressively enough. That should not be happening in the global community in terms of apparel manufacturing. Those are inhuman conditions for people to work in. It is clearly a violation of human rights, and unacceptable.

I would suggest that the Canadian government needs to be very strenuous in its observation of those labour rights and demanding that proper labour and human rights be applied to the workers following a signature to this free trade agreement.

The Canada–Jordan labour co-operation agreement would commit both countries to ensuring that their laws respect the International Labour Organization's declaration of fundamental principles and rights at work.

The ILO's 1998 declaration, which aims to ensure that social progress goes hand in hand with economic development 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.

To further protect the rights of workers, Canada and Jordan have also committed to acceptable protection for occupational health and safety; acceptable minimum employment standards, such as minimum wage and hours of work; providing compensation in case of workplace injuries and illnesses; and providing migrant workers with the same legal protection as nationals in respect to working conditions. I think it is very important that that agreement is part of this FTA with Jordan.

The countries have also agreed, subject to the availability of resources, to develop a framework for co-operative activities that he will allow Jordan to better meet its obligations under the LCA.

I will come back to what I said earlier. A lot needs to be done to ensure that workers' rights, human rights and the conditions of work are being applied properly because, clearly, as Mr. Jeff Vogt said on March 29, the evidence is that that has not been happening to date.

The United States department of state, in its most recent country report on human rights 2010, outlined a number of concerns which, even though the statutes are in place, remain. I will not go through all those concerns that are outlined in that report. I have outlined a lot in terms of the rights' issues.

While the Conservatives have proclaimed the promotion of trade, it has been under their watch that the mismanagement of the file in terms of trading relationships has resulted in trade deficits for the first time in over 30 years.

With respect to the United States, we have seen the government surprised by increased United States protectionist actions. First, it was surprised by the initial buy American provisions in the 2008 United States stimulus package. Second, it was surprised in the fall of 2011 when buy American provisions returned in the Obama administration's recent jobs plan. Finally, it was surprised by the announcement of the United States Federal Maritime Commission that, at the instigation of United States senators, an investigation in United States-bound container traffic being diverted to Canadian ports and whether to impose fees or tariffs as a result of the diverted trade.

While we are looking at a lot of trade deals around the world, the government is falling down on the ones we already have in existence.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Malpeque on his excellent speech. He spoke at length about the measures relating to working conditions. That seemed very important to him and it is very important to us as well. The environmental conditions in which industries over there operate are also important.

What does the hon. member think about the provisions concerning not only working conditions but also environmental conditions in which the industries operate and in which the workers sometimes put their health at risk?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, yes I did go on at considerable length in terms of the labour conditions because they are the most obvious. At committee, for whatever reason, we had no witnesses who talked about the environmental conditions around some of these plants. Maybe we should have.

However, in terms of the FTA and the side agreements, while they all sound great in words, side agreements are, in fact, that, side agreements. We must, in this agreement and in others, find a way to deal with both the labour side and the environmental side. The critic for the New Democratic Party had a good motion at committee in terms of forcing the government to monitor better the labour conditions. However, we need to encourage the government to find a way to enforce the conditions in these agreements. There is no sense having all these wonderful agreements if we cannot enforce the proper conditions that we spell out as part of the trade agreement in the side agreements. That is just not acceptable.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate my colleague from Malpeque on his eloquent speech. Is he worried about applying a double standard to goods and people?

In Mexico we saw limits on the number of people crossing borders, but none on the amount of goods. Does this also apply to Jordan?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, to be brutally honest, I am not sure in terms of the movement of people from the country versus the movement of goods, but it is a very good question.

When Mr. Stanford with the Canadian Auto Workers was before the committee, he gave us fairly good documented evidence that where we have trade agreements in place, our trade is expanding with those countries. We are moving more goods and services and they are moving more goods and services to us.

However, where we have trade agreements, our net trade balance is getting worse. Where we do not have trade agreements, our net trade balance continues to improve. There is a warning sign there and there should be because in this country we are losing our manufacturing base, and we cannot allow that to happen. The percentage of the GDP from the manufacturing sector is about half of what it was some time ago. We as a country do not want to be just hewers of wood and drawers of water. We want to ensure there good, valuable jobs are created as a result of the trade agreements, and that is where the government is so wrong. It does not have the industrial strategy to go with the trade agreements to ensure we are creating the wealth in Canada and not just exporting wealth elsewhere.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments with regard to the agreement. He made quick reference to the U.S. and its importance. It is great that we are working on these deals. The government has been working on this now for four years. However, the deal that really creates tens of thousands of jobs across Canada is taking place in the United States.

Could my colleague comment on that agreement, the negotiations and the trade that happens between Canada and the United States?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the United States is our most important trading market by a country mile. In fact, the importance of the relationship is spelled out in the value of trade on a daily basis, which exceeds $1.4 billion. Therefore, in terms of merchandise trade, in 2010 Canada exported $339.4 billion internationally of which 74.9% was with the United States. The United Kingdom, our second most important trading partner, came in at 4.1% of the exports. China was 3.3%. After that, there was Japan, Mexico, Germany, Korea, Netherlands and Brazil. Those are the top 10.

I want to make one point with respect to Korea, which comes back to what I said in my remarks earlier. The government talk about all these trade agreements, but it has not done the job in terms of the established areas where we have trade. Korea is a $1 billion market for our beef and hogs, especially hogs. The United States now has an agreement, signed and in place in early May. As a result, within two years, because its tariffs are reducing and ours are remaining in place, we are going to be displaced in that marketplace.

The government had better get off its butt and get a Canadian trade agreement with Korea so we secure that market. It is a good market for Canadians and we do not want to lose it.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in the House to speak about Bill C-23, which is the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement and related agreements on labour co-operation and the environment. Canada signed this agreement with Jordan on June 28, 2009. The government is taking action during these difficult economic times by reaching out to our trading partners and reducing barriers to trade.

Jordan is a key partner for Canada in the pursuit of peace and security in the Middle East and we welcome this opportunity to strengthen our ties with this regional leader. These agreements mark a positive step forward, further enhancing Canada-Jordan relations by stimulating increased trade and investment between our two countries. Upon implementation, the immediate elimination of tariffs on the vast majority of current Canadian exports to Jordan will benefit Canadian exporters, Canadian families and Canadian workers.

This free trade agreement provides Canadian companies with a competitive edge in a variety of sectors, including forest products, machinery, construction equipment and agricultural and agri-foods products such as pulse crops, frozen french fries, animal feed and various prepared foods.

The Canada-Jordan FTA will also improve the competitiveness of Canadian exporters in the Jordanian marketplace and their foreign competitors, particularly from the U.S. and Europe, which already have trade agreements with Jordan.

I move:

That this question be now put.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the most natural question would be this. We are still in the third reading stage, and the member has risen and posed that this question be now put. It seemed that the bill itself would receive unanimous support of the House. I am not too sure what the Green Party will do on it, but we now have the official opposition supporting it. The Liberals have always been supportive, with a great deal of concern in regard to the agreement itself and ways in which we thought it could have been better. However, it has receive significant support from the House of Commons.

Why would you have felt it necessary to move that sort of an amendment? Were you instructed by the government House leader to do it, or was this your own personal initiative, as opposed to allowing the debate to continue?

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Just a reminder to hon. members to direct their questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the other side for giving me hope and the expectation that he will be one of the supporters of this free trade agreement.

To answer his question, this agreement was signed between Canada and Jordan on June 28, 2009. This agreement has been debated over long hours, not only in the House but also in committee. Considering the circumstances, considering the tough times all countries are going through, it is important for us to complete third reading and move forward to implement this bill as soon as possible.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that recommends this trade agreement over other ones that the government has put forward is better standards for labour issues.

Does my colleague think the government could do better in terms of negotiating free trade agreements with other jurisdictions if it were negotiating from a better position of strength on its own commitment to labour legislation and free collective bargaining? I ask that question in light of the government bringing in back-to-work legislation three times so far in this Parliament.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what I have seen from the opposition in committee and in the House regarding any legislation is delays, fearmongering, no support and no constructive debate. Basically it is all delay tactics.

At the same time, it is important for this government to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. Therefore, we have to finish business and move forward and implement all of these agreements.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, both opposition parties in the House have said that they are supportive of this agreement. There are not that many hours left for debate and a number of people have some things to say that they want to get on the record relative to this agreement.

It is bad politics and tactics by the government. The member is always talking about the government, although he is a member of the governing party, not the government. The government is cabinet.

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

Give us a lesson.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker.

The tactics shown by the member, on behalf of the government no doubt, getting his direction from on high, are wrong, especially when he knows full well that we will support the bill. People want to get some things on the record.

The member is accusing us of fearmongering and says that there is no constructive debate. He talks about how the government is interested in jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. The member was at committee when Canadian auto workers stated that there was a problem with our trade agreements in terms of results, that wealth was not being created in Canada and that we were becoming more hewers of wood and drawers of water—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I hate to interrupt the hon. member. Other hon. members may wish to pose questions.

The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is so ironic when a member of the Liberal Party stands and says that the Liberals are all willing to support this agreement. They have been using all kinds of tactics in committee and in the House to delay this legislation. If those members are honest, let them support this.

The fact is that an agreement with Jordan will open up significant opportunities for Canadian companies in this market as well as in Middle East countries and north Africa.

Under this agreement, Jordan will eliminate all non-agriculture tariffs and the vast majority of agriculture tariffs.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to my sources of information—including people who were members of the previous Parliament—the argument was made many times that increasing trade with Jordan would pave the way for a better dialogue concerning human rights and workers' rights.

I would like to know what pragmatic goal we have to verify that, and to get further information on the subject.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know which previous members my colleague from the opposition party is referring to. Maybe that is the reason those previous members are not presently members.

To respond to his question, I would reiterate what the Minister of International Trade has been saying again and again, which is that Canada will not sign any agreement which is not to the net benefit of Canada and Canadians.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is a member of the international trade committee, so I suspect he has a fair bit of expertise in this area and has probably spent a lot of time studying this agreement. Could the member share with the House some of the ways that this agreement would benefit Canada.

I know our government has done a lot of work in terms of opening up new markets for trade for businesses and farmers and created all kinds of economic opportunity as part of our broader economic agenda to see our country through a very difficult time. We really are the envy of the world at the current time. I am sure the hon. member would be willing to share with the House some of the benefits that the agreement would bring for our country.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to answer his question, he is absolutely right that Canada is the envy of the world when it comes to free trade agreements. Upon implementation of this free trade agreement, over 99% of recent Canadian exports to Jordan will benefit from immediate duty-free access to the Jordanian market, with a small number of tariffs to be phased out over three to five years. That is a fact of this agreement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I stand in my place to talk about free trade. I have had the opportunity to talk about it on a number of occasions, most recently last week. Today I would like to emphasize a couple of important industries in the perspective of free trade and the benefits of free trade agreements. Our Liberal Party critic talked at great length about some of our concerns in regard to the specifics of this free trade agreement between Canada and Jordan. To avoid sounding overly repetitive, I will try to take a different angle on it, and maybe refer to some of the things I had talked about when I was referring to the Panama-Canada Free Trade Agreement and free trade in general.

Let me first start off by commenting on the whole idea of the amendment, which I thought was somewhat bizarre for the government to put forward. There is a natural instinct it seems, more and more every day, for the government to do something to limit rights of members inside this chamber.

One of the favourite things of the Conservatives is time allocation. On a few occasions they have brought in a motion to prevent amendments from being introduced. It is somewhat discouraging, given that the Conservatives have witnessed this afternoon something that is fairly noteworthy, when the New Democratic Party critic brought forward the NDP's official position with regard to this bill. History would likely show that previous votes on this agreement may have reflected negatively coming from the NDP members, but the critic has made the determination that they will be supporting the bill.

When I posed the question earlier, I was a bit surprised. Most people would be surprised because it was only last week when we were debating the Panama agreement and as members may recall, there was an exchange between myself and a member of the New Democratic Party from the front bench. We were asking about the whole free trade concept and what it would take for the NDP to support an agreement. The conclusion at that point was that an NDP trade agreement would have to be signed in order for the NDP to support it.

Something has happened between last week and this week. The NDP has come on side with the rest of the progressive world in recognizing that there is merit to trade. We welcome that as it tries to nudge a little bit closer to the centre, quite possibly. I do not really know why per se, but it is encouraging that the NDP has recognized the value of trade.

As we look forward to having more discussions in the months and years ahead, we need to talk about freer trade. It is not just the formal agreements we need to be concerned about. There are other areas in which we encourage trade. I want to pick up on a couple of those. I made reference last week to what I had thought was a great attempt back in the nineties by the then Prime Minister Chrétien to gather a number of stakeholders, provincial jurisdictions, politicians of all political stripes and stakeholders within the business community. There was a wonderful label put on it, Team Canada. They went out to countries around the world. I believe the first one was in Asia. There were just amazing results when they brought different stakeholders from Canada to another country.

By having that strong presence, there is a series of doors that open as a direct result of the interest by the national government in saying that it wants to be able to broaden opportunities for both countries and afford the ability of those stakeholders to communicate directly. Ultimately, I believe that tens of millions of dollars flowed from that. At the end of the day, many economic ties were established by that agreement.

I have made reference to what I have always believed was one of the greatest agreements, if not the greatest, which was the Auto Pact. It was an agreement between Canada and the United States where Canada would be guaranteed a certain percentage of the manufacturing of automobiles and parts in return for purchasing vehicles or having a freer trade with the automobile industry. As a direct result of that agreement over the years, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created.

Whether in the manufacturing industry, tourism or information technology, there are many opportunities out there. When governments take the initiative to go abroad, in whatever form, and in this case it is a formalized free trade agreement, then all Canadians can benefit. It creates employment opportunities here as well as for the other countries. We see that as a good thing.

One of the examples I used when I made reference to Panama was an important industry in the province of Manitoba, the potato industry. I am glad that not only are we supporting the principles of the bill for Jordan, but also the principles of the bill for Panama. If we look at the Panama agreement, in the province of Manitoba the potato industry is huge. Panama consumes a great deal of our potatoes and not just the raw product, but processed potatoes as well. We have three large processing plants which create 1,000 plus direct jobs, not to mention indirect jobs. When we looked at the agreement, we saw that there was value to it and we supported it.

On the Jordan agreement that we are now debating, again there is benefit, not only for Manitoba, but for all provinces. Perhaps some provinces may benefit a little more because of the industries that Jordan might want to focus on in Canada. This is one of the nice things about being such a diverse country. However, at the end of the day, we have been fairly consistent in recognizing the value of freer trade agreements.

Having said that, we have some concerns. We have been consistent on those concerns. We need to be aware of the environmental impact and how other countries treat and respect environments. We also need to be aware of labour conditions. That is why committee members, whether it is the critic of the Liberal Party or other stakeholders, are quite willing to share stories or concerns regarding labour standards and environmental laws. Where we can, we have to try to protect both those areas of interest. By doing that, I believe that we are making the world a better place to live and allowing a more equal and level playing field.

On an equal, level playing field, Canadians can compete with any country in the world. Having said that, we are far from being able to achieve that playing field, but I think it is worth pursuing.

We have other concerns that we have talked about at length. I want to be able to share some of my thoughts on those concerns. There is the whole idea of the manufacturing industry and the global competitive market. If the government does not do its job, we could lose a lot of valuable jobs. For the most part, I think we would find that Canadians are supportive of freer trade, and the benefits of freer trade, but there is also a great deal of concern about those quality jobs. A lot of those quality jobs that we really have to watch out for are within the manufacturing industry.

It saddens me to hear of these massive layoffs or companies that are going down and shifting to another region of the world. Some of it cannot be prevented from happening, but there are some things that government can do that would have an impact.

I would like to cite two recent examples dealing with the whole concept of trade. The first one is in regard to a debate that we had last summer when the government made the determination to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. By getting rid of the Canadian Wheat Board, I would argue that ultimately we are going to see fewer Prairie farmers dealing with grain as a commodity. We are going to see larger farms handling the same sort of capacity of grain, but there will be a smaller number of farmers. That will have a serious impact on the number of people employed in that industry. We will see smaller towns or communities that will also be impacted by the government's decision.

I have been around in politics for a number of years. My understanding was that in the whole debate on the free trade agreement there was a lot of pressure on Canada to end the Wheat Board, as far back as the mid-1980s. Governments, over the years, have resisted getting rid of the Wheat Board, because governments, both Progressive Conservative and Liberal, have recognized the value of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is only the Reform/Conservative government that has made the determination that this will somehow improve Canada's trade relations.

I would suggest that these types of things will have a very negative impact. When we talk about trade agreements, this is something the U.S. wanted so desperately that the government just kind of conceded it, handed it over to the United States and other international companies. I am not too sure exactly how much wheat Jordan would be getting from our Prairies, I suspect some. The minister says it is quite a bit, and I will take him at his word on that. The point is it does have what I believe is a negative impact, and it is a government policy. The government chose to go in that direction.

The other major issue that we have had here affected not only the Prairies, but Winnipeg, Mississauga and Montreal. It was the whole Air Canada and Aveos fiasco. I have walked the line with Air Canada workers on several occasions in regard to what has taken place there. As the world gets smaller, we have to look at those valuable jobs, those valuable industries. In Manitoba, the aerospace industry is a very important industry, as it is no doubt in Quebec and Ontario.

In those three provinces it employs thousands of Canadians. Air Canada had an obligation to sustain those jobs in those three provinces, but the government has let Air Canada off the hook; as a result, those jobs are gone.

The government does not recognize that it has a role to play in certain industries. I would suggest the aerospace industry is one of those industries. If it is not prepared to play a role and allows the free market to dictate where those jobs will be, my concern is that not only will those jobs be leaving Winnipeg, Montreal and Mississauga but also that potentially we will lose a very important industry. The reason is that other countries will be paying a fraction of the wages employees would earn in those three provinces working at overhaul bases or the like.

If the Government of Canada wants to move toward freer trade, in principle it is a good measure, but we have to remember that millions of Canadians are depending on the government to also protect those industries that feel threatened, because they are long-term industries with great potential for ongoing development to provide good-paying jobs going forward.

My last point is a question I asked my colleague in regard to the U.S. With Jordan, our trade is just under $100 million annually. As was pointed out earlier, Canada exports around $340 billion worth of goods internationally. The single greatest recipient of those exported products is the U.S. I believe the government has been neglecting that file. As a direct result, a lot more jobs could end up going south. We have already seen jobs going to the United States that could have stayed here in Canada. The government has been turning a blind eye to that particular trading partner or that issue. I do not quite understand why.

Another issue is with respect to Korea which, as my colleague pointed out, consumes a great deal of pork. Once again I will bring in the province of Manitoba, which is a billion-dollar trading partner with Korea. A number of months ago, the United States signed a deal with Korea. Manitoba has a wonderful pork industry, but it will have some serious hits because the government does not seem to give any priority to the tariff issues with respect to Korea.

As the government has now been sitting on this particular file since 2009, it is great to see that we are at a stage at which I suspect the bill will be passed through. I think it is important to emphasize to the government that it needs to focus more attention on countries we are dependent on in terms of being able to maintain and hopefully grow our industries, in particular manufacturing and other industries that have so much more potential here in Canada. As this bill passes through, I would hope that the government has some sort of strategic plan with respect to dealing with other nations around the world to ensure that Canada will continue to grow and prosper into the future, and that it starts thinking outside the box, as former prime minister Jean Chrétien did when he brought parliamentarians from across Canada into a Team Canada approach to selling Canada to the world.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech really describes the Liberal position on a lot of things. We did not really understand whether they are supporting it or not supporting it. The member used the word “focus”. I would like to see him focus on an answer to my question.

The NDP earlier accused the Liberal Party of flip-flopping. We remember the 1988 election, when they ran against NAFTA, and now they seem to be talking in favour of free trade, but in his speech the member talked about protecting certain industries, especially manufacturing.

There was a great editorial in the Ottawa Citizen today, talking about manufacturing output actually being up. Yes, jobs have gone down, and that is because we are becoming more productive and more competitive around the world. The member talked about the aerospace sector. Members are aware that Canada, a small country, is fifth or sixth in the world in aerospace because we have been integrating into the supply chain.

He talked about the auto industry, an industry that is is very important to me, coming from Oshawa. He talked about something called the Auto Pact. He seems to promoting that philosophy of trade; it was one car that we bought here to one car that exported—one car in, one car out—but with free trade, we are actually exporting almost a million cars more every year, which means the jobs are here in Canada.

My question for the member is—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Why did we have the trade deficit for the first time in 30 years?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I hear the member for Malpeque, who quoted statistics from the CAW economist that did not support any free trade.

Are the Liberals going to be supporting this free trade agreement with Jordan, or are they going to be promoting more managed trade and protecting different industries? When they are talking about free trade, what are they really talking about? Could the member focus on an answer, please?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to what degree the member has listened, whether to me or to the Liberal Party's critic. We have been fairly consistent for a great deal of time, and I will put it as simply as I can for the member: we are voting in favour of the bill. That said, we do have concerns and we have expressed those concerns.

However, it is important to recognize that there has been a net deficit in trade for the first time, under the reformed Conservative government. To the degree in which it is there—

[Paul Calandra]

Throw in a George Bush reference.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I know the truth hurts. Reformed Conservatives—

[Paul Calandra]

No good reformed Conservative—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is fine. I never mind the odd heckle or anything of that nature.

The point is that the Liberal Party has been consistent throughout the years. Not only do we believe in the potential of free trade and formal free trade agreements, but we also believe that there are other ways in which we can enhance trade between nations throughout the world. We need to be thinking outside of the box about developing those trade relations so that at the end of the day we would have more manufacturing jobs and more financial and hospitality industry jobs. There is so much potential within Canada. What we need is a government that is prepared to think outside of the box and fight for those jobs and for that trade.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as always, I enjoyed listening to the intervention from the member for Winnipeg North and following on the Liberal critic, which is not an easy task.

I listened very intently to some of the things the member was suggesting. I heard him say that with international trade there will be times when there are winners and losers, and that is what often happens. I heard him say that it is extremely important for the Conservatives to have a plan mapped out for understanding who is going to win and who is going to lose so that they can develop strategies to ensure that the companies and employees who do lose are properly accounted for and that there are adequate transition programs.

Would the member confirm if that is in fact what he believes and if that is the kind of trade policy he would support?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, not necessarily. I would like to think through his question as he has put it forward. Not all trade agreements are a formal document. Not all decisions the government makes come out in a formal trade document. The example I used was the Canadian Wheat Board. Under the Canadian Wheat Board, there is a winner and a loser. The losers, unfortunately, are going to be prairie grain farmers. There are going to be hundreds fewer prairie grain farmers as a direct result. It was a bad decision and had a serious impact on trade.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have one question, but I have to make a point at the beginning. The member talked about potatoes and how important the potato market was to Manitoba. I see some Manitoba members here. I want to point out that Manitoba is still in second place. Prince Edward Island is the largest producer of potatoes in Canada.

My question really relates to the open collective bargaining part of the agreement. One thing that is outlined by Canada and the ILO is how important it is to have collective bargaining happen in Jordan. I want my colleague's response on this. The problem is that Canada is setting a bad example, because the Minister of Labour has cut the collective bargaining process off at the knees by always coming in on the side of management. That is not free and open collective bargaining.

Does the member think that might have an impact as we tell Jordan it should have free and open collective bargaining, when our own government is abusing that collective bargaining process in its use of government powers?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right in the sense that when we are looking at free trade, labour laws and environmental laws, we want to be on a level playing field. What message do we send, as my colleague points out, when the Minister of Labour brings in back-to-work legislation or does rollbacks on Canada Post workers and intervenes far too often on the side of big business over labour? There is a certain amount of hypocrisy, potentially, that might exist, which might be worthy of looking into.

The point is that there need to be labour and environmental considerations whenever we enter into any sort of free trade agreement or into agreements internationally.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, we are in kind of a bizarro world here, in that the NDP and the Liberals are fighting with each other to see who is more supportive of free trade. I have been here since 2008, and they have both been opposed to just about every single trade initiative we brought forward.

Of course, they have seen the result of 750,000 new jobs being created in Canada by small business, medium-sized business and large business. I am wondering if that means they are now going to start to support cutting taxes for families and businesses and support some of the investments we are making so that Canadian businesses can actually compete. In light of the fact that they have now come to the realization that trading with countries is a good thing, will they now be fighting with each other to support us on some of the other initiatives that we are bringing forward?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the record will show that the Liberal Party of Canada, whether in government or opposition, has consistently looked at trade agreements on their merits and has been very open to them. In fact, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement would not have happened if it were not for the Liberal Party.

There has been ample evidence in the past to clearly show that, but this is not necessarily about the past. We should be talking about the future. The future will be good if the government does its homework and looks at nation building. We could explore the idea of enhancing trade relations in many countries, but let us not forget the top 10 countries that consume more than 90% of our product. The government has really been dropping the ball on those top 10 countries.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak for a few moments on this important issue in support of the member for Vancouver Kingsway who was up a little earlier this afternoon and spoke so well, articulating the increased clarity of the position of the official opposition as it relates to international trade. I want not only to support him but to reiterate a number of the very important points he made. I have said in this House before that we are a trading nation, that I am from a trading province, Nova Scotia, and that we have always engaged in trade and we will always engage in trade.

The question is: As a country, how are we going to do that? What is our relationship going to be like with countries around the world? Are we going to go into relationships with a formal economic deal? Are we going to come up with a pattern, with a template? Are we going to ensure we combine economic trade with relations as they relate to human rights, as they relate to the environment, as they relate to other international negotiations on issues relative to global security, for example? Is that the way we are going to go about presenting ourselves in the world?

I think that is extremely important as we consider where we are going.

The government has, on numerous occasions, attacked the NDP, the opposition, as being anti-trade and against any trade deal, saying for some reason that we want to hide our heads in the sand.

We have said in response to that, of course, time and again, far from it. The New Democratic Party has laid out a number of principles we have established that underline the values-based approach we want to take to our relationships on the international stage and how it is that we want to participate in the international economy. That is exactly what I am talking about and what I want to talk about a little more here today, the fact that as a country we are already negotiating deals, we are already participating, our companies are participating in economic relationships around the world.

As a responsible government, then, we need to ensure we are aiding those relationships, helping to encourage them, helping to foster them, helping to make sure they are sufficiently constructive, not only for this country but for the countries that were participating with that. I believe that is the responsibility we have as a nation.

We can stand aside and say that no deal is the best deal, or we can recognize that no deal is going to be perfect but that it is incumbent upon us to do everything we can as a government, and as a Parliament, I would suggest, to ensure we do everything in our power to make sure our relationship is as positive and as constructive as it can possibly be.

That is why, whether we talk about the free trade deal with the United States or whether we talk about CETA or whether we talk about the deal with Panama, there are certain principles in those deals about which we have had concern. They deal with things like labour rights. They deal with how the country we are participating with honours a principle that is in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms; that is, the right to freely associate and to bargain collectively. That is a principle we should ensure we support with any nation we are going to be working with, and we give some credit that it has been recognized to some degree in the deal with Jordan.

The ILO has recognized that Jordan is moving forward considerably in honouring free collective bargaining in that country. That is a good thing. Human rights is an area in some of the deals about which we have raised concerns. We talked in here about the deal that was passed last year with Colombia and its history with the attack on trade union leaders and human rights abuses that have been waged in that country affecting farmers, small business owners and other people in the community. That is a very serious concern. We suggested Panama has a very serious problem in terms of the lack of transparency as it relates to financial transactions. It has been identified as a tax haven. It has not been sufficiently transparent on the international stage on those matters.

These are contrary to principles that we have as Canadians and that I feel should be the basis upon which we negotiate or participate in relationships with other countries. With regard to the environment, how is it that the country in question administers some kind of control over the activities of companies and the development that happens within the country? Does it appropriately respect the principles that we would suggest are important in terms of environmental sustainability, that it not allow wanton development that destroys ecosystems and the ability of people in its communities to drink clean water, to breathe clean air and to ensure their children are able to play outdoors without being made sick by contaminated soil?

It is important to recognize that these are things that go on around the world in different countries, and we need to make sure we are, in carrying out our activities on behalf of Canadians, reflecting the values we share and hold so dear as a country. That is why in the past and continuing into the future, as these deals are brought before the House, these are the kinds of principles that members of our caucus will continue to be concerned about.

I want to move a little to talk more specifically about the whole question of a framework for future trade. I mentioned earlier that this government and the Liberal government before it tend to have a strategy on trade in which they have a template that they throw down on top of any trade deal or any negotiations, regardless of whether it is the European community or Panama. The contrast between those countries is huge, but they want the same template to apply. I am suggesting that is not appropriate; there need to be nuances and flexibilities, but ultimately we need to have some underlying principles that form the framework we are going to develop for moving forward.

I want to go over a few principles that I think are important. There are five key principles.

Trade needs to lead to more trade. In other words, and I have said this before in the House, most trading nations have an industrial policy so that the government understands where the strengths and weaknesses are in the economy in terms of resource development, manufacturing, biotech and innovation. The reason is that when the government is negotiating with another country, it can evaluate what that country wants and what we want on the basis of its impact on our overall economy. That is extremely important, because any negotiation is a give and take. Trade is going on and choices are being made at the table, in which we want this but we are willing to give up some of that.

We have to understand what the impact is going to be. We need to understand the other nation and the organizations and the companies within that nation. We need to understand what sectors are deemed a priority for the country. If industries are going to be negatively affected by whatever deal is negotiated, then we have to have already prepared an adjustment plan.

If a government has decided in its wisdom based on its industrial policy that whatever it is doing is considered a sunset industry, then it must build in some transition so that workers, for example, can be moved from that occupation to another. If environmental remediation is needed, we need to ensure it is provided for in the agreement.

My point is that when we talk about trade leading to more trade, we need to understand what we are trying to do. We need to understand what the impact will be. We need to engage in any agreement with our eyes open. A key point on this principle is that we need to ensure we are trying to do more than just get a deal signed, that we are building an economic relationship that has social, environmental and human rights aspects to it. We need to understand that this may be just the beginning or the midway point. The relationship is going to develop further as we go forward, so we need to make sure it is a deal that has some flexibility and some enforcement provisions and the opportunity to be improved as we go forward. Trade needs to lead to more trade.

The second thing is reciprocity. Canada is finding itself in the international world at the moment participating in bilateral deals, one-offs with individual countries. However we are not alone. We are trying to gain preferred nation status. We are trying to get in there before China or the European community or the U.S. We are trying to get ahead of somebody else so that we can get a one-up.

What happens with that is we get more short-term deals. We get people selling to the highest bidder, kind of thing. We find that not everybody is engaged and things are rushed and not complete.

Canada needs to work at the World Trade Organization, the WTO, table on the Doha round of free trade negotiations. We need to recognize that it is more important. This globe is getting smaller every day and every year. We need to ensure we are negotiating agreements that are in our best interests, not just the two parties at the table. We had better pay attention because countries in the southern hemisphere are recognizing the importance of that principle. Countries in the southern hemisphere are working together, I would suggest, much more proactively than are countries in the northern hemisphere.

It has been suggested to me that there are two worlds now. There is the developing world in the southern hemisphere and then there is the post-World War II alliance in the northern hemisphere, and that one, I would suggest, is increasing gaining ascendency, and that is the southern hemisphere, but they are working together to build a stronger economy that will benefit all of them.

The third principle is the whole question of job creation and innovation. We need to ensure that our trade deals are not just simply selling Canadian jobs down the road. We need to ensure we are building a stronger economy with family supporting jobs here in Canada, not at the expense of another country, but ensuring that the deals we are doing, the economies of scale that we are working on with other countries ensures a stronger labour force where the wages, benefits and the ability to pay are improved.

We also need to ensure, in our discussions with other countries that the principle of innovation, the principle of technological development, needs to be key and front and centre. Our deal needs to be nimble. We need to ensure that there are productivity targets. We also need to recognize that issues, like intellectual property, copyright laws and so on, are sufficiently protected to ensure we are building our asset value, whether that be intellectual, value added in manufacturing or our resources, for the long term.

The fourth principle is that no deal does damage or undermines the Canadian democracy. We need to ensure that our trade deals do not affect the ability of other levels of government to make decisions that are in their best interests or the best interests of their nation. There have been concerns raised about CETA and the impact it has on subnational governments.

The final point is the principles with respect to protecting the environment. Trade deals should not weaken environmental laws simply to attract investment.

These are the kinds of things I am suggesting the NDP believes in. We believe in free and sustainable trade, but we need to ensure that there is a clear trade agenda that advocates for free, fair and sustainable trading nations.

In closing I will reaffirm the commitment that our critic has made that we will be supporting the bill.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this House has seen an amazing sight this afternoon as the NDP has swallowed itself whole with regard to the trade file. It is absolutely amazing, because there is no difference in the principle of the Jordan free trade agreement wherein it is not a perfect world. We heard some of the most horrendous testimony in committee with regard to what is happening in some of the factories, which is no different from what is happening in Colombia, perhaps in Panama and in some of the other countries with which we have free trade agreements that the NDP says that it will not support.

The principle is the same. It is not a perfect world, but we try to make it better by engaging, not disengaging. It is absolutely, amazing and I will ask a quick question.

The leader of the official opposition was just up in the oil sands of Alberta. He had to go to the oil sands of Alberta to pull his head out of the sand on the trade file. When is the next time that he will go up there to learn more about how important trade is and take the rest of his caucus with him?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is the chair of the Standing Committee on International Trade, and he and I have had discussions. I used to be on that file and participated in those committees. For him to suggest that what I am saying is somehow new, I, frankly, find a bit disingenuous, to say the least.

With respect to the leader of the official opposition, the NDP and our leader are participating in important discussions that affect policy across this country that are meant to ensure that we develop our natural resources in a way that benefits everybody, that ensures that people pay their way and that we do not devastate the environment at the same time we—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Unfortunately, we have run out of time.

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Canada-Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[For continuation of proceedings, see part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from part A ]