Bill C-24 (Historical)

Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

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

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements on the environment and labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Panama and done at Ottawa on May 13 and 14, 2010.
The general provisions of the enactment specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of the provisions of Part 1 of the enactment or any order made under that Part, or the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement or the related agreements themselves, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 of the enactment approves the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional aspects of the agreements and the power of the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out the provisions of the enactment.
Part 2 of the enactment amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreement on labour cooperation.
Part 3 of the enactment contains coordinating amendments and the coming into force provision.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a commercial exchange is just like any other human exchange. It should be done with respect and with consideration for the conditions in which the citizens of the other country find themselves.

I would like to add something. The United States and Jordan signed a free trade agreement that was supported by the vast majority of unions in the United States. There were clauses in the agreement that protected workers' rights and, in that case, the Government of Jordan did not comply with those clauses.

In this situation, we must ensure that there is a solid commitment from both governments, because through this relationship, which is not always equitable, we must protect human rights.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

However, before I do that I will take a moment to share with the House my meeting yesterday evening with the participants in the Forum for Young Canadians. I met with a number of young people from across this country and I can tell this House that our country has a bright future. These young people were very much tuned into the issues that we are discussing in this House and issues that matter to Canadians. We talked about the budget, the economy, health care, crime prevention and many more subjects. These young people were very well-informed about the issues that we discuss in this House.

I want to acknowledge those young people who I met last night. I met with Liane Hewith, a grade 12 student from Vancouver Quadra; Bronwyn Vaisey, a grade 9 student from Port Moody Gleneagle Secondary School; and Faythe Lou, a grade 11 student from Kwantlen Park Senior Secondary from my riding of Surrey North.

Indeed, Canada does have a bright future.

Today, because of the meeting last night, I am more committed as a parliamentarian to work harder to create opportunities for young people, such as the ones I met last night.

I will now move on to speak to the free trade agreement and talk about some of the basic principles of this trade deal, in other words, what should be a framework for Canada when we start these trade negotiations with other countries.

First, we should pursue a multilateral approach based on a fair and sustainable trade model. In fact, bilateral trade deals amount to protectionist trade deals since they give preferential treatment to a few partners and exclude others. This puts countries with smaller economies in a position of inferiority vis-à-vis larger partners. A multilateral fair trade deal model avoids these issues, while protecting human rights and the environment.

The Canadian government needs to have a vision for a fair trade policy that puts the pursuit of social justice, strong public sector social programs and the elimination of poverty at the heart of an effective trade strategy. Canada's trade policy should be based on principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade that builds trading partnerships with other countries that support principles of social justice and human rights, while also expanding business opportunities.

In free trade agreements involving countries, such as Panama, we have the opportunity to better the human rights situation within that country. When will the Conservatives start putting the concerns of everyday people before those of big businesses? Fair trade should be the overarching principle, not just an afterthought, of trade negotiations.

The NDP on this side of the House strongly believes in an alternative and a better form of trading relationship that can be established with Panama and any other country, one that includes, within an overall fair trade strategy, the following points: first, providing a comprehensive, common-sense impact assessment on all international agreements that demonstrates that the trade deals Canada negotiates are beneficial to Canadian families, workers and industries. The government does not sign any trade agreements that would lead to net job losses for Canadian families.

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

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

The fourth point is the fundamental principle that all trade agreements should respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems.

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

The points that I have just highlighted should be the guiding principles for negotiations for any free trade agreements.

In this agreement, I did not see the Conservative government use any of those principles. Rather, it appears to be once again resorting to making up facts to suit its interests rather than looking out for the interests of Canadians.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is another marginally improved copy of the George Bush style approach to trade. It still puts businesses and big corporations ahead of everyday working-class people, it has no effective enforcement of human rights and it pays lip service to environmental protection without any real tough measures or dispute resolution mechanisms.

It is another one of those NAFTA copycat agreements that were initially negotiated and designated for trade between highly industrialized countries. However, Panama is not a highly industrialized country. This trade deal would not help Panama grow substantially nor would it increase the standard of living for its citizens. Instead, it would increase the role and incentive for exploitation by multinational corporations and inequality at a far greater pace and scale than in the case of NAFTA.

Another factor is that Panama is not a major trading partner of Canada. Two-way merchandise trade between the two countries reached only $149 million in 2008, which is less than 1%.

According to the United States department of justice and other entities, Panama is a major financial conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers' money laundering activities. That is a major concern that has been raised by the opposition in the House and in committee. The issue of tax havens also needs to be considered when we enter into these sorts of agreements. The government needs to consider more than the dollar value of the contract that it is entering into.

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

The trade agreement does not provide investors and labour with a level playing field. While, under chapter 11, investors have the right to seek binding arbitration that they can pursue independently, a trade union in Panama does not get to pursue a case to arbitration. It can file a complaint that would lead to an investigation or report but it is up to the government to seek remedies and damages.

Empirical evidence strongly suggests that the minister of the day will not pursue the matter. The trade agreement includes enforceable protections of patents, trademarks and copyrights but no meaningful protection of workers and no meaningful protection of the environment.

Rather than imposing a one size fits all model, convenient to the U.S. finance system, and helping transnational corporations and repressive governments play off workers in different countries, we must recognize that different countries choose different development strategies and must be allowed to pursue fair and sustainable trade.

I want to urge my colleagues in the Conservative government to put the interests of Canadian families first before the interests of big corporations and their friends when it comes to signing free trade agreements around the world.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the amount of business that Canada does now with Panama. As the member knows, the trade minister flies around the world a lot and the Conservatives actually believe that when they enter into a discussion it is as if they have a deal. However, when it comes to results, the results of the trade deals are just illusions in the minister's mind.

What does the member see here? We have solid agreements. We have solid trade in Korea, which is a billion dollar market for the pork and beef industry, and the minister keeps ignoring that market while trying to find new ones. The United States has imposed buy American on us and we are falling back in that particular market. Would it not be more important that the minister find some balance and concentrate on the markets that we already have and hold them, as well as finding these new ones, because they are not all that the minister tries to add them up to be?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in the NDP's mind that we need to negotiate trade agreements around the world. Trade is an essential part of today's economies, but trade must be fair and equitable. Human rights and the environment must be taken into consideration.

I would have to agree with the Liberal member that the Conservatives do not seem to have a strategy in place as to how they will negotiate trade. On the one hand, he is absolutely right that the Minister of International Trade is on a mission flying around the world to negotiate these trade agreements in a hurry, but he is not taking into consideration some of the fundamental values Canadians would like to have included as part of those agreements, such as protection of the environment and the rights of workers. Canada can take a leadership role around the world with respect to the environment, human rights and the rights of workers.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague ended his speech by talking about Canadian families. I would like to ask him about the outcome. We are already familiar with the negative impact of these agreements: plant closures in Montreal and throughout Canada, employees threatened with having their jobs moved elsewhere, violation of legal agreements, and so forth. Has anything positive come out of these agreements?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, trade agreements are a reality and we need to negotiate them with other countries.

What I find really troubling is that we have seen from the Conservatives over and over that when the facts do not fit their strategy or where they want to go, they create their own facts.

Canada could be a world leader in negotiating trade agreements and influencing some fundamental issues, such as human rights, workers' rights, and the environment. We have a chance to take a leadership role in those areas, yet the Conservatives seem not to want to do that. They do not have a clear policy on how they want to negotiate trade deals and with which countries. It seems to be done piecemeal, a little at a time. There is no clear strategy on their part to negotiate these trade deals.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that I rise to speak about international trade, because it is not really my area of expertise. I will apologize in advance to those who consider themselves to be better informed than I.

I have some concerns about the sudden proliferation of free trade talks initiated by the Conservative government, and I would like to tell the House about them.

The government has decided to enter into no fewer than 16 free trade agreements with various countries. I did say 16. It is an unprecedented and rather worrisome development. I would like to quickly list them.

First of all, there is Asia, with Japan and Korea, followed by Thailand and Singapore. These are the so-called Asian tigers, the solid, dynamic, creative and open economies, supported by reliable, democratic governments.

Then we have India, with its gigantic market and its emerging and promising strength. India is a democratic and talented country, with a future as rich as its fascinating multimillennial past. In addition, it has been a dear friend of Canada for a very long time, a partner on which we can always rely and, in the coming years, it will be an ally of choice.

I will continue with my list.

Next comes the now-famous treaty with the European Union, which comes with agreements with two countries whose economies are increasingly connected with the EU: Turkey and Morocco.

Europe represents an enormous, practically bottomless market. As well, the stabilizing force of the European Union on all aspects of society heralds lasting prospects of prosperity and fruitful trade.

Turkey, too, is a remarkably vigorous country and it is probably desirable to have closer ties with it.

I note in passing that until very recently, Ukraine also fell into that category. Unfortunately, this free trade agreement has been significantly compromised as a result of the anti-democratic actions of the Yanukovich administration, and negotiations may now never produce results.

Then we come to a very small Arab country, the Kingdom of Jordan, the only Middle Eastern country on the list. With the Arab Spring in full bloom, Jordan is still the most stable nation in the region. However, there are still serious reservations about the workers’ rights situation in that country, and the interest the government is taking in it seems to stem from a magnificent exploitive egoism. But that is a discussion for another time.

I would remind this House that two hours from the Jordanian border, in Syria, people are being killed as we speak, simply for trying to exercise their rights. Short-sightedness can be corrected, and geography can be learned.

Then comes a string of small countries in Central America and the Caribbean with weak economies and governments that may or may not be exemplary. This is the Caribbean common market—CARICOM—and it covers the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and, lastly, Panama. The only country missing from the list is Costa Rica, the most stable and most advanced country in the region, with which we already have a free trade agreement in effect.

That completes the list. It is no small number. Frankly, it is unbelievable. What conclusions are we to draw from that list?

First, that wherever the Minister of Foreign Affairs goes, a free trade agreement is never far behind. He hands them out like the Catholic church used to hand out absolutions. If he happened to go through East Timor next week and noticed the least sign of a middle class, we should expect a press briefing.

What is particularly blatant is that Canada is trying to establish specific zones of influence where its commercial activities will be facilitated: the rapidly growing Asia Pacific, Europe and its close allies, and our own backyard, Central America.

And again, Jordan is more or less the odd one out on that list. To the north there is the revolt in Syria, to the west there is complete collapse in Iraq, and to the south there is the most impenetrable country in the world, Saudi Arabia. I find it hard to see what our interest is, but fine, let us move on.

The treaty with the European Union and its satellites has been roundly criticized by nearly everyone. The European Union is much more dynamic and competitive than Canada, and the agreement will jeopardize a number of sectors of our economy and throw open all the doors of all levels of government to the Europeans. The adjustment is going to be brutal, and people are not going to like it.

As well, the tenor and wording of the agreement are secret. Even the European national governments do not know what is being hatched. So the biggest decision about international trade will be announced to us in the grand biblical style of divine revelations, and we will have to live with it because it will be law.

We may as well turn all the lights out while we are at it.

Today we are concerned primarily with Panama. This is a specific case, although the country is located in a targeted geographic group that is much larger. What is unique about this case? We already know. Harsh words have been spoken about it in the House, and I will say it again today. Panama is a tax haven and a narco-state that refuses to comply with international transparency laws. When other countries call it out, it makes some completely symbolic gestures and shirks all its responsibilities.

I am not here to put the Panamanian government on trial, and I do not want to tarnish the reputation of this small country that has a very difficult history, and with good reason. Panama was created by force and has been dominated by the United States throughout its history. It was basically exploited and constantly threatened and, when the time came for Panama to get out from under the United States' thumb, the Americans gave Panama an unbelievable and humiliating thrashing. It is a country that was colonized, insulted and betrayed. I would like to recognize Panama's difficult history. The fact that it was able to recover as it did is a miracle in itself.

However, the methods the Panamanian government used to recover were misguided. Panama is a tax haven where the government closes its eyes to the laundering of money from drug trafficking. I am sticking to this description so as not to hurt the wonderful people who live in Panama and who are innocent of this skulduggery.

This bill is an excellent opportunity to clearly state where the NDP stands on international trade. The NDP is of the opinion that agreements must be fair, equitable, humane, sustainable and responsible. Of course, the government will say that this is certainly the case and that Canada wants to help the economies of the Americas in a fair and sustainable way. The government will tell us again that, if there is a responsible country in the world, it is the great and beautiful country of Canada. That is false.

The only motivation here is a ridiculous love of profit. It is clear to anyone who is not obsessed with the sacred word “profit” that this agreement is motivated by an old colonial reflex to try to become just a little bit richer, despite already being rich. What we have here is a very small agreement with a very small country that will be forgotten next week and that will quickly make a few bigwigs a few million dollars richer. That is the plan. Period.

The NDP believes that this agreement will not benefit the people of Panama in any way. It will serve only to benefit the Panamanian government and our own government. This is completely unfair. The next time the government tells us that it wants to combat tax evasion, we will bring up Panama. The Conservatives have such a superiority complex that they are only too eager to go off and play the white man somewhere.

I have bad news. Since an austerity budget is about to be announced, today seems like the perfect opportunity to say what I think is the primary motivation behind these agreements with Central America. The Conservatives have been telling us non-stop that they created 600,000 jobs since the height of the recession. However, that is impossible for one very simple reason: Canada is experiencing Dutch disease.

What is Dutch disease? It is succumbing to the temptation to develop precious natural resources as quickly as possible with absolutely no regard for anything else. This boosts our currency and everyone thinks, my God, we sure are weathering this crisis well, and it must be because our banking system is better than everyone else's and our bankers are more upstanding, but that is not the case. It is because natural resources development is happening faster, and we are exporting our resources as fast as we can. The immediate impact of that activity is that the industrial sector, which has no connection to the development of the magical resource, is quietly collapsing and disappearing. We bolster our confidence by saying that in a global context, those businesses were not viable anyway. We shrug our shoulders and continue to dig resources out of the ground.

Then the disease spreads to the highest levels of the economy. Jobs in the service sector disappear. Aveos moves to El Salvador, research gets cut, and development is hobbled. Eventually, inflation goes up. That is the scenario. What is the government doing? It is doing whatever it can to sell the country's resources and pump more money into the machine to keep it going.

What about the imaginary 600,000 jobs that the Conservatives like to talk about? Maybe they were created in China, which is great for our relations with China, but we live here. The government needs to plan for Canada's long-term future in a global context. It has to steer clear of easy solutions, sit down and think about things. Unfortunately, thinking is not something this administration tends to do. Why waste time thinking when the government can sign free trade agreements with all comers to pump more fodder into the system? We do not like it.

To sum up, until there is something in place to ensure true sustainable development with Panama, until the workers in that country can count on better protection for their rights, we cannot support this kind of agreement.

The House resumed from March 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that the question be now put.

Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-24, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

This trade agreement is one of a series of agreements that the government has gotten into very hastily. This is another one that was negotiated in record time, without proper consultation, and our party has opposed it.

I do not want anyone to think that our party is opposed to trade. I know it is a common mantra for those opposite that New Democrats are opposed to trade; we are not opposed to trade. However, we are opposed to this trade deal.

I only have 10 minutes, so I will try my very best to be succinct in stating why we are opposed to this particular trade deal.

As I mentioned, it was done hastily and without consultation with relevant stakeholders, as well as without consultation with trade unions and environmental groups in Panama. It was done without consultation with civil society or citizens in Canada and Panama who have an interest in these agreements. It was done without respect for labour standards and collective bargaining, despite the addition of a labour agreement.

There is no protection against money laundering and tax cheating in a country that has been decried a tax haven.

There is no commitment in the agreement to sustainable development and sustainable investment, which should be an important part of any free trade deal.

When we talk about trade in this country, we should not just be talking about the movement of goods. We need to be talking about a partnership, but what we have seen is the government making hasty trade deals that do not respect what Canada wants and needs.

If trade was all about free trade deals, Canada's trade would be increasing and improving, not getting worse. The government members talk about how they are very interested in trade and carrying on with these trade deals, but where are the results? When we look at the difference between signing free trade deals and actually increasing trade, Canada's trade has actually deteriorated. The quantity of goods and services shipped abroad from Canada is actually 7% lower than when the government took office. It is lower than it was back in the year 2000. What we do see in trade is an ever-increasing proportion of raw materials and raw resources, especially oil, making up that trade.

At one time, we had a very impressive trade surplus with other countries. That has now gone into a deficit. Even though we have increasing petroleum sales, 3% of GDP per year is in fact a decrease in sales.

This is from a report by Jim Stanford, an economist with the Canadian Auto Workers, that was published in The Globe and Mail on May 21. He is obviously very concerned about issues, particularly in the manufacturing trade. He has done a study of our longest-standing free trade pacts, which are with the United States, Mexico, Israel, Chile and Costa Rica. What is interesting is that our exports to those countries have in fact grown more slowly than our exports to non-free trade partners, while our imports from these countries have surged much faster than with the rest of the world.

Therefore, if our goal—which is a sensible one, according to Mr. Stanford—is to boost exports and to strengthen the trade balance, then signing free trade deals, as we have done, is exactly the wrong thing to do.

What is very interesting is that the five biggest trade deals we have had have resulted in more imports to us from these country, which is good for them, but fewer exports to them. We have not increased our trade nor boosted our proper partnerships.

The problem is pretty difficult, particularly for some aspects of our economy. We are seeing an endorsement by the government of an over-valued currency. We have heard our leader talk about that. I know many people in this country do not want to talk about that. The members opposite do not like to talk about the fact that our currency is over-valued and is trading at some 25% above its purchasing power parity with other countries,. However, it does hurt Canada's exports and skews our trade with other countries, particularly the kind of trade that takes place when we are exporting unprocessed materials, including crude oil, bitumen in particular, without refining it. If we are not refining the stuff here and we are not making mining machinery here, our capacity to produce higher-end products will further diminish.

We do have a significant problem with trade and we have a problem that is not being fixed by these free trade deals.

What does the NDP support? We support trade, but we support fair trade. We want to ensure that the trade agreements we sign with other countries are fair and reasonable for both parties, partnerships that build positive relationships and not just open doors.

For example, in Panama we have situation where the government of Panama has refused various Canadian requests to sign an agreement to share tax information. It is extremely important in terms of transparency to have a tax information exchange agreement. The Government of Panama has refused, but Canada goes along with it anyway.

What is it we want as New Democrats? What do we want to have in trade agreements? First, in order to have a totally fair trade strategy, we want to have a comprehensive, common sense impact assessment for each agreement that we enter into that demonstrates that trade deals with Canada are beneficial for Canadian families, workers and industries, and that we do not have a trade agreement that will lead to a net job loss.

Second, we want to ensure that any agreement we negotiate supports our own sovereignty, our freedom to chart our own policy in the future and our ability to be competitive on the world stage, and that it supports the principle of a multilateral fair trade system.

Third, it is fundamentally important that all trade agreements promote and protect human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of products that are deemed to have been created under sweat shop conditions, forced labour or conditions that are not in accordance with fundamental labour standards and human rights.

Fourth, we also want to ensure that all trade agreements respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems.

Fifth, we want to be clear that before we go ahead with any enabling legislation, it be subject to a binding vote on whether we accept the terms of the agreement. The current system of tabling agreements in the House for a period of 21 days prior to ratification is neither mandatory nor binding.

In the case of the Panama trade deal, we see a repetition of the failures of previous trade deals to be fair, to be reasonable, to respect human rights, to provide the kind of protections that Canadians need and actually lead to increased trade from Canada to these countries.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I have three quick questions for the member.

The member says that the NDP is not opposed to free trade agreements. I wonder if he could share with the House a free trade agreement that the NDP has supported.

I also wonder if he can tell us how the NDP feels about the regional free trade agreement and NAFTA.

Finally, could the member share with the House, if the NDP were ever to form government, whether it would take Canada out of these free trade agreements with which it disagrees?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minister thinks that those are quick questions. I do not know if I can answer them as quickly as he asked them. They are three very important questions.

Since the government has come into office, it has not produced an agreement that meets the criteria that I just laid out. It has not produced an agreement that has led to increased trade from Canada except by importing more goods. We have mentioned the five most important ones that were studied by an economist. When an agreement is put forward that meets the criteria that I just laid out, and I set out five conditions, then we would be very happy to support it. We are in favour of fair trade. We are not in favour of signing trade deals that do not improve Canada's situation.

When we form government, and I know the minister says “if” with some trepidation, but I will answer “when” with some confidence, we would seek to improve any agreements that exist in order to ensure that Canada is engaged as a fair trade partner for the improvement of Canada and the countries that we deal with.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the last point the member made in terms of the possibility of enhancing agreements.

In terms of the free trade issue, it is great to give attention to countries like Panama and so forth, but to what degree has the government over the last number of years looked at our exports and agreements with our greatest trading partner, the U.S.? Would he attribute that to being the reason we are maybe not doing as well in the manufacturing sector as we could be here in Canada?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we seek to improve whatever agreements we have. In terms of an analysis of the NAFTA in particular and the government's action, we have not seen the kind of sectoral support that we would like to see in Canada.

I do have to challenge the member's party as well in terms of this agreement. When our trade critic sought, through a motion in the international trade committee, to delay the implementation of the agreement until Panama agreed to tie into the tax information exchange agreement, which would stop the money laundering and tax cheating, the motion was defeated by both the Conservatives and the Liberals in committee.

I hear the member, but he wants me to point the finger opposite. If we are into pointing fingers about the problem with trade deals, I think we would need to look as well to the Liberal Party that did the add-ons with the NAFTA after claiming that it would do something entirely different.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member for St. John's East pointed out that New Democrats support fair trade.

In the process of examining the bill at committee, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster made a number of proposals that would have made this trade agreement acceptable to New Democrats. One in particular that I want to touch on is the definition of sustainable development. It reads:

“sustainable development” means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, as set out in the Brundtland Report published by the World Commission on Environment and Development.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that New Democrats actually have proposals to make trade agreements fair.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, obviously sustainable development is important. The report by the Brundtland Commission in the late 1980s was championed by Prime Minister Mulroney. I remember that because I was here. He championed that report, but we do not see the results of sustainable development being adopted by the current government either within trade agreements or even within our own country, which is a shame.