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

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Liberals on one day are all in favour of trade agreements, then on another day they do not like them any more, and then they go back to saying yes again. We have seen this a bit with FIPA. The Liberals just do not know where they stand. It gives us whiplash wondering what they believe in. It is really hard to know.

Yes, we did support the trade agreement with Jordan, as was pointed out already. In terms of the approach that we need to take, it needs to be combined with diplomacy and an effort to make sure that we are not one just dimensional. When we see the hollowing out of our diplomacy, we lose on trade. That is why the Secretary-General of ASEAN said the following:

The goodwill is there. The name is there. But you don't see the a sustained effort of trying to project it out.

He continued:

What Canada can do is to transform its expertise in those areas of peacekeeping, peace-building into a more mediating role. A country like Norway has been very active and engaged.

I could not agree with him more. We were shut out of East Asia Pacific table. Others are in, we are out. The government claims that it is great because we are signing deals with Lichtenstein. It is very sad.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. I paid special attention to his comments about strategy, and I would like him to elaborate further.

Our goal should not be to simply sign agreements here and there, with this or that country, without any real plan. We need to identify areas where Canada performs well. We also need to look at our economy, identify strengths and weaknesses and conduct an analysis. Then we will be in a position to enter into agreements that will benefit both parties.

That is not what is happening right now. Instead, we see the government blindly signing agreement upon agreement. It is a very pleasant activity, for sure, a great opportunity to have fun, travel and make new friends all around the world. It is all very nice.

But does it really serve the interests of our economy and of Canadians to have agreements like those, which will amount to 70 minutes worth of trade with the Americans? The Government of Canada is unable to take a stand and negotiate profitable agreements with major countries. We must enter into agreements not only with developing countries that need our help, but also with major nations that provide greater opportunities for Canadian exports.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question because it goes to the essence of the issue. Just going around and signing anywhere is like someone putting a piece of paper down and saying “Sign here” and then they make a grand announcement. That is not where we need to go.

As I asked at the beginning of my speech, where are we going to be in 2050? The countries that I listed are going to be the top countries. I reiterate that the United States will be the only top western country. We will have China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Indonesia, Japan, U.K., Germany, Nigeria, France, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam. They will all have larger GDPs than Canada.

The government is in the past. It needs to wake up, and it needs to have a comprehensive free trade strategy.

The House resumed 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 third time and passed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to support the bill. Liberals see the bill as an important piece of legislation. If history demonstrates anything, it is that over the years the Liberal Party has recognized the value of freer trade with nations around the world, though we are a little disappointed that the government has not put more of an emphasis on what is happening with our largest trading partner, the United States of America. Having said that, I want to recognize just how important it is. At the end of the day, Canada is a trading nation. The amount that trade contributes to our national GDP is virtually second to no other G7 country, or we would definitely be in the top three in terms of being a trading nation.

As a whole, it behooves us to look at ways to increase our markets. We can go back for decades. One of the first real tangible trade agreements that I can think of offhand was in our automobile industry. That played a critical role in the development of hundreds of thousands of jobs over the years in Canada. When we talk about the principle of trade, people have a good understanding of the auto pact and how Canada has benefited over the years. Not only has it provided, as I said, hundreds of thousands of jobs, it has provided some of the best cars ever made anywhere in the world.

The principle of free trade and freer trade is something Liberals believe in. We recognize that the government has been negotiating this agreement for the last few years. It was back in August 2009 that an agreement was reached. The government has not been successful in getting the bill through committee. It has had significant support, though not from the New Democratic Party, in terms of the bill being passed.

As I commented at the beginning of my remarks, we are concerned that the government has not been as aggressive in looking at the larger markets. We look to the government to do what it can to expand trade and secure the markets that are of critical importance. I will point out a couple of them, but before I do, I will briefly comment on the Panama agreement.

Central America is a very important region in the world. My understanding is that today Panama is the number one country in that region in terms of imports and exports. There are many benefits with regard to this agreement setting some ground rules and assisting us in being able to grow in the future.

From a Manitoban perspective, a province for which I have a very strong bias and preference, it produces a great deal of potatoes and potato products. One of the largest consumers of those potato products is the country of Panama. I suspect going forward there will be more potato products being consumed in Panama that, hopefully, will be from the province of Manitoba. If we take a look at the potato industry in the province of Manitoba, we will find that it generates and creates hundreds of relatively good-quality jobs, such as the farmers who plant the seeds and ensure there is a crop in the ground.

There are hundreds of acres of potato farms in rural Manitoba. Our farmers do a phenomenal job. I would argue, although some of my Atlantic colleagues might question it, that the best potatoes not only in North America but anywhere are found right in the province of Manitoba. Of course, we give the credit for that production to our prairie farmers.

There are also jobs in the processing plants. For example, we have french fry plants in the province of Manitoba that create hundreds of jobs. Whether it is the farmer or the person on the line who is cutting up potatoes or producing the many different potato products, those are all good-quality, valuable jobs. A good percentage of those potato products ultimately end up in Panama.

The potato industry is just one industry. I think during second reading I was able to make reference to it, but there are other things.

Manitoba Hydro is one of Manitoba's, and ultimately one of Canada's, largest corporations. Manitoba Hydro has been around the province for a good number of years. It ensures that we have, if not the cheapest, very close to the cheapest utility rates in North America. Manitoba Hydro also explores the world and provides consulting and professional services. The country of Panama has recognized that and has turned to Manitoba Hydro for consultation and advice on the type of technology we use in the province of Manitoba, to ultimately help grow hydro development, electrical grid lines and so forth in the country of Panama.

I suspect we could go from province to province throughout Canada and find there are different connections that allow each province to see the benefits of having freer trade in the flow of commodities and other forms of trade, whether that is tourism or contracting, that generate economic opportunities for Canadians in each of the different provinces.

Obviously, there is benefit for Panama at the same time. That is why I started off by saying Canada is indeed a trading nation.

I listened to many members of the New Democratic Party try to play down Panama, saying it is a small country and very little trade actually comes to Canada or that it is a very small percentage of the overall trade.

One of the things that we should always be cognizant of is that every country in the world is an important country and has something to offer. I believe that Canada also has an obligation to work with countries, big and small. There are challenges in the country of Panama, as there are challenges here. Do we have concerns within the Liberal Party? Sure, we have concerns. I think all people have concerns.

However, given the importance of recognizing Panama, the country we trade with more than any other in Central America, there is great value in terms of having this agreement.

Earlier today, in talking about Panama, I posed the question to the member for Ottawa Centre in regard to whether the NDP has actually supported any free trade agreement. I was quite specific in my comments, asking if NDP members had ever literally stood up inside the House to support a free trade agreement with any country throughout the world.

After a while, the only thing the member could come up was that he somewhat implied the Jordan agreement. From what I can recall, there was no standing vote on the Jordan agreement. To the best of my knowledge, I do not believe the NDP has ever supported or stood in their place to vote in favour of a trade agreement in the history of our country.

I believe that to be factual, and would look to the NDP members to correct that if that is not the case, to show me where, within Hansard, that they support or have supported a trade agreement.

Why is it important to recognize that? It is because consistency is important. At the end of the day—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to assist my hon. colleague in making sure he always seeks the highest principles in this place, which is to tell the truth. A number of times in his speech he repeated something that the record shows not to be truthful.

On June 4, 2012, the NDP did in fact support a trade deal.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order but rather a point of debate. The House leader knows full well there will be other opportunities for members of the official opposition to respond to this matter according to the facts as they see them.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to be very factual, and I look forward to a question from the member. Prior to the member posing a question, I would suggest that he go back to that particular date so he could tell us whether all members stood in their places and voted for that bill. I look forward to hearing the question from the opposition House leader on that particular point.

He raised, through a point of order, a very important issue. The NDP, as official opposition, is trying to fool Canadians. It is trying to give the impression that it is open to free trade agreements. Yet, on the other hand, it has never supported a free trade agreement.

The member points out Jordan. During his question, he could point out which members of his caucus actually stood in their place and voted for the Jordan agreement. If they did speak for Jordan, I am sure he will correct me, if that is the case.

Having said that, it is also very important for us to recognize that consistency is important. When I raised the issue of freer trade among different nations the last time I had the opportunity to speak, I made reference to other countries. There are many countries throughout the world on which we need to focus attention, not just the small countries.

I made reference to the United States and how important it is, as our trading partner, that we invest more time and energy to secure the markets that are so critically important to Canada. We have found that it is roughly 75% in trade. I believe it is just under 75% now, but that is fairly recent. Basically since the Conservatives have been in government, we have dropped below 75% in terms of the overall share in trade between Canada and the U.S. However, at just under 75% of our overall import and export, I would suggest it is of critical importance. That is why we believe the government needs to do more to secure those markets for Canada.

There are other countries. We talk about the big ten, or the ten countries in the world that have these huge economies, such as China. There has been a lot of discussion about China, but it has been more from a regulation point of view. I do not see any grand vision. The last time we saw something coming out of the Government of Canada that was of great significance in relation to China—and China is number two, I believe, as an economy in the world—we would have to go back to the years when Jean Chrétien was Prime Minister. He said the Liberals would take the Team Canada approach in going in to China. There were invitations for a wide variety of stakeholders here in Canada, who ultimately went to China to try to create and enhance connections so we could improve upon trade relations with China.

We often make reference to Japan. India is another huge country. India has grown at a rapid rate. Many, myself included, think the future of India in terms of its economic importance in the world is incredibly positive. It will become a significant powerhouse economically. Canada is in an excellent position because of the size of our Indo-Canadian communities from coast to coast and the potential opportunities that could be had if we took advantage of that.

That same principle would apply for many other communities. Ultimately, I would argue, one of the greatest natural advantages that Canada has over virtually any other country in the world is our ethnic diversity.

A good example of that is India. Here there is an economic powerhouse that will continue to grow well into the future. Moreover, we have a strong, vibrant, wealthy, well motivated Indo-Canadian community that is in an excellent position to be able to capitalize on that growth.

We can talk about Germany, Russia, Brazil, U.K., France or Italy. Those are really the major players in the world economy and we need to see the government aggressively dealing with these countries.

However, I want to talk about a country I have talked about in the past because I feel very passionate about the Philippines. It is a country that I have had the opportunity to visit on numerous occasions. I came back from the Philippines recently where I met with Governor Garcia from Cebu and Governor Pineda from Pampanga. I have also had the opportunity to meet with Mayor Lim from Manilla and many different congressmen.

When I meet with elected officials I talk about the relationship between Canada and the Philippines needing to go beyond immigration. Yes, the Philippines is Canada's number one source country for immigrants. There is no doubt about that. It has been the number one source of immigrants for the province of Manitoba for many years, but I believe there is a very real opportunity today to go well beyond that.

I understand that the Prime Minister is going to India and the Philippines in a couple of weeks. I hope he will take my advice and the advice of others by looking at the Philippines as more than just a country for immigration. Let us look at ways in which we can have freer trade with the Philippines. Yes, there are large countries with large economies and some with smaller economies, but they are still worthwhile for Canada as a nation to reach out to and build economic ties with, ties that will ultimately allow for more trade.

With the exception of the New Democrats, who do not support freer trade, I believe it is important that we recognize the value of how that is going to generate jobs in the future. If we recognize that value, then I think that actions ultimately speak louder than words. I anticipate and would like to see ongoing agreements into the future that will enhance the opportunities for people to gain employment and to participate and engage with many other countries throughout the world.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with some concern for my friend, who seems to have cribbed much of his notes from the Conservative Party's talking points regarding the NDP and trade. The fact is that under previous Liberal regimes, 13,000 consecutive foreign takeovers were approved without one single rejection. Not once in all of those years and all of those takeovers did the Liberal Party think that standing up on Canadian sovereignty issues and the rest was important.

To clarify the record, because I know my friend is very keen on records, I would point out that when the motion was presented by the members for Calgary Northeast and Wild Rose with respect to some trade negotiations and trade legislation, particularly around Bill C-23, the act with Jordan, that act was passed by this place.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

But the member himself did not vote.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

My friend now heckles me to say that we did not vote for it. However, neither did he. How this place actually works is that from time to time, it gets along and Parliament decides to pass legislation by voice votes. Parliament decides to pass legislation together.

My friend would like to make a distinction without a difference. He did not stand in his place and vote for this trade deal. In fact, no member of Parliament stood in this place and made the trade deal. He would like to present that as somehow true, that we did not stand and support this particular trade deal. He knows it to be false. He spends enough time in this place to know how it works and he knows that the NDP supported this trade deal at committee stage and then finally at the last stage in Parliament. If that were not the case, then we would have opposed it like we have opposed other bad trade deals, like we are opposing the China foreign investor protection agreement that is selling out Canadian resources.

To my friend, he might wish to stand and correct the record and be honest with all of us here about how it works and what the NDP's intentions and actions actually were with respect to trade. We seek fair trade, not this ridiculous neo-con free trade that the member so much promotes and that his government did when the Liberals were in office, allowing 13,000 consecutive foreign takeovers to happen without once—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader is daydreaming. The member says that out of all the free trade agreements in the history of Canada, the NDP members found one, sat on their hands, and we have to believe them members because there was no recorded vote. Apparently, they say that they voted in favour of it.

The record is very clear. We know there are a lot of bills, probably more than 50%, where there are votes. The NDP members knew this was important legislation. If they wanted to send a message to Canadians that they were prepared to vote in favour of legislation, they had the opportunity to stand in their place. I suspect it is because the vast majority of their caucus would not have supported having a recorded vote. They were quite content to let it be just a voice vote. Therefore, we do not know how they would have voted.

The member made reference to the 13,000 takeovers. What the member does not recognize is that a vast majority of that investment was the creation of new jobs. It was new companies being established. I would challenge the opposition House leader to tell me which ones out of the 13,000 he would not have supported if he were in government, Heaven forbid? At the end of the day, which one would he have opposed? That is even with the ability of having hindsight. I look forward to having a response from the member on that question.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of focus on our party and not a lot on what we are debating, which is trade. I guess it is a difficult issue for the member and for the Liberal Party because there is difficulty in establishing exactly what their criteria is on trade at times. When there is an option to amend things like this trade deal, where we wanted to have better transparency and more accountability for Canadian workers and for the environment, we put forward amendments. Maybe not to our surprise, the government voted against them. However, his party, which claims to want to protect the rights of workers and the environment, did not. It decided that it would vote with the government on this.

Therefore, if we are going to talk about doing trade and doing it smart and well, we need to have some protections. We cannot give away the store. These free trade agreements are problematic because they are cookie cutter approaches. We need to look at the details and ensure there are provisions in them that have teeth and not these side agreements. Side agreements are just what the language would suggest. They are on the side, there is no teeth in enforcement.

Why did the member did not even think of mentioning that and why his party rejected amendments to have accountability?