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

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much misinformation in that multi-pronged question that I do not know where to begin answering it.

However, I can tell my hon. colleague with some certainty, which perhaps the researchers on his side have not fed him the bad news, that Ontario has lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. These were not the $10 an hour jobs, the kind the Conservatives are creating that they are in such a celebratory mood over. We have lost good, high-quality jobs that people can raise a family with. What we want for Canadian workers is the same thing we would like for the workers in Panama, which are jobs they can raise a family on, where they do not need to take three low-paying jobs and never see their kids, never be able to work in the community and never be able to get involved because they are desperately trying to stay above water. That is the kind of job creation we look for on this side of the House. That is the kind of job creation that would be reflected in international trade agreements that we would support.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will make reference to the potato industry that I talked about earlier. It provides approximately 1,000 real jobs in the province of Manitoba. Those workers are making a relatively decent living with valuable jobs. They contribute immensely to Manitoba's economy, and we hope to see the industry grow. Does the member have any kind words to say in regard to the potential of being able to increase demand for our potato product on the Prairies by looking outside of Canada?

Panama currently is one of our consumers. It purchases many Manitoba french-fry and potato products. Does the member not see any benefit whatsoever if there were some sort of freer trade agreement that would help solidify that particular market? I just cite that as a specific example. Does he see any benefit whatsoever for those 1,000 workers in Manitoba?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I love french fries as much as the next guy, and if there is an opportunity to expand the markets for potatoes I will not be the guy to stand in the way of that. However, the member is mixing things up. We are talking about a very large-scale issue here. We are talking about money laundering and hidden taxes, and my friend in the corner is talking about french fries.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very carefully to today's debate about the bill to create a free trade agreement between Canada and Panama.

Canada does not have an extensive trade relationship with Panama. Trade between our two countries amounts to less than $150 million per year, which is not much. However, the government now wants to formalize a less than satisfactory situation marked by an imbalance between the rights of workers and the rights of big companies. That is exactly why the NDP does not agree with the bill before us today.

The government did not consult with unions here or in Panama. Panamanian workers' rights have not been formalized, even though the government claims that this bill will formalize a mechanism to give workers the right to some oversight over free trade between our two countries. The sad thing about all this is that, realistically, that right is nothing but an illusion. It does not really mean anything. In Panama, workers do not really have the right to disagree. I will come back to that point shortly.

I also want to make another point. Today, we are debating the passage of a bill on free trade with a country that does not give us any hope, like the rest of Latin America. We do not want other countries to follow into Panama's footsteps to make their laws, to develop future free trade initiatives. That is not the country I want to rely on and use as a model for future bills. That country has serious problems related to tax havens and money laundering.

I do not understand why the Conservatives are so interested in moving forward with a country that has not shown that it is prepared to rehabilitate itself and to engage in open and transparent free trade. On the contrary, it is a country whose economic activities are not conducted in the open. That may be why the Conservatives are so interested in moving forward with that country, since they also prefer to avoid doing things in the open and want to make sure Canadians are not aware of the impact that the bills debated in this House will have on the rest of the country.

What concerns me in all this is the lack of openness. The Conservatives want to turn into reality, to codify a situation that is not balanced. This will benefit large corporations, but Panama's workers and average families do not have any reason to believe that they will be better off.

I find it hard to see why we are passing a bill involving a country that has so little trade with Canada. And even if that trade were to expand, there is no guarantee that this growth will not take place on the negative side, namely money laundering and drug trafficking.

I thought the Conservative government wanted to avoid increased drug use. I wonder if this agreement will not have the opposite effect.

As for the rights of workers, I want to mention a few amendments that were proposed by the NDP when this bill was brought to the attention of the House, during the 40th Parliament.

At the time, we proposed eleven amendments. Among other things, we wanted to define the notion of responsible investment as maximizing social good as well as financial return in the areas of social justice and corporate governance, in accordance with the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. I do not believe that the bill before us today is an improvement over the legislation introduced during the 40th Parliament. Among other things, that amendment did not get the support of the House today.

This is a free trade initiative that is really based on the major free trade agreements of the past. For example, in the case of NAFTA, the two partners were rather major industrial and economic powers.

Canada and the United States have had an important relationship for a long time. That is also the case for Mexico. These countries all have a very important trade and industrial history. We signed agreements based on the fact that each of the two or three partners has a certain amount of power. I am thinking in particular of the auto pact signed a number of years ago. This type of free trade benefits both parties. However, the agreement we are debating does not strike a balance.

Panama and Canada are not on the same economic and industrial level. The Canadian economy is based on exports, especially of natural resources, whereas Panama has a black market economy, an economy based for the most part on money laundering and drug trafficking.

Do we really want to formalize a relationship with a country that is incapable of being transparent and of showing that it can promote another economy and that its own is based on activities that will benefit and not harm Canada?

We believe in a model based on a trading relationship that will not cause job losses. We recommend free trade agreements that will contribute to the growth of the Canadian economy. I think the Canadian economy depends above all on the well-being of its workers, who must have the means to spend money and support their communities.

In the bill before us here today, I do not see how this agreement will benefit the workers of our regions, who will be very much affected by these changes, especially those concerning employment insurance. What benefit is there for them? This free trade agreement would benefit Panama, but what does it do for our workers? I would really like to know. Will seasonal workers in eastern Canada benefit from this bill? I highly doubt it. This bill is worthy of George Bush and his trickle down economics. This created a negative situation in the United States, where the economy has collapsed. That country still has not recovered.

I do not understand why anyone would want a bill based on bilateral trade worth less than $150 million.

I want to come back to the issue of workers and of the rights they will have under this bill. In Panama, according to chapter 11, when there is a dispute, investors will have the right to request compulsory arbitration that they can conduct independently, however Panama's unions can only file a complaint and it will be up to governments to seek and obtain remedies. The government of Panama has not ever shown that it wanted to go further and really apply workers' rights. Consequently, if the unions are not entitled to give concrete expression to the recourse being proposed in today's bill, this right becomes a mirage and not a concrete right. It is a very theoretical right. Unfortunately, Panama's unions will have neither the means nor the legal capacity to give concrete expression to the right that this bill claims to be giving them.

Clearly, workers will not be able to take advantage of these illusory rights. If members are looking for a reason why the bill before us should not be adopted, then that is their reason. Workers do not have any rights in this bill, and Panama's workers deserve better than that. This bill should be amended to improve the lot of Panamanian workers.

Several laws in Canada should be amended to improve the lot of our own workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate we have heard a lot of untruths from the opposition. I would like to make a correction for the record.

Panama is no longer on the OECD grey list as a tax haven. This is a repeated claim by the NDP. Panama is improving, so it can participate in free trade agreements. Panama was removed from the grey list by the OECD in 2011 after having substantially implemented global tax standards for exchange of information. This is a big development. It is important. It demonstrates that countries that want to have free trade can improve for the goodness of their citizens and for the betterment of Canada.

Why will this member not support free trade?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

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

We certainly do support trade that respects human rights and improves the lot of workers. However, I do not see why we should support a bill that will primarily benefit big business and others who are already well placed to profit hugely.

I remind members that, very recently, even Nicolas Sarkozy also made the point that Panama is still a country that supports the black market. It is a country with a huge capacity for drug trafficking. This is nothing new. One organization has said otherwise, but a lot of organizations do not agree with the member across the way. There are a lot of improvements that need to be made in Panama, and progress will not be made by adopting a bill like this.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, sitting on the international trade committee, I actually thought the NDP was starting to come around on some of these trade issues. However, listening to the remarks made here this afternoon, obviously not.

There is no question that there are some problems in Panama in terms of money laundering and tax havens. Does the NDP really believe that by slamming the door shut the situation will be improved? It is our biggest trading partner in Central America. There are opportunities for the continued export of seafood, potatoes, et cetera that we are exporting there now. I think there is a huge opportunity, if we can get in the door, in terms of the new canal being built, in terms of the infrastructure. I know there are some restrictions on that infrastructure because of agreements with the United States.

Does the member not think that we should at least be trying to get in the door, signing an agreement? I believe if it is a partner with another country, it will have a better chance of overcoming some of the labour abuses and other things happening in its system, because the economies do become more linked.

How can the NDP say we should just slam the door shut, as if that is going to do anything for Canada or the workers in Panama?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the only people I see slamming the door shut are the Liberals and the Conservatives.

We proposed amendments. We continue to suggest changes to this law. We want to improve workers' rights. We want to make sure that all parties, especially in Panama, are going to benefit, and that workers in Canada are going to benefit from this bill in front of us. There is no proof whatsoever, no study, that shows that passing a bill such as this would actually improve the plight of workers of the world.

We need to make sure that if we are going to pass a bill here in this House, it is actually going to be beneficial to all the parties concerned. We should be standing up for those who need our protection. That is the point of this House.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. Even before we started, it was pretty clear what we were going to face from the government across the way, with the help of its supporting choir in the Liberal caucus.

There is not one member of this caucus who does not fully understand and support the notion that we are a trading nation. Our survival depends on our ability to trade. The issue is not whether one believes in or supports trade. If we did not support trade, we would not have much of an economy.

When we are defining the rules of engagement for Canada in trade agreements, the question really is whether they are only going to be about the bottom line. Is that the only thing that matters? If that is the case, then the Conservative approach, supported by the Liberals, is exactly the right approach. In fairness to the Liberals, I acknowledge that once the government gets into this deal, it is going to start working magic somehow and doing things that are not in the agreement.

The Conservatives have been clear: as long as an agreement makes money, it is a good deal. We in the NDP do not agree with that attitude. We think there is more to a trade agreement than just the bottom line. We have said on many occasions that our trade policies should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade.

Where I come from in Hamilton, that sounds very much like Canada. That is who we are, or at least we used to be like that. When there were issues of labour rights or environmental protection, not to mention a host of other issues, it used to be that Canada was always seen as the cavalry. If we were not leading in making improvements and changes, then Canada was one of the first countries to be called upon to add support.

I have said many times that we do not have influence in the world because of the size of our economy or the size of our military or the size of our population. Our geography, both in size and in its proximity to the United States of America, makes it pretty clear that any trade agreement would have to improve our bottom line, or why bother? However, to leave it at that is not Canadian. It is not the Canadian way.

It is no longer the case. Those of us who travel to international forums and so on and run into other parliamentarians around the world are always being asked what happened to Canada. Where did the Canada that was respected go to, the Canada that was prepared to say it is not just about dollars, that there is more to it?

We do give a damn about what happens to workers in other countries that we have trade agreements with. We care equally about the environment, because there is only one, and it is not decided by national boundaries.

In my opinion, we in the NDP have taken the approach that the majority of Canadians want. We did not tell the government not to do any trade agreements. Hon. members across the way ask us to show them one trade agreement that we have ever supported; I ask them to give us one that would actually meet Canadian standards, and then we would gladly support it. We in the New Democratic Party will not just roll over and forget about human rights, labour rights and the environment. That we will not do.

I was not at committee. I am not a member of that committee. However, I do know about some of the presentations that were made, and I would like to read a couple briefly into the record.

The first was from Dr. Teresa Healy, who is a senior researcher in the social and economic policy department at the Canadian Labour Congress. Dr. Healy said:

However, the Canada-Panama agreement does not include specific protection for the right to organize and the right to strike.

If I can speak as an aside, given what is going on in this place right now with the pending legislation, it should not really surprise anyone that given the government's view of its own workers, its view of Panamanian workers would be even lower.

I will continue with the quote:

It provides instead for the “effective” recognition of the right to collective bargaining. On trade union rights then, the agreement is weaker than previous agreements.

On labour issues, fines are small; there are no countervailing duties; there is no provision for abrogation or any other such remedy; and yet again, labour provisions remain in a side agreement rather than in the body of the text.

That is for a purpose, Mr. Speaker.

The problem is, and the point that I am making about the way Canadians view free trade agreements and whether they are free or fair, suggests the government cannot just leave the issue alone. It had to come up with these side agreements.

Although I am not a lawyer, we can be assured that those side agreements do not carry more power than the main agreement. If the government were serious about protecting the rights of Panamanian workers and the right to have a sustainable environment, it would be in the main body.

Dr. Healy goes on to say:

Let me speak a bit about the context of labour rights in Panama. Panama is a country with a population of about 3.4 million people. It is currently recording relatively high growth rates, but it is the second most unequal society in the region: 40% of the population is poor and 27% is extremely poor, and the rate of extreme poverty is particularly acute in indigenous populations.

Unfortunately, that sounds familiar.

Dr. Healy goes on:

Although the country has endured extensive structural adjustment, liberalization, and privatization in recent years, this has not translated into economic benefits for the population.

In response to the international perception that Panamanian labour laws were rigid and a disincentive to foreign investment, President Ricardo Martinelli announced unilateral changes to the labour law in the summer of 2010. The law ended environmental impact studies on projects deemed to be of social intere, it banned mandatory dues collection from workers, it allowed employers to fire striking workers and replace them with strike-breakers, it criminalized street blockades, and it protected police from prosecution.

The severity of this attack on labour rights was met with strikes and demonstrations. The police were exceedingly harsh in their response—and this was just the past summer. At least six people were killed, protesters were seriously injured, and many were blinded by tear gas and police violence. Three hundred trade union leaders were detained before the President withdrew the labour provisions and called for a national dialogue of moderate trade union leaders and business leaders.

That is one quote.

I would like to read a second one if I could. This is from Mr. Todd Tucker, who is research director at Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He said:

I have two central points. First, Panama is one of the world's worst tax havens. It is home to an estimated 400,000 corporations, including offshore corporations and multinational subsidiaries. This is almost four times the number of corporations registered in Canada. So Panama is not just any developing country.

Let me elaborate on the first point. What makes Panama a particularly attractive location for tax dodgers and offshore corporations? Well, for decades the Panamanian government has pursued an international tax haven strategy. It offers foreign banks and firms a special offshore licence to conduct business there. Not only are these businesses not taxed, but they're subject to little to no reporting requirements or regulations.

You have to be kidding, Mr. Speaker—one minute? My, time flies when having fun. Let me then get at least--

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

If there's unanimous consent, we can give him a few more, can't we?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I give unanimous consent for another hour. They'd never agree.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay, let me put this on the record before I end my remarks.

Two of the amendments put forth in committee by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster would have protected trade union workers in Panama by offering the right to collective bargaining as well as requiring the Minister of International Trade, as the principal representative of Canada on the joint Canada—Panama commission, to consult on a regular basis with representatives of Canadian labour and trade unions.

There is that consultation again.

The government needs to start asking people what Canadians think before it starts ramming things through as it is doing here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the pompous, arrogant view of the socialists on this issue. They actually think that they understand the people of Panama and what is better for Panama more than the Panamanians themselves.

They are talking about consultation with Canadians. Their attitude is, I think, very much in line with their leader's attitude, which is that the NDP believes that jobs are diseases. We have seen this consistently.

The member was saying that the NDP is not against trade. He should listen to the speeches that have come out of his colleagues' mouths on this issue.

We have been asking consistently if the NDP has ever supported any free trade agreement. At least this member was honest and said that he did not.

However, his colleague before him did talk about a very important agreement, called the Auto Pact, which many of us on this side who represent the automotive sector understand. The Auto Pact meant that for every job Canadians bought, they would be guaranteed to have one in relation to the Americans, so it was one for one. Ever since free trade, in the automotive sector in Canada, we have built over a million more units of automobiles than we consume here and buy in this country.

Would he please explain how a one-for-one deal would--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things I could say to that . I would be glad to answer those questions if either the member wants to ask again or somebody else wants to, but with that kind of preamble to the question, I am not responding any further than I just have.