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

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will conclude. I would like him to comment on the many benefits that he has seen in his province and his riding.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows and would agree, we on this side of the House know that opening new markets and creating new business opportunities lead to jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for all Canadians. A trade agreement with Panama would provide greater economic opportunity for Canadians and for Canadian businesses. He is absolutely right that this free trade agreement specifically would better enable Canadian companies to participate in large projects such as the $5.3 billion U.S. expansion of the Panama Canal which is expected to contribute to Panama's future growth.

A free trade agreement would also help level the playing field for Canadian businesses against competitors that already have or are seeking preferential access to Panama's market, for example, the United States, the European Union, Chile, Singapore, et cetera.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Random—Burin—St. George's, Search and Rescue; the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, Government Spending; the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Search and Rescue.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, I have the honour of debating the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Obviously, I have a lot to say about this, and I have some serious criticisms of the government and the Republic of Panama, which we all know is a tax haven.

First, I would like to give some background for those watching at home who would like to understand what is happening a little better and who want to know why Canada wants to conclude a free trade agreement with Panama and how it all works.

On August 11, 2009, the Conservative government concluded negotiations for a comprehensive free trade agreement with the Republic of Panama. The agreement includes side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment. Bills were introduced, but they died on the order paper as a result of the election. Recently, these bills were re-introduced by the Conservative government.

I would like to say that the members of the Conservative government have been playing politics by saying that the NDP is opposed to trade agreements with other countries. That is completely untrue. The NDP is in favour of economic agreements with other countries. However, these agreements must respect the environment and workers' rights. In short, these agreements must be win-win and not support the exploitation of one country by another, as is the case in this free trade agreement between Canada and Panama.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster proposed a number of amendments in committee. These amendments were reasonable and would have improved this bill. I will refer to some of them. However, the people at home need to know that the Conservatives voted against these amendments. They were not incorporated into the last iteration of the bill on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

So, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster proposed some changes in order to include the concept of sustainable development, which is very important in trade. I do not need to explain what sustainable development means since Quebeckers have been familiar with this concept for many years now. It is important to have good economic development while respecting the environment and workers' rights.

It is also important to ensure that Canada's trade agreements with other countries include the concept of responsible investment, but the Conservatives voted against that. Apparently, they want more irresponsible investment, which does not surprise me given their ridiculous expenses these days. My NDP colleague also called for mandatory fiscal transparency, which I will say more about later.

Right now, Panama is hiding behind a smokescreen. We have no idea what is going on in terms of finances, and there is no accountability. One of the reasons Panama is known as a tax haven is that anyone doing business with Panama can do things on the quiet and launder money. Money from Latin American drug cartels flows through Panama and comes out clean. Apparently, the Conservative government has no problem with that. It thinks Canada should dismantle its tariff and economic barriers and do more business with that country.

My NDP colleague also proposed adding protection for workers' rights, including the right to collective bargaining, a concept that Canadians are very familiar with. The right to collective bargaining is important to NDP MPs. Whenever there is a dispute between the employer and the union—the workers—there has to be a middle ground. The employer, which has greater financial resources and more political influence, should not bulldoze, threaten or blackmail workers. The workers' rights situation in Latin America and South America can be disturbing. Personally, as an MP, I am very aware of that. The Conservatives decided to vote against our proposal, and I find that utterly deplorable.

I mentioned that Panama is a tax haven, but we also know that it has a poor record when it comes to workers' rights. So I am very worried about this bill.

How can the Government of Canada, in good conscience, decide to sign such a free trade agreement?

A free trade agreement or simply a trade agreement between two countries is the highest form of trust that we can show. We are saying that we will not place barriers between the two countries, that we will work together and will allow free trade in goods, so that the economies of the two countries can develop and move forward.

So I feel a bit uneasy as a Canadian. How can Canada sign a free trade agreement with Panama, when that country is a tax haven that violates workers' rights and compromises their safety?

I have some serious concerns. What is the Conservative government's motivation for signing a free trade agreement with Panama?

Here is an interesting statistic. Do members know that bilateral trade between our two countries reached only $149 million in 2008, or less than 1% of our trade?

Out of all of our trading partners, why choose Panama, when our bilateral trade with that country represents less than 1% of our trade? Was it simply because the Conservative government likes the fact that it is a tax haven?

I cannot help but wonder about these serious issues, especially when Canadians, Quebeckers and the people of my region are being asked to tighten their belts and being told not to work under the table, to declare all of their earnings—a notion that I support. Why would we do business with a country that has different standards?

For various reasons, it does not seem to bother people that illegal financial transactions take place there. In Canada, people have to be responsible and declare all of their earnings, but in a country like Panama, people do not have to do so.

If we do business with Panama, Canadian capital will go south to Panama and more of it will leave our country. This means less money for our domestic economy. Knowing that we are running a deficit for yet another consecutive year, we could say we there is not enough money in Canada, and services to the public have to be cut as a result.

Some political decisions are stupid—for example, laying off 100 employees responsible for processing employment insurance claims at the Service Canada office just before Christmas. The effects of that decision were felt in my region, and especially in my riding of Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. People had to wait several months before receiving their first employment insurance cheque. That is worrisome.

Why do business with a country that is a tax haven if that will lead to the flight of capital from Canada? In our country, we do not place enough importance on managing our finances well.

I do not wish to question the lawfulness of the agreement that the members opposite wish to enter into with Panama, but I do have many questions about it.

I would like to go back to working conditions in Panama and other countries we do business with. In the past, the NDP opposed free trade agreements. As I mentioned, it is important to the NDP to maintain good economic relations with other countries. We are 100% convinced that tariff barriers between our two countries can be eliminated in order to grow both our economies. However, there must be a relationship of equals, even though the Conservative government has been trying to violate workers' rights since coming to power in 2006.

This tendency is also evident in the changes to employment insurance that would force workers to accept wages that are 70% of their previous wages. This will put downward pressure on wages.

The NDP is committed to Canada as a country where workers are paid well and treated well.

That is why we like doing business with countries that do the same thing. That is my opinion on the matter.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is incredible to listen to the member and his colleagues in the opposition. They always try to show that they are a pro-trade party. I wonder how many free trade agreements NDP members have supported to date.

I would like my colleague to comment on this. We all know that Panama and Canada are both members of the International Labour Organization and have both committed to ensuring that their laws respect the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, which covers the elimination of child labour, forced labour and discrimination, the respect of freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively. I would like him to comment on this provision of the agreement on which both countries agree.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to deal with the Conservative member's first question. He said that the NDP should have supported free trade agreements in the past. I have brought this up with the hon. member previously and I am going to bring it up again. Following the logic of the hon. member opposite, the NDP should have supported the most recent softwood lumber agreement that has ruined the forestry industry in my region.

The NDP has analyzed the bill before us. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster introduced 11 amendments that could have protected the rights of workers and the environment and other rights not covered by this bill. In fact, my Conservative colleague mentioned a number of rights.

But it is important to have those understandings written into the bill. Otherwise, in a country like Panama, where there is a lack of transparency in tax matters and in other respects, there is the danger of things going off the rails and of some things not being considered. My simple reply is that things must be put in writing. The amendments should have been accepted; they would have improved the bill.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think the NDP is quite clear. We are in favour of trade with other countries, but it must be fair trade. Workers’ rights must be respected. That is why my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster proposed two amendments to protect the rights of workers in Panama.

The first amendment would have given them the right to bargain collectively, while the second would have forced the Minister of International Trade, who is Canada's principal representative on the Canada-Panama joint commission, to consult regularly with representatives of Canadian workers and Canadian unions.

I think that is the least we can do to respect workers’ rights. Does my hon. colleague have any comments on that subject?

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, my New Democrat colleague specifically mentioned the amendments that my New Democrat colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster wanted to make to the bill, which were intended to protect workers. The Conservatives voted against them. That does not surprise me from our lovely Conservative government.

We are talking about the same Conservative government that intervened in the labour disputes at Air Canada, Canada Post and Canadian Pacific. Time is passing so quickly and there has been so much interference in labour disputes by this Conservative government. In all the labour disputes the Conservative government has intervened in, in the last year, and in all of the interference it has engaged in, we see an extremely clear line. The government sides with management, and as a result does not respond to the demands of the unions that were engaged in disputes with the employers, whether about wages, pensions or job security. I find it very disturbing, but I do not find it surprising to see this government doing business with a country like Panama that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The Minister of State and Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.

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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

CANADA-PANAMA ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise today to speak in relation to the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

I would also like to mention that I did rise out of my chair slowly, as may have been seen on camera, because I ran 10 kilometres on Sunday to support a great charity in Barrie for the member of Parliament for Barrie, who did a great job and sold out. I would like to express my thanks to him and the town of Barrie.

I do want to talk about free trade and the belief I have in free trade around the world and the ability for Canada to open up its markets, because it is very important of course to the people I represent, to the businesses, the financial sectors, the farmers and agriculture producers.

I find it surprising that the NDP still takes the position of anti-free trade. We have seen bluntly what protectionism does to countries. In particular, we have seen iron curtains put up and brought down. They simply do not work. To be protectionist simply, in my mind, creates an atmosphere that brings about the surety that the NDP is not fit to govern because one cannot live in a house that is closed today. Certainly, if we close the borders of our country, we will all suffer the consequences for many years.

Therefore, I do want to put my support in this place firmly in the position behind free trade agreements. Even listening to the arguments, we hear they are quite hollow. Free trade will help the workers of Panama under the conditions that we provide them jobs and we provide a better quality of life as a result of their ability to trade with us.

This agreement actually would bring about additional market access for our agricultural and agrifood producers and exporters. That is very important to my constituents in northern Alberta, because I have many cattle producers, and there are many people who are in the agricultural and agrifood business in all parts of this country. Bluntly, Canada has a competitive advantage in the agribusiness. We can use that competitive advantage to ensure we continue to have the great quality of life that we do have in Canada.

As Canada's agricultural and agrifood sector becomes more modern, innovative and competitive, the sector is becoming a more significant part of Canada's economy. In fact, many people do not realize this but in 2010, the agriculture and agrifood industry directly accounted for one in eight jobs in Canada. This actually translated to employment for more than 2 million people. That is a lot of people who are employed through this sector.

In the same year, it accounted for about 8% of the GDP of the country. I would like to make mention that 8% of GDP is about the same as what my constituency in northern Alberta, through production of the oil sands, brings into this country, another 8%. Therefore, it is equivalent to about the same as the agricultural and agrifood business in the country as to the gross domestic product it produces for the country. Obviously, both are very important for Canada and for the continued great quality of life we enjoy.

Increasingly, over the last 15 years the agricultural and agrifood sector has become internationally focused. In 2011, exports valued at more than $41 billion were accounted for in this sector from Canada. This actually ranks Canada as the fifth largest exporter of agriculture and agrifood products in the world, which is a very important place to be. I am hoping with these new free trade agreements we can actually see that rise to first, if not to fourth or third, in the near future.

It is no surprise then, as a result of the great amount of the financial sector and the amount of jobs that are produced by the agricultural and agrifood sector, that our Conservative government continues to work tirelessly on ways to improve access to international markets. I know that my friend, the Minister of International Trade, is doing a great job there and I appreciate his doing that. I barely see him in the House anymore because he is always out somewhere in the world and is extremely busy and working hard for Canadians abroad. I especially appreciate the opportunity he has taken out of his own life to support Canada and Canada's trade market in the agricultural food and agrifood business.

We are achieving this great significant milestone through our commitment to pursue bilateral and regional trade agreements. These trade agreements are essential for continued prosperity for Canadians. I think most people know that.

During question period, the parliamentary secretary actually confirmed how many trade deals we have initiated as a Conservative government. I think it is probably more by three times than was done in the previous 13 years by the previous Liberal government, so we have seen a real focus on that by our government. I think it goes a long way to say how well we are doing as a country.

Certainly, we know the OECD has identified us as being a very strong economy, with the best banking sector and the best financial sector in the world. That is no surprise when we see agreements like the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

The Conservative government has taken a very firm position on this because we know that to succeed in a global economy, we have to have a strong export market.

We want to ensure that our Canadian agriculture and agrifood producers and exporters remain competitive with other preferential suppliers to Panama, because we are not competing against ourselves; we are competing against other countries. We need to make sure that we have a competitive advantage. We do have a competitive advantage. We have large tracts of land. We have a very good, experienced workforce in the agriculture-agrifood sector. We have the ability to innovate and create, and we have the best agricultural sector in the world, bar none.

We certainly can use these competitive advantages to become that number one exporter. For example, one of the things that has happened in Canada's exports is, believe it or not, frozen french fries. Now, frozen french fries may not seem like a lot to many people. I know some of our members have particular fetishes toward frozen french fries, as we can hear in the background. However, when we get well down into it, this industry would immediately benefit from this because there would be an elimination of the 20% tariffs on this product.

In 2011, Canada exported almost $12 million worth of frozen french fries to Panama. This is a $1 million increase over 2010 exports, at a time when things are supposed to be tough in the world. Now, that is a lot of potatoes. That is a lot of potato farmers who we support through these trade deals and through these free trade agreements. I think that is often forgotten by the NDP, that it is actually the farmers we are helping support, the farmers of P.E.I. or wherever they are growing potatoes across this great country, and the ability for those people who package those frozen french fries to be able to keep their jobs, as well, on the assembly line; so it is the manufacturers and the farmers.

Our pulse exporters would also benefit from an immediate tariff elimination with the implementation of this free trade agreement, because tariffs of up to 15% would be eliminated on its implementation. Fifteen per cent of nothing. I do not mean that 15% is nothing. I mean that 15% does nothing for anybody. Those tariffs, those barriers to trade, are not helping Canadian workers and are not helping Panamanian workers. They are simply doing nothing. That is why it would be so good to see.

In 2011, Canada exported more than $5 million worth of lentils to Panama. Now, that is a lot of lentils, as well. This is almost double the amount of our trade on this product in 2006.

There is a growing market for dried peas in Panama, from Canada. In 2011, Canada exported more than $1 million worth of dried peas. People forget about that, that it is the farmers, that it is the packers, that it is the manufacturing process, all the way from the farmer to the plate, that takes place in Canada. We want to see more manufacturing, more assembling of product, but we also want to see the farmers being able to grow their product and sell it overseas because that is what they are doing. That is what they have a competitive advantage on.

Canadian malt exporters would also benefit from the immediate elimination of Panamanian tariffs of up to 10%. Again, that is 10% for nothing, just a barrier to trade that does not accomplish anything, that does not give anybody a real job. That is what we are doing in this government: making sure that people have real jobs, that farmers have real jobs and that they have some ability to sell their products overseas.

In 2011, Canada exported more than $8 million worth of malt products to Panama. That is a significant amount of malt. This is a significant increase, as well, from the $3 million worth of malt exports in 2010.

So, we can see that the elimination of these tariffs in this free trade agreement would greatly enhance our ability to export products, agricultural products and agrifood products, to Panamanian society.

In fact, there would be some real benefits to different parts of the country, and I want to talk about that a bit.

In Quebec, for instance, key exports such as pork, industrial and construction machinery, pharmaceuticals and aerospace products would receive a real benefit. In fact, that is where this particular province and the farmers from this province would receive a real benefit. They would also receive a benefit for investment services for the engineering, construction and transportation sectors. That is just in Quebec,

I know I do not have a lot of time left, but Ontario and the western provinces would also receive real benefits.

The real benefits are that we eliminate barriers and trade deals that do not help our producers or our country. We enhance free trade, and it works.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, we know the member across does not believe in the Canadian capacity to refine and upgrade our own resources here at home, so his sellout arguments do not really surprise me.

He referred to providing jobs. Let me say that Panama City has just recently opened the regional hub for Caterpillar, and members will remember that Caterpillar recently fled Canada. Deloitte's Canadian manufacturing consultants say that “we are not going to get the jobs back without the involvement of policy-makers”, and Boston Consulting says that “the cost of operating in Canadian dollars is very high”.

While we would support a trade agreement that would show a net benefit for Canadians, we cannot support this one, and we do not understand why the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca continually sells out Canadian jobs and Canadian workers.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was so funny I forgot to laugh.

I represent more union members and workers per capita than anybody else in this place. I promise and assure the member that I am not going to stand against workers.

I can say that this member and his caucus are standing against machinery manufacturing jobs. In fact, we heard from the president of the Canadian association that it is selling more machines, and in the case of this one particular gentleman who builds forklifts, 40% of his forklifts are going to the oil sands.

We know that the NDP wants to shut down the oil sands. We know that the NDP leader wrote a preface to a book that said within 30 years he was going to make sure that the oil sands were shut down. What about those jobs? Is the member standing up for those jobs? I would say no.

We have clearly heard that Quebec, with this particular free trade agreement, would receive real benefits for pork and industrial and construction machinery. We know that they will be able to export industrial machinery from Quebec to Panama. Why would the member want to close down those export markets for Quebec manufacturers? I do not understand that.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from northern Alberta for his hard work on this trade file.

I have had the pleasure of being on the trade committee for about six and a half years. About four years ago, I travelled to Colombia and Panama with the trade committee and saw first-hand the importance of this agreement.

I would like to applaud my colleague for standing up for Albertans and Canadians and for creating jobs. The fact is that we are engaging and helping Canadians from coast to coast in training. I know that my colleague has athletic prowess and I congratulate him for completing the 10K, but he is also working hard in the sense that he could enlighten the House on the importance of engaging folks in Panama, rather than isolating them from the hope and opportunity of jobs that would be created through free trade versus looking for a utopian model that unfortunately is not out there in the NDP world.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's hard work on the trade file.

I believe that open doors and open dialogue create open minds and open hearts. I think that we can see from the world's example what takes place when minds are closed, borders are closed and hearts are closed: people suffer. That is why we need to open our doors and reach out to these developing economies. We need to make sure that they understand that we will be standing up for our workers and that we will be helping out their workers as well.

It is about free trade. It is about free market access and making sure that we have an open mind, an open heart and an open door.