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

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although we have lowered corporate taxes and are making reforms in immigration, trade is one of a number of arrows that we can use to make Canada strong and create jobs.

I was wondering if the member would comment a bit on some of the things we are doing, besides trade, to encourage people to work, to create jobs and to make Canada a strong place to be.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, there is a fundamental difference that oftentimes gets played out in debate. I recognize and understand that we will not always agree but on this side of the House we believe in something that is known as the unguided hand. When opportunities arise, people take those opportunities and act on them and, subsequently, wealth is generated. That is not something that is dictated or centrally planned. It is something that just flows naturally out of a free market society. When we continue to move in the direction of free trade and engage other countries in free trade, we spread that belief and principle. Historically, that has proven to generate wealth and prosperity, not just for this country but for other nations, too.

I know the hon. member and I both serve on the foreign affairs committee, and this is a means to promote world peace, for instance. Therefore, it is a principle that we in this country believe in and that we in the government strongly believe in as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member opposite to talk about the fact that after all of the free trade agreements in the past 25 years were signed, some of our most successful industrial sectors collapsed. That was the case with the textile, leather and wood industries, among others. After agreements are signed, our industries completely collapse and there is no longer any support, from either the Liberals in the past or the Conservatives in recent years.

So how can they boast that this free trade agreement will stimulate our industries, particularly agriculture, where we are trying to be more successful? We know very well how they grow things in the south. I have no desire to eat that here.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had an hour to speak to that particular topic.

However, I did have members of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters in my office last week and one of the industries was a forestry industry. In our discussions, members of that industry mentioned how the forestry industry has turned the corner with respect to the trade that has been opened up to the east, as well as the United States, which was its primary trading partner at that particular time. They spoke about the fact that, with the new opportunities that have opened up, the forestry industry is so much stronger.

The days of cropping up industries and artificially making them successful just has not proven to be successful. That does not work. We know that if we give these manufacturers and the people in the field the opportunity to do what they do best, they will succeed. What they need are the markets. We are told repeatedly that they must have markets, and that is what this government is doing.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Laurentides—Labelle.

The fact that we are debating this bill this week is timely, if members follow the excellent and tireless work my friend and colleague from Brossard—La Prairie is doing on tax havens. He has been called a radical for the work he has done, as have the groups he chooses to associate with.

Bill C-24 would implement a free trade agreement with Panama, a country known for this problem. It is not known as such by groups that members on the other side would call radical, but by the OECD, which has a well-deserved reputation and is very respected—by my colleagues opposite as well, I hope.

In trying to combat these tax havens, we are trying to create an environment where all citizens—particularly those in the middle class, whom we have the honour to represent, and those who may be tempted to avoid paying their fair share by using a tax haven—are treated equally in how they pay their taxes.

Tax havens are one of the reasons we are opposed to this bill.

In committee, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who is our critic on this issue, asked that we not ratify this agreement until Panama and our government have signed a tax information exchange agreement, which would enable us to tighten our surveillance on the abuses of tax havens.

The minister, in his comments this morning, said that work had begun and that such an agreement is being negotiated. Nevertheless, the agreement he referred to has not yet been signed. I think it is entirely reasonable to ask them to wait until it has been signed, in order to thoroughly evaluate the measures that would be instituted.

I am also basing my opinion on the actions of the U.S. Congress, which decided not to ratify the free trade agreement with Panama until a tax information exchange agreement—that fights tax havens—was signed.

I would like us to follow the example of our American counterparts on this; we must be very careful.

My colleague’s request was not accepted by other members of the committee, neither Liberals nor Conservatives, but I believe we must support such proposals. That is one of the problems with this bill.

In his comments earlier, a Liberal member said that we appeared to be denigrating Panama. That is not the case, not at all.

The Conservative member who spoke before me said that a free trade agreement could promote peace. But a free trade agreement is not only about the exchange of goods, but about the exchange of best practices. It is a cultural exchange, and an exchange in many fields. We must be aware of the standards we propose when we sign a free trade agreement. We also must be aware of the values we project.

Some developing countries such as China are having great economic success and are even becoming economic powerhouses. Thus, it is increasingly important that more than goods are exchanged, including what I call best practices. We live in a democratic country where, in general, the will of the public is respected. This ought to be reciprocal.

In this case, we really are talking about a tax haven. The core of my argument is that some housekeeping needs to be done before we can support this bill.

We do not support this agreement in its present state, but perhaps we will later. In committee, some extremely reasonable amendments were proposed. I already mentioned one of them, and now I will talk about some others.

There were amendments proposed concerning the minister’s obligation to consult stakeholders in Panama, both workers and employers. Whoever we are discussing, we believe that, even after signing an agreement, that should not be the end. We must continue to watch what is happening in the countries with whom we have free trade agreements. On the contrary, once the agreement has been signed, it is our duty to follow up and ensure that current practices are respected—concerning workers’ rights, sustainable development or tax havens. It is a matter of respect and completely in line with the principles of free trade, I firmly believe.

Sustainable development should also be the subject of amendments. They would deal with environmental standards. In political science, we talk about the “tragedy of the commons”, which is the same challenge we are facing in terms of climate change. Everyone must do their fair share. Signing a free trade agreement is a perfect opportunity to establish measures to fight climate change and protect our shared environment, not only in Quebec and Canada, but all over the world.

That opportunity is being missed here because this agreement does not address sustainable development seriously. That is another extremely essential point.

It would be useful to remind the members opposite of one point that has not yet been mentioned very much, and that is the work of the committee. All the members of our NDP caucus are aware of the criticism. We are ready to support agreements that are drafted conscientiously, are fair to both parties and encourage best practices. Once again, the proposals made by my colleagues on the Standing Committee on International Trade have been very reasonable.

That is a relevant comment, given the remarks by the Minister of International Trade this morning. There has been a lot of talk about exports and about keeping our Canadian industries competitive. Yesterday in committee, we heard a witness representing a business that has been affected by this problem. The video game industry, for example, is having problems because the dollar’s value is high, and it is certainly not the only one. This problem will not disappear because of a free trade agreement.

When I was studying political science, I looked closely at monetary and economic policy. Anyone who believes that a free trade agreement will automatically solve all economic problems and create jobs does not have a good understanding of the importance of the economic responsibility and the management role of a country such as ours, with such a vast economy.

Still, it is important to consider all the factors. The government has a lot of housekeeping to do and many problems to solve before it can say it has created a favourable environment for our exporters and investors.

I will end on a lighter note, but one that is serious nonetheless. If we want to create an investment climate that favours industry around the world, we cannot do it by making decisions at the very last minute. That is what we say now, and what we will say when we form the government in 2015.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague opposite, in that he gave this great presentation without notes. The House would be better served were that the case with all, so I give him that compliment.

Beyond the words comes the content, and my question for this hon. member is on the content. I sit on the international trade committee, and I sat through all the discussions on Panama. The New Democratic Party consistently opposed very reasonable positions, even with respect to labour rights when the International Labour Organization supported it, and with respect to the environment. Those are strong environmental standards and a rules-based system that would allow businesses to act and know the consequences of those actions.

One of the things that our colleague opposite talked about was a big concern he had with respect to money laundering and the like. Because this speaks to the issue of financial integrity in Panama and the growth it has seen in terms of better handling of its financial dealings, is the member opposite aware that Panama is no longer on the grey list? I will stop there and ask for a response.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for his compliment. It is greatly appreciated. It is also a good reminder that, even though the atmosphere in the House can sometimes get tense, we all have a common goal, and that is to serve our constituents.

To go back to concerns about the bill, although Panama is no longer on the grey list, some concerns remain. This was made obvious when the U.S. Congress chose to delay the signing of its free trade agreement. I am well aware that the minister has worked hard to negotiate an agreement with Panama and introduce measures to facilitate the release of financial information.

Nevertheless, some reasonable suggestions were made in committee. We suggested that Canada delay signing the agreement until we see how the governments of Canada and Panama deal with the issue of tax havens. Once we have more information, we can make a better decision, so we asked that the bill be delayed until that time. Unfortunately, the government disagreed, and that is why we oppose this bill.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, a Conservative member admitted during his speech that the workers' rights situation in Panama is not ideal. He also said that as Panama works with Canada, it will start making improvements in that area. I think he is dreaming in Technicolor.

Does the hon. member see that accepting the NDP amendments in committee would have been a great opportunity to strengthen this agreement?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. That is one of the troubling aspects that I raised. I would like to stay on the topic of reasonable amendments. We proposed another reasonable amendment. As my hon. colleague put it so well, the other side of the House acknowledged that the situation was not ideal. Hoping for it to improve is not enough. Problems need to be resolved before we sign free trade agreements. That is what we are advocating for.

I would like to come back to a point I raised during my speech. We are in favour of free trade agreements, but everything needs to be in order before they are ratified. That is precisely what we are advocating for here. Many of the proposed measures require some political will. It is not clear that that political will exists on the part of either the Canadian or the Panamanian government. We want these measures to be in place before the agreement is ratified.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member, and I think he said one of the reasons the NDP did not support it was because the Americans have not passed their free trade agreement. I have just clarified that the Americans have passed it. The member would put Canada and all of our provinces at a disadvantage. For example, Quebec would benefit from the elimination of Panamanian tariffs on key exports, such as pork, industrial construction machinery, pharmaceuticals and aerospace products, and he would put us behind.

Will the New Democrats support the agreement now that the Americans have given it their support?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I am glad to hear that the Americans have concluded their agreement. What is important here is why the Americans hesitated to do so. They wanted to wait until their country had signed a disclosure of information agreement with Panama. The minister admitted this morning that such an agreement between Canada and Panama has not been signed. The NDP is simply asking that we delay ratifying the free trade agreement until both governments sign a financial information disclosure agreement to combat tax havens.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that we live in the best country in the world, according to the talking points issued by the Prime Minister's Office that the Conservatives are so proud to read, but I am still rising to speak to Bill C-24 today with some concern.

It is all well and good to criticize the official opposition and claim that it is systematically against free trade, but members must understand that we are only against free trade in the Conservative sense, meaning some willy-nilly free trade without any kind of strategy or reflection. It is easy to say that we are against free trade. Personally, I am in favour of free trade with Japan. Japan is a good example of a modern country with very high standards and whose economy complements ours.

I get the impression that the Conservatives are dragging their feet in that case. But it does not hesitate to forge ahead with signing an agreement with Panama. I have nothing against Panama. On the contrary, I admire it a lot for emerging from a civil war and decades of corruption. It has improved a lot, but its justice and tax systems are still works in progress. These systems are not fully functional yet.

What concerns me is that, when this bill was studied in committee, we asked the government to adopt the same cautious approach that the Americans took and to require the signature of a tax information exchange agreement before ratifying the treaty. That is why the Americans ratified their treaty before Canada. From the outset, they required Panama to sign a tax agreement before Congress would ratify the agreement. This was basic good sense and represents the type of suggestions that we make in committee. The government did not adopt or support a single one of our proposals except those that were completely superficial or pertained to a procedural matter that involved buying time.

It is important to understand that Canada's international reputation and status as a leading nation are being compromised. My colleagues gave a list of all the countries that will soon be ahead of us economically. The reason is that these countries have long-term industrial, transportation and economic strategies. What is more, the trade they do with other countries is included in those strategies. I get the impression that the government would rather make agreements with countries such as China.

I apologize for getting off topic a little, but I would like to give an example. China has developed an absolutely enormous capacity to produce renewable energy and is producing wind and solar power. However, it does not possess a distribution network. The country has thus taken to dumping its renewable energy products onto international markets. The Chinese have already killed the three biggest solar power manufacturers in the United States and they are close to destroying their wind energy competitors in the United States and Europe. The agreement that the government is preparing to sign with China would open the door to these products. This would nip in the bud any potential to develop a similar industry in Canada.

When we make criticisms and propose amendments, these are the types of situations that we are thinking of. The Conservatives must take out their ideological earplugs and listen to us a little. We are not here to destroy or paralyze—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. member will have five minutes remaining when the House resumes debate on this motion.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from November 2 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.

Third reading

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is accusing us of being ideologically stubborn and against free trade. However, our position is very pragmatic: we oppose the kind of free trade proposed by the members opposite. We oppose free trade when it is negotiated without any economic, industrial or energy strategies.

Free trade agreements do not come out of a Cracker Jack box. They must be taken more seriously. The future of the country is at stake, and we are keenly aware of that.

We are asking these legitimate questions on behalf of Canadians. We are worried about the government's ability to negotiate these kinds of agreements.

I myself am by no means an expert in international trade. However, because of what I do know, I am worried about what this government is doing. One negotiator has said that only the intellectual property issue remains to be settled and that it will not take long, because it is a formality. In my opinion, he does not really understand what is happening.

We now realize just how important intellectual property is. All major conflicts and serious disputes in relation to international trade end up in lawsuits over intellectual property. And that is merely one aspect.

When a dispute arises after a treaty is signed, the problem is often not solved by lawyers but by discussions about semantics. Two words can easily cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

For example, two English phrases from article 14 of the North American Free Trade Agreement—“in comparison with” and “in relation to”—were challenged. In the end, after debating the meaning of these phrases, the United States levied a preposterous tax that almost destroyed Canada's softwood lumber industry and cost tens of thousands of jobs.

In the long term, we are gambling with the future of our country. I remember that, when I was young, we built locomotives and cargo ships. We manufactured and exported every kind of product. Naturally, things have changed, but soon we may not even be manufacturing hockey sticks or curling brooms anymore. It is time we had an intelligent long-term strategy for international trade.

It used to be that when I travelled abroad, people would tell me that Canada was a great country that had a coherent international policy and did a lot for foreign aid. Now, I am still told that Canada is a great country, but people tell me that it takes one week to travel by car from Montreal Island to Vancouver. That is not exactly the kind of grandeur to which we aspire. That is all about geography. Canada is fading as a great economic and diplomatic power. We must stop tarnishing our image. The members opposite need to think and listen when we ask intelligent questions.