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

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I listened as closely as I could to the hon. member's statement. One always has to take most of what the hon. member says with a grain of salt.

He did say that we would be judged by walking the walk, and I believe that. We are judged by our deeds and our acts. The hon. member talked a bit about Panama, a lot about trade and a bit about Colombia. If we are to be judged by our acts, I will offer the hon. member an opportunity to apologize to the House for what he said about the Colombian government. He brought it up in committee, said it was fact, never retracted it, never apologized for it. He said that two families of indigenous people in Colombia had been murdered by the Colombian government. It turned out they had been murdered by FARC, which is the socialist rebel group in the Colombian jungle.

He never apologized for saying that. We cannot believe him on that. He will not take it back. Why would we believe him on anything else?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was the most pathetic attempt I have heard yet to try to turn the channel.

So we are both on the record, the parliamentary secretary knows full well that the family was killed by military connected to the government. That family was brought forward not by me but by Human Rights Watch, a very reputable human rights organization. The parliamentary secretary is referring to a completely different circumstance about which he is absolutely right. On more than one occasion, families have been killed by FARC. We do not dispute the facts about the family about which he talked.

What I find incredible is that he would try to pretend that all of those exist when every major human rights organization has pointed to the ongoing problems with paramilitaries connected directly to the government and to the ongoing problems with crimes connected to the military in Colombia. I find it incredible he would deny that all of those exist.

The reality is we are talking about two different families. I accept the version of facts that was put forward by Human Rights Watch in the case of the family that was killed by FARC.

What I find inconceivable is that a parliamentary secretary would stand in the House and defend and deny acts of human rights abuses committed by paramilitary organizations and by the Colombian military. That is despicable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I look to the member to provide some insight in regard to NDP policy with respect to trade agreements. We in the Liberal Party have always believed in the importance of trade and how it generates thousands of jobs. There is a great deal of benefit from trade. Canada needs to reach out to all nations to expand opportunities, not only for nations abroad but to enhance opportunities here for all Canadians.

To the best of my knowledge, I do not believe the NDP has ever supported a free trade agreement of any sort. Could the member explain to us why the NDP feels there is no such thing as a good free trade agreement? Is it just hoping for a day when there will be a good free trade agreement? I do not quite understand why the NDP oppose the concept of free trade agreements, no matter what country it is.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North did not bother to show up for the debate. In two-thirds of my speech I talked exactly about that—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Just a slight reminder to hon. members that it is not proper to refer to either the absence or presence of members in the chamber.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was referring not to his physical absence, but obviously a mental absence. If I spent 10 minutes talking about that particular issue, I would have expected he picked it up.

I referred to the examples that we have repeatedly put forward to the government around Mercosur and its binding social obligations, anti-poverty obligations, the binding human rights obligations that are contained in European Union agreements, as well as Australia and its movement gutting the investor-state provisions because that is simply not in the public interest at all. I talked about the Auto Pact that we defended on the floor of the House for years.

We have been putting forward very consistently progressive social democratic alternatives in trade repeatedly and we have never had the Conservatives agree to any of the many amendments that we have put forward at all. Therefore, the question really is—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but I am sure there other members who may wish to pose questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very interesting speech about Panama. I understand that it is clearly a tax haven. Even Mr. Sarkozy, the French president, recognizes that it is a tax haven. I also understand that workers' rights there are not strictly enforced.

I would like my colleague to comment on two ideas. First, does sustainable development have a place in this agreement? And what is responsible investment?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

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

Throughout our discussions on this free trade agreement, we have suggested amendments to include a sustainable development clause in the agreement. The Conservatives have systematically rejected every amendment.

I have been in the House for eight years, and I have noticed that, every time changes or amendments are suggested, the Conservatives systematically reject them. The Conservatives are wedded to their backward ideology, which impels them to sign right-wing free trade agreements. There is always a right-wing slant to the agreements that the Conservatives sign. They cling to their ideology even though people are making a concerted effort to do away with it this century.

Every other country in the world is making progress on free trade agreements, including agreements that involve sustainable development. Unfortunately, Canada has the worst free trade agreement template in the world.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Standing Order 18 says that a member should not be using offensive words against any member of the House. In defending himself against the question about whether he was exposing a member for not having been in the House, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster questioned the mental capacity of a member of the House. He should withdraw the comment and apologize for it.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for Essex for his intervention. Indeed, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, in his response to my intervention, did in fact impute a certain note in respect of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I did not, indeed, hear anything unparliamentary in that exchange, but I would caution hon. members to take care in their references to other hon. members and not do so in a fashion that would in any way diminish their character.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is very intelligent. I was not impugning at all on his intelligence. He is an intelligent and effective member. I was questioning his alertness during my speech. That is all I was questioning.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for one short question and response. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide a very simple answer to a very simple question that I asked. Could the member clearly indicate which free trade--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Four. My answer was four.