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

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

moved 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act. I was worried that I would not get here on time; my plane was delayed.

This is an important piece of legislation, as we can tell from the opposition benches. There is a lot of interest in it and we certainly encourage and look forward to the support of the opposition on this important bill.

Our government is committed to protecting and strengthening the financial security of hard-working Canadians. Our focus continues to be the economy, creating jobs and economic growth to benefit Canadian workers and their families. That is why we are continuing to deliver our job-creating pro-trade plan. The Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act is a key part of this plan.

We Conservatives understand, as do hard-working Canadians, that trade is a kitchen table issue. By that I mean that Canadians intuitively understand that trade is the key to their financial success. One in five Canadian jobs and over 60% of our annual GDP is generated by trade. Trade is a matter of fundamental importance to workers, as it helps put food on the table and helps families make ends meet.

In the past few months we have seen a vivid reminder to all of us that the world economy remains in the grip of a global economic crisis. The fragility of global markets has emphasized the importance and urgency of continuing to diversify our trade relationships and expanding our exports with emerging market economies like Panama.

These are challenging economic times. Problems in the global economic situation continue to persist. That is why our government is taking action today to create jobs and help our businesses and their workers succeed in the years ahead. That includes our ambitious pro-trade plan to help businesses expand their presence around the world.

In these tough economic times, Canadians expect their government to do everything it can to enhance the ability of Canadian firms to participate in global markets and to create an advantage for Canadian businesses. That is why our government took action on our budget 2010 commitment to make Canada a tariff-free zone for industrial manufacturers.

Eliminating tariffs on goods used in manufacturing helps Canadian companies lower their production costs and increase their competitiveness. This contributes to a stronger economy, creates jobs and growth here at home, and reinforces our G20 leadership in the fight against protectionism.

It is actions such as this that demonstrate our government's clear understanding that there is a link between open markets and free trade and jobs and the quality of life here in Canada. We know that when Canadian companies succeed, Canadian workers succeed.

Free trade agreements help small and large businesses. In fact, small businesses in particular are responsible for 43% of all Canadian exports. This free trade agreement would help small business exporters do what they do best: create jobs and wealth for this country.

With this legislation we are one step closer to giving Canadian businesses the access they need in Panama. By improving access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses, we are supporting the Canadian recovery and creating new jobs for Canadian workers.

In the midst of the global downturn, this government has demonstrated its commitment to seek out more trade and investment opportunity for our businesses.

Through the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act, Canada is also sending a strong message to the world. Canada will not resort to protectionist measures and will continue to fight for an open rules-based system.

As a trading nation, Canadian workers, companies, producers and investors need access to the international marketplace to stay competitive. Canada is an export-driven economy, and pursuing bilateral and regional trade agreements is essential to bringing continued job prosperity and economic growth to Canadians. That is why our government has established an ambitious pro-trade plan.

A free trade agreement with Panama is also a part of our government's efforts to strengthen Canada's engagement in the Americas. Panama occupies a unique and influential position in the global trading system, thanks to the Panama Canal. This vital gateway is currently being twinned. Our government recognizes that Canadian firms are well placed to help. It should be noted that when the twinning of the Panama Canal is finished, it will carry approximately 5% of the entire trade on the planet. That is an opportunity Canada cannot turn its back on.

The Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act would generate increased export and investment opportunities for Canadians by creating a preferential and more predictable trade and investment environment.

For example, for exporters of Canadian goods, Panamanian tariffs on over 90% of Canadian goods exported to that country would be eliminated upon entry into force of the free trade agreement. Most remaining tariffs would be eliminated over a period of between five to fifteen years.

For Canadian service providers, the free trade agreement would help expand market access opportunities in areas such as information and communications technology, energy and financial services.

This agreement would benefit workers in every region of this country.

For example, Quebec would benefit from the elimination of Panamanian tariffs on key exports, such as machinery, vehicles, pork products, pharmaceuticals and aerospace products.

Investment and services provisions would benefit the engineering, construction and transportation sectors.

Ontario would benefit from the elimination of Panamanian tariffs on key exports, such as pharmaceuticals, machinery, information and communications technology products, and electrical and electronic equipment.

Financial services provisions would benefit Canadian banks and financial service providers operating in Panama.

Western provinces would benefit from the elimination of Panamanian tariffs on key export interests, such as fats and oils, processed food, pork, information and communications technology products, pulses and cereals.

The Atlantic provinces would benefit from the elimination of Panamanian tariffs on key export interests such as frozen potato products, trees and plants, fish and seafood, and forestry products.

For Canadians looking to invest in Panama, the free trade agreement includes a chapter of comprehensive rules governing investment. The rules provide greater protections and predictability for Canadian investors and their investments in Panama.

The free trade agreement also provides Canadian exporters of goods and services greater market access to Panama's government procurement opportunities, including those related to the Panama Canal expansion and other infrastructure projects. It is clear that this agreement would benefit Canadian workers and their families.

I am also pleased to report that in July 2011 the OECD formally placed Panama on its list of jurisdictions that have substantially implemented the international standard for exchange of tax information, commonly known as the white list. This is an extremely important achievement. It demonstrates Panama's commitment to combat international tax evasion. I trust it will appease concerns regarding taxation.

Panama is committed to the implementation of this free trade agreement and has already completed its domestic ratification process.

Canada is not the only country with whom Panama has negotiated a free trade agreement. Panama is deepening its regional economic partnerships and is expanding its global reach through the negotiation of trade agreements with countries such as the United States and the European Union.

As members of Parliament may be aware, the United States Congress approved the United States-Panama trade promotion agreement on October 12, 2011. This agreement, which could enter into force as early as 2012, would provide American firms with preferential access to the Panamanian market. Many Canadian goods and services compete directly with those of the United States in Panama. Canadian products would be at a significant competitive disadvantage if they continued to face duties while products from the United States enjoyed duty free access.

We cannot stand by and let Canadian companies compete on an uneven playing field. We must act quickly to ensure our businesses and workers can compete and remain competitive in the Panamanian market and reap the substantial benefits of this trade agreement.

I think all Canadians should be proud of this agreement. This treaty is a high-quality comprehensive agreement that would be beneficial for Canadian workers and their families. As I mentioned before, a free trade agreement with Panama would give Canadian exporters, investors and service providers preferential access to a dynamic up and coming economy. Two-way merchandise trade between Canada and Panama reached $213.7 million in 2010. As these figures demonstrate, Canadian exporters have been very active in the Panamanian market but there remains significant untapped potential.

Once the new agreement is in place, Canadian businesses will benefit from lower tariffs. This agreement would eliminate tariffs on 99.9% of recent non-agricultural imports from Canada with the remaining tariffs to be phased out over five to fifteen years. Tariffs would also be lifted immediately on 94% of Canada's agricultural exports to Panama. Panama currently maintains tariffs averaging 13.4% on agricultural products, with tariffs reaching peaks as high as 260%. This significant reduction in trade barriers would directly benefit a number of sectors that already have established business ties in Panama, including agriculture and agrifood products, pharmaceuticals, pulp and paper, vehicles, machinery and information and communications technology products among others. By eliminating tariffs on these goods and many others, Canadian exporters and producers would become more competitive against competitors from other countries such as the United States, the European Union, Chile and Singapore which already have or are seeking preferential access to the Panamanian market.

This agreement would also help Canadian businesses take advantage of the new investment opportunities in the Panamanian market. Panama is an established and growing destination for Canadian direct investment abroad, particularly in areas such as construction, mining, and banking and financial services. The stock of Canadian investment in Panama is expected to grow in the years ahead. It reached $121 million in 2010, in part due to the many infrastructure projects planned by the Panamanian government and the private sector. Once this agreement is implemented, Canadian investors will enjoy greater stability, transparency and protection for their investments.

The agreement would also ensure the free transfer of capital related to investment protection against expropriation without adequate and prompt compensation and non-discriminatory treatment of Canadian investments. Under this free trade agreement, all forms of investment would be protected, including enterprises, debt, concessions and similar contracts. These reciprocal commitments would serve to promote bilateral investment flow which is crucial to linking Canada to global value chains.

Among the most important benefits of this agreement would be the increased ability of Canadian companies to participate in large-scale infrastructure projects funded by the Panamanian government. Indeed, with the Panamanian government investing heavily in its country's growth and strategic importance, government procurement opportunities were a key driver for the negotiation of a free trade agreement with Panama.

As a case in point, Panama is currently undergoing a $5.3 billion expansion of the Panama Canal. This expansion, which began in 2007, is scheduled to be completed by 2014 which will mark the 100th anniversary of the canal. It should be obvious that activities related to the ongoing expansion of the Panama Canal provide many opportunities for Canadian companies. Canadian companies in the areas of environmental technology, capital projects, human capital development, construction materials and marine technology stand to benefit greatly from this ambitious project.

However, this is not the only opportunity for Canadian businesses. Just last year, the Government of Panama laid out a five-year strategic plan in which it plans to spend $13.6 billion on the country's infrastructure. Under this plan, $9.6 billion would be allocated to infrastructure investments and other economic programs designed to stimulate further growth.

Some examples of projects the government is looking to undertake include airport construction, expansions and upgrades, a new convention centre, a new water treatment plant, power generation projects, agriculture irrigation systems, and a $1.5 billion metro system. These are areas where Canadian businesses possess the necessary experience and expertise to successfully bid on these projects. With the passage of this agreement, Canadian workers and businesses will be able to capitalize on these opportunities.

I am pleased to say that the Canada-Panama free trade agreement includes strong government procurement provisions that guarantee Canadian suppliers will have non-discriminatory access to a broad range of procurement opportunities, including those under the Panama Canal authority. This means that Canadian workers and companies, wanting to bid on a government procurement contract for goods and or services, will receive the same treatment as Panamanian firms. It is thus important that Parliament acts fast and enables Canadians to take advantage of these opportunities right away.

Canadian services providers and their workers also stand to benefit considerably from the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. On services, this agreement will provide a transparent, predictable and rules-based trading system to Canadian services providers, while ensuring they are treated equitably with Panamanian companies.

Canada negotiated enhanced market access opportunities that would go well beyond Panama's World Trade Organization General Agreement on Trade and Services commitments in services sectors of key interest to Canada. This means that Canadian providers in such areas as professional services, engineering, mining, construction and environmental services will have preferential access to Panama's market.

This agreement would provide a great opportunity to take our current bilateral trade and services to a new level in the years ahead. As we can see, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement is a comprehensive agreement covering everything from market access for goods to cross-border trade and services to investment and government procurement. It would provide rules to assist Canadian businesses doing business in Panama and would deepen our commercial engagement with a strategic partner.

Canadians understand that international trade is the lifeblood of our economy. Canadians value the real and tangible benefits that trade brings to our country. That is why they have entrusted this government with a mandate to focus on economic growth by forging new trade opportunities around the world.

It should not come as a surprise therefore that Canadian businesses have been strongly advocating in favour of this agreement. Let us listen to what Jason Myers, from the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, said about this agreement's potential to improve market access. He said it:

—will improve access to two growth markets for Canadian goods, services and investment at a time when Canadian manufacturers and exporters are focusing on finding new customers and business opportunities around the world.

Closer economic integration with Panama promises to deliver further gains for Canadian exporters, investors, consumers and the economy as a whole.

At a time when Canadian businesses are faced with the challenges of the global economic slow down, the quick implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement is of tremendous importance to our economy.

I reach out to opposition colleagues in the House and I would ask them to support this agreement. This is an important agreement, not just for the Government of Canada, but for the country as a whole. Certainly, our government is focused on broadening and deepening our trading relationship, as it protects and creates jobs and economic growth for Canadian workers and their families.

I have some advice for my opposition colleagues. There are a number of special interest groups that continue to push their job-killing anti-trade agenda and they will continually invent any reason to oppose trade. I ask the NDP members, in particular, to stand strong against those groups, to be reasonable in their position on this important agreement for Canadian workers and to help us support the quick implementation and passage of the bill through the House.

This is important legislation. It means jobs in every part of the country from coast to coast to coast and where there are jobs, there are opportunities.

It has been pleasure to speak to the bill. As members know, this is the same bill we introduced in the last Parliament. During the 40th Parliament, the legislation was debated for 15 days and almost 30 hours. I think the debate is over. It is time to get this through the House.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member finished his comments on the supposed position of the opposition.

We have to be careful with the speed at which these trade deals go forward and also the blind faith that the Conservative government has that any trade deal has to be a good trade deal. With Panama, there are some significant issues.

My hon. colleague mentioned how investment would be protected in this trade deal, but that may be a problem. We know that Panama has various tax havens, particularly for drug money. One of the most important parts of its investment economy is laundering drug money.

What does my hon. colleague have to say about protecting Canadians from drug cartels?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I asked the NDP members to support the quick implementation of the bill. I will ask them again and stress the importance of it.

We have to look at Panama's record. Panama was on the grey list for many years for money laundering, but it is no longer on it. It is now on the white list. The OECD group decides that, not an individual country. Panama has come light years from where it was only a very short time ago.

As for the NDP position on supporting free trade agreements, I would ask those members to look at their own record. It is a dismal zero. NDP members have never supported a free trade agreement.

I will quote the member for Hamilton Mountain, who, at second reading of the Panama free trade agreement, stated the NDP's position quite clearly. She said, “this is not a trade agreement that I can support”. However, she should have added that there was no trade agreement she could support. That is the NDP position.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is correct. The bill was debated for a considerable length of time during the last session and there were quite a number of questions raised. My NDP colleague, who just spoke, raised a couple of those serious concerns that were raised in the last Parliament and I would hope the parliamentary secretary could give us some answers in that area.

There is no question that we will be supporting the bill going to committee, but there is a serious issue around tax havens and money laundering, especially of drug money. The U.S. Congress has spelled out some serious concerns about the money laundering and on Panama not being committed to the kind of commitments that should be made in terms of ridding the country of the money laundering possibility.

Does the parliamentary secretary have any answers on those two critical areas before this goes to committee?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first, I welcome the comments from the hon. member for Malpeque that the Liberals will support the bill going to committee. It is beneficial to the Canadian economy that we get this agreement through the House and to committee as quickly as possible.

To answer his second point, as I answered the hon. member from the NDP, the OECD has taken Panama off the grey list and put it on the white list. This signifies that Panama's money laundering difficulty, one it had for many years, is being worked on. There are terrific improvements being made by the Panamanian government when it comes to money laundering.

The other thing that should be noted from the hon. member's statement is that the U.S. has signed a free trade agreement with Panama. The European Union is in the process of doing so. Obviously they have satisfied any concerns they had as to money laundering. I see no reason why we should not be satisfied with the advancement that Panama has made in that area.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been privileged to be part of the international trade committee since being elected by the great constituents of London West. In that time we have had an aggressive approach toward free trade agreements throughout the world. Panama is particularly important in a lot of ways.

The issue that comes up in every free trade deal is agriculture. Colleagues from all sides of the House have just come back from Europe where we talked to the Europeans with respect to that.

Knowing the importance of agriculture as it relates to this free trade deal and what it would mean from a tariff standpoint, could the parliamentary secretary please explain to the House why the issue of tariff-free products, particularly as it relates to agriculture, means so much to Canada and to the agricultural community in our country?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

I can break it down quite simply, Mr. Speaker. There would be an immediate gain. There are average tariffs on agricultural products of 13.5%, which goes much higher on certain individual items. A number of agricultural products will now come in tariff free, or basically tariff free, including everything from oilseeds and pulses to frozen potato products, which come from the riding of the hon. member for Malpeque, to fish, beef and pork. All of these products will have improved access to the Panamanian market.

The other thing that should not be missed is the fact that the Americans have signed a free trade agreement. They are our competition in North America and throughout much of the world when it comes to agriculture. For us to have an opportunity to have preferential access to agricultural products is an opportunity that our country cannot afford to miss.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to seek some further clarification on the issue of Panama being a tax haven.

The parliamentary secretary indicated that Panama had been taken off the grey list, but as recently as November 5, French President Sarkozy added Panama to a list of countries that he said remained tax havens and would be shunned by the international community.

Would the parliamentary secretary not agree that this casts some doubt on the government's contention that Panama has come a long way and that everything substantial has been done to deal with the issue of Panama being a serious tax haven and a problem in relation to trade?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour only has to go back and check the records. It was in July 2011 that the OECD formally placed Panama on its list of jurisdictions that had substantially implemented the international standards for exchange of tax information, commonly known as the white list. This important achievement demonstrates Panama's commitment to combatting international tax evasion and I trust it should appease most of the concerns of the opposition.

The question is not whether Panama is on the grey list or on the white list. Panama has moved forward. We can either accommodate that and congratulate and reward Panama on that, or we can punish Panama and put it back on the grey list.

With the twinning of the Panama Canal, in 2014 Panama will be about to carry 5% of the entire trade on the planet earth. Canada is in a terrific position and an advantageous position to participate in that. We would be foolhardy not to congratulate Panama on the steps forward it has made and not continue to broaden our trade with it and bring it further into the community of nations in the OECD.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to debate Bill C-24. I will build off of the last question to start with and then return to some comments later.

It is important to note that New Democrats are in favour of trade. There is no doubt about it. None of us are against the movement of goods and services, but what we prefer is some balance in our trade agreements. The constant theme of trade is that when we give something, we get something back. Under this administration and previous ones, Canada has slipped significantly. It has signed a series of bilateral agreements since NAFTA that have actually put us into a significant trade deficit, even with the United States. My community lost the Auto Pact in NAFTA, and subsequently and eventually our auto manufacturing has gone from number two in the world to number eight.

When we look at Bill C-24 and the repercussions it could create, there are significant aspects with the loss of trade. It does not automatically guarantee that we are going to be the winner in a trade deal. Often Canada's bilateral agreements have been with smaller nation states that have advantages through lax environmental, labour and regulatory systems that allow their products to come into our markets while it is difficult for our products to subsequently get into theirs.

There are also issues related to non-tariff barriers, which I will touch on briefly. One country that has not come forward is Korea. There are tariff barriers there, but there are also non-tariff barriers in the auto manufacturing sector. As a result, hundreds of thousands of vehicles flood into Canada every year, but we sell virtually no vehicles in Korea. That also happens even when we do not have trade agreements or there is no balance.

Another good example is Japan. I was told recently that the only Canadian vehicles sold in Japan were the ones sold to the Canadian embassy. It is a problem when hundreds of thousands of vehicles are pushed into our market and we do not have any reciprocity whatsoever.

The issue of Panama is interesting. It has been put on the white list. There is a blacklist, a grey list and a white list, and I will get into that a little later if I have time. The OECD categorized these lists, but there still is not an automatic assumption of all the characteristics of what a tax haven is. Second to that, there is still a process in place.

The NDP's former international trade critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, was very serious in trying to create an agreement that could be worked out with the government to deal with serious tax haven issues with Panama, as well as labour issues and a number of different things. Unfortunately, the government has not agreed to include that as part of its process. It has not been willing to compromise to a certain degree to ensure that tax havens are going to be taken care of.

It is interesting because Panama has quite a significant history of money laundering and tax havens. It also has a history of flagging ships of convenience and basically throwing the seafarers out the window, so to speak, making them vulnerable for treatment that is not part of the conduct of an international agreement. Panama has used that as a way to supplement income and attract corporations for its net benefit at the expense of others.

Although Panama has been moved to this list, it does not mean that all the measures are being taken into account. It does not account for some of the internal taxation issues, or even the current issues that are taking place. Just because it is moved off a list does not necessarily merit having no checks and balances. New Democrats were proposing some checks and balances to the system. There is a big difference between that and just having a blind faith bilateral agreement and seeing what happens later. It just has not been working for Canada in this case, and has not been working in general.

New Democrats want more specifics built into the agreement with Panama, and we are willing to do that. This bill will go to committee, which needs to hear from some witnesses. I have some testimony that I will table here today, but there needs to be testimony from individuals to look at whether there is actual movement.

I know that the parliamentary secretary made a very important point about the Panama Canal opening up in 2014. It is very important. The Panama Canal is historic. My former legislative assistant, Mohummed Peer, actually did a documentary through PBS on the original Panama Canal. It is quite a significant achievement and a marvel in many respects.

The new Panama Canal will actually have 5% of the world trade going through it. I think that is part of the reason that there is a lot of pressure to move Panama onto the white list. I think that is one of the reasons there has been a lot of effort to move it along that way.

However, that does not mean that it has actually moved that way. We need to have some testimony or some checks and balances to ensure that it does.

The government claims it is tough on crime, but often it has been very lax when it comes to organized crime or tackling some of the difficult challenges with our trade partners that relate to crime and also relate to how things are affected on our streets. I would look at my riding of Windsor West, for example, where 40% of Canada's daily trade goes to the United States, basically, along two miles of the Detroit River. It crosses on four crossings: the hazardous materials truck ferry, the Ambassador Bridge, the CP Rail tunnel, and the Windsor-Detroit tunnel. We have two kilometres there.

Despite having 40% of that trade, recently the government has cut back on the customs facilities and branch there. Now decisions about stopping trucks and smugglers dealing in guns, drugs, and human trafficking are now made 400 kilometres away, in Niagara Falls. Despite having reports saying that there should have been a consolidation in Windsor, the government decided to move the headquarters and so forth to Niagara Falls. My point is that cuts have been made, ideological cuts, and that has actually opened up our exposure to these elements.

With regard to Bill C-24, my worry is that we do not have any of the important backstops that are necessary to look at the tax havens. I want to touch on the issue of the OECD here, because it is important that people understand that there is a blacklist that includes countries that do not live up to any expectations or standards. There are really no countries left on the blacklist that I am aware of. The grey list includes a number of countries that a do not follow some tax standards. Then there is the white list, to which Panama has been added. It has been moved to it recently, so that is a benefit.

However, at the same time, we still do not have the necessary backstops that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster proposed. One of his amendments, which was defeated by both the Liberals and the Conservatives, was a taxation agreement that would track legal income while the tax information exchange agreement would track all income, including that made through illegal means. Considering Panama's history and reputation on such matters, it would be clear that such an agreement is necessary before signing a trade deal.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster was attempting to ensure that there would be more information and a deeper tax scrutiny on Panama.That would be important because of the hundreds of thousands of corporations that are actually in Panama.

Some testimony from Todd Tucker of the Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch was very important at committee. I want to read a little of what he had to say. 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.

Later he said:

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.

That is important, because when we want to get into a fair trade deal, we need to have access to the types of conditions and strategies that we are going to compete against. These tax havens give advantages on the trade arrangement that do not favour Canadian exporters, and that is why we have seen the trade surplus diminish under the current government and a trade deficit emerge on a continual basis. Our manufacturers, our labourers, abide by international and Canadian standards that make it uncompetitive for them when corporations are able to use those subsidies, being tax havens, to basically lower their costs in the way that they are able to compete, so the realtionship becomes naturally unfair and unfitting.

I understand the pressure on the government with regard to increasing its access to markets. We have seen a couple of other interesting issues emerge recently that are motivating the government, not only with Panama but also Jordan, to move toward some type of bilateral agreement. We recently saw our international trade committee go to Europe for the European trade agreement, CETA. That agreement is very important in many respects. It has a lot of conditions that are going to be very critical for our supply management and a series of different things.

The interesting thing that took place while our trade group was in Europe was that the Conservatives signed a perimeter agreement with the United States for more harmonization on regulations and on different services and products, including food and automotive products, which might actually limit our exporting capability into Europe, because the content requirements are going to further rise between Canada and U.S. regulations and they will then also be negated for Europe.

I can understand the overall strategy of the government in trying to find alternatives out there, but again, it cannot be done in the absence of labour laws and other types of laws that are important.

On Panama, we will offer some recommendations and amendments to try to move forward. However, we are disappointed with the government's lack of ability to compromise and add those elements.

I want to touch a bit on labour rights. Panama has a history of issues with labour rights, and we do not have the type of scrutiny necessary to evaluate this. The member for Burnaby--New Westminster was asking for a commission to be set up to look at labour rights and provide some type of mentorship, in a sense, so that there would be oversight of this trade agreement and labour rights.

In some of the countries we are trading with, labour rights are lower. These issues emerge even in the context of larger trading partners. For example, there are child labour issues with India. These can present serious problems for us to compete against.

Panama, as we know, has ships under flags of convenience. That is important because it allows Panama to lower its labour standards, putting a whole bunch of people at risk, while limiting our capability to compete.

We saw the very high-profile case of Paul Martin's Canada Steamship Lines using flags of convenience. There was quite a controversy in this country. It was really shocking that a prime minister's company would take advantage of this loophole for labour rights to be able to advance his own pocketbook from Canada Steamship Lines. Flags of convenience are another situation that is not addressed in this agreement.

Therefore, we are going to oppose the bill at this particular time. We feel that there should have been some greater compromise with this.

Also, the member for Burnaby--Westminister proposed a yearly review of this deal to examine whether or not Panama has actually advanced on some of the tax haven issues. We would be open to those things as long as there was going to be some greater scrutiny and follow-up. That is the problem with just accepting the bill the way it is right now.

As I conclude, I want to say for the record that New Democrats are supportive of a trade agreement. There is no doubt about that. However, we want to see progressive trade as the difference, and there has to be some balance with regard to our operations and our trade agreements. Right now we are continuing to gut the Canadian economy with some of our trade agreements. How they are working out has led to Canada having the lowest number of manufacturing jobs since we have been tracking them in the 1970s. This is a real problem, because we are losing the value-added work that is necessary for this country to compete in the global economy. What we are witnessing is that when we open up trade, sectors of the economy have actually lost some of their strength.

We can look at the tool and die and mould-making industry, for example. There has always been the argument that we have to go to high-end, value-added manufacturing to be okay, and that will be a way that we can actually evolve our economy. However, tool and die and mould-making in Canada are the best in the world, but we are struggling to maintain it because of tariff and non-tariff barriers and some of the things brought down in trade agreements that have opened us up to competition against lower standards for labour, lower environment rights and less scrutiny. These are real problems.

We have not addressed some of the serious issues. When we actually have some power and some capability, as in the case of Panama, we should have some conditions built into the agreement that would require analyzing and reviewing it to ensure that those things are measured and taken seriously. We would then be able to put pressure on Panama to comply.

The hon. parliamentary secretary said that if we did not do this, we would be punishing Panama and it would go back to being a greater tax haven. First of all, we still do not know the evidence. President Sarkozy was very clear in his remarks. In fact, he was asked to apologize for his remarks and refused. He is very serious about the effects of the tax haven situation in Panama. I do not know why we would not measure and analyze this. Why would we not build into our base model for trade with Panama the ability to influence, in order to end that type of practice? If we did that, we would have a greater effect on the drug trade, organized crime and corporate responsibility. A series of measures would allow Canadians to compete, while also helping to deal with these issues around the globe. We have an opportunity to do this.

We should not just let the OECD determine our relationship with another country. That is not right. We should be putting our own standards of greater scrutiny in place, because we know there are a lot of politics relating to the OECD. However, if we are serious, we have an opportunity for Canada to have a stronger relationship with Panama. We can actually then have some scrutiny over the conduct in Panama. Leaving it to the OECD is not enough. Its members have disagreements on what a tax haven is. At the same time, OECD members like President Sarkozy note that the tax haven situation has not gone away. I think the evidence is strong enough that it merits our making some amendments. We will look at that in committee.

We are disappointed that the government came back with the same bill. It has been around a number of times, the first being August 11, 2009. The bill has been punted back and forth and subjected to electoral changes, yet has not changed at all. That is a real problem for us. We would have thought that at some point the government would introduce some of the measures it heard concerns about, so that it could move the bill through the House more quickly. There is no doubt that if there was that intent, we could move this legislation through the system a lot more quickly.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster was very clear about our concerns with respect to the bill. We would take this approach: we would go back to committee and examine it and hopefully have an opportunity to convince the government to make these changes. If the government were willing to make these changes, then we would work with it to move the legislation through as long as it would ensure that the tax haven, human rights and labour issues would be addressed and that there would be an ability for us to follow through. If we just act in blind faith, we know the results. We know the government's record.

Canada has diminished its capability to trade, especially from the value-added aspect. We are about more than just oil, gas and natural resources in this country. This country was built on value-added work, especially after the Second World War, when there was a real intent to make sure there would be opportunities. Just opening up a market and reducing tariffs and trade does not guarantee that we actually improve our quality of life.

There is no doubt that we want greater access to these markets in Panama, Jordan and the EU. Some policies will be changed; people who have already invested in businesses and parts of the economy will be affected. We need to identify those areas and ensure that Canadians can compete in a fair way. There may be damage to certain sectors of the economy. I know that the government is looking at putting supply management on the chopping block in a number of different agreements. If we implement those types of measures, there has to be a business case and a plan. Therefore, we should be proposing a series of amendments at committee to ensure that these issues can be taken care of.

I appreciate the opportunity to debate this bill. I think it is important for Canadians to understand where our economy is going. Our trade deficit has gone so dramatically high that it is a serious threat to our national economy and to our quality of life. It really shows the mismanagement of the government by just blindly thinking it can sign small bilateral agreements to solve the Canadian economy. We have to have a value-added economy. This agreement is a small part, but it actually has a big part to play in the tax haven issues.

The reality that we all understand is that Panama, as the canal opens up, will have a lot of power. The question is, what will we do right now to ensure there is some fairness and reciprocity regarding the abuse of tax havens?

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

Mr. Speaker, those were interesting closing comments on reciprocity from the member opposite. Trade agreements truly are about reciprocity. They are about rules-based trading between equal partners. If I can summarize, the hon. member does not support free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, Peru, Honduras or Jordan, because we should not be trading with those countries. However, if we look at more developed nations, the members opposite do not support free trade agreements with Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein or the 28 members of the European Union. I do not know who they support as free trade partners.

I have a problem with what the hon. member said about companies trading with the European Union. Although he got off topic about Canadian content, it is very clear. I spoke to manufacturers, agricultural producers and people in the fishery about the EU agreement; not one of them was worried about Canadian content. It is good enough for the OECD countries, but it is not good enough for the NDP—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason I delved into the European trade agreement is that, at the time, our committee in Brussels and Paris was actively pursuing policies here in Canada and North America that would erode our capability to take advantage of that agreement if it went ahead. That is the reality. Some of the standards that we would adopt under the Canada–U.S. perimeter security agreement would eliminate products and services that we can now bring into Europe because of content provisions and laws in that agreement. This is the challenge we are faced with, as these two things are happening at once.

I want to return to the OECD question from the parliamentary secretary. I do not think it is right for us, when we know the significant tax haven, drug running and money laundering situation in the history of Panama, to turn a blind eye and say that the OECD has let us out of this one. We know the political pressure, because the OECD countries want to ship through Panama. Panama has a big stick, as the canal is opening up. At the same time, the OECD standards should not be a whitewash for us. We should use this as an opportunity to at least do some follow-up on the money laundering situation, the crime and organized efforts that have been identified in Panama.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, countries like India are quickly becoming strong world economic powerhouses. There are other countries where we have adopted aggressive immigration policies, where we have seen growth of countries and communities, like the Filipino community. Could the member indicate what the NDP's policy is on developing freer trade with countries like India and the Philippines?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at some of these bilateral agreements, we should be taking into account environmental, labour and health issues. I will use India as an example. We do want to trade more with an emerging economy like India, but we have to watch out, because we ship asbestos to India. We have pictures, documents and other information showing children working with Canadian asbestos with no protection. We know India has child labour issues. We believe that some of these considerations should be written into the agreements, to advance and benchmark them, so there is actually progress.

We are never going to compete if child labour is going to be used in manufacturing, assembling and exporting of the same product. That is just never going to happen. First, it is not ethical. Second, the conditions, wages and treatment of the workers give them such a competitive advantage. This is why they do it. They treat people inhumanely in order to lower the cost of the product. That is just wrong. We believe those things should be addressed, benchmarked and worked on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to my colleague, the critic for international trade.

The parliamentary secretary went to some length talking about all of the trade deals that the NDP does not support. Of course, the issue here is that these are trade deals that are developed by the government. That is the concern. Not all trade deals are of concern, and the critic has been clear on that.

One of the problems, and I would ask him to comment on this, is the fact that the government never does an adequate assessment of what the wins and losses are going to be, and the expected impact in terms of the jobs in Canada as a result of a particular deal. Would the member comment on that aspect?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour most ably handled this file prior to his leadership campaign, which required him to take another route. He took a very balanced approach to the trade file.

I think it is important to recognize that we want to see some balance with regard to these trade agreements. He is rightly talking about the examination of the winners and losers in trade agreements. When businesses emerge out of our Canadian economy, and then all of a sudden the government changes where they can operate, how they can operate, who is going to be the competition and how, then there needs to be an examination of these changes. This will help improve the environment, or at least provide an opportunity to adjust to the new environment.

The government is changing the whole field for these companies, whether it be the auto sector or the supply management for dairy and agricultural sectors. A range of problems can emerge.

We are asking for the examination and identification of vulnerabilities. We are also asking for a business plan so that those organizations know what they are getting into, know what the new world environment is going to be so that they can succeed or at least have some time to adjust.

A good example was our chance to buttress the time for trade on textiles with China. I think it bypassed us, while even our own North American competitors took it up and protected their industries. The United States took advantage of it. We did not. As a result, it killed our textile industry, quite significantly and a lot more quickly than necessary.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a particular concern of the Green Party in relation to the proposed trade agreement with Panama is the investor-state provisions, which essentially parallel the investor-state provisions for NAFTA. I would have hoped that, as we go forward with trade agreements, we would learn from our mistakes. Chapter 11 was clearly a mistake and it disadvantaged Canadian democratic institutions. It caused us to repeal legislation that protected us from toxic gasoline additives, and put us in jeopardy in such matters as the Abitibi-Bowater contract with Newfoundland and Labrador.

Does the member have any comments on the mistakes made under chapter 11 of NAFTA and why we might want to fix them before going into this agreement with Panama?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important question because chapter 11 has made corporate power over public policy power a very significant issue.

It can involve everything: milk, chemicals on property, water quality and a whole series of issues that we should not have to give up.

One of the interesting things about NAFTA is that Canada is the only country in the world that gave up its natural resources control. We gave that up with NAFTA. It is incredible. Not even Mexico gave that up. Mexico kept that protection element on public policy.

We are the only country in the world that has given up that crucial element. That is why we have to go on bended knee to the United States all the time. We have given up our number one tactical advantage to be able to trade with the rest of the world.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to 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.

I mentioned the full title because I do believe that very important parts of this agreement, and ones we have been pushing for a long time, are the side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment. Whether they are strong enough at the end of the day, that is certainly something at which the committee will have to have a more in-depth look.

For years, various trade agreements have left out the important points of labour and the environment. It is unconscionable that in a trade agreement we would ask our businesses to compete on so-called fair free trade with other countries, where there are abuses of labour, low paid labour, and regulations on the environment, others do not. It is important to use these trade agreements to bring up labour and environmental standards around the world.

The trade agreement with Panama, though, is yet another example of the government pursuing new arrangements at the expense of established agreements. The most recent indication that the government is better at talking about the significance of trade while ignoring the practical matter of securing our trade with countries we have been trading with for a long time is demonstrated by the most recent trade statistics.

This past Friday, Stats Canada indicated that our merchandise exports declined by 3% and imports increased by 1.9%. Our trade balance, again, slipped into deficit.

While we are getting all kinds of talk from the government and the member for London West earlier in his remarks when asking a question of the parliamentary secretary talked about how aggressive the government is in securing trade agreements. Yes, it is aggressive. There is no question about that. However, it is aggressive in flitting all around the world trying to establish agreements with any number of countries, not big players in terms of actual trade, but while it is doing that, it is ignoring the countries with which we already have established trading relationships, especially the United States.

The government's mismanagement of Canada's trading relationships has resulted in trade deficits for the first time in 30 years, and that is worrisome.

Yes, while we support this particular trade agreement, we believe the government is failing over all in terms of a trade agenda around the world, basically by ignoring the key market that we trade with, which is the United States. In that market, in terms of the value of trade on a daily basis, more than $1.4 billion is traded between Canada and the United States. According to the international trade publication of Canada's State of Trade 2011, in 2010 the United States market accounted for 74.9% of our merchandise exports, and by 2040, according to the trade department itself, the U.S. share of Canada's exports will be 75.5%.

That regardless of the diversification of trade, even this government acknowledges, in its own documentation, that the United States is and will remain the dominant trading party of this country.

I express that because of all the propaganda and rhetoric we are getting from the government. It talks about a new trade deal here a new trade deal there. It is negotiating Panama today, but it is ignoring our established markets, and that point has to be made.

So yes, while the Conservatives sign the agreements, and they can add up the numbers, the fact of the matter is that they are failing Canadians on the trade agenda, especially with the United States of America.

In terms of merchandise trade, in 2010 Canada exported $339.4 billion internationally. The vast majority of our merchandise trade was with 10 countries, which, in descending order, were: the United States, accounting for 74.9%; the United Kingdom, 4.1%; China, 3.3%; and then Japan, Mexico, Germany, Korea, Netherlands and Brazil.

It is sad to say that we are now starting to lose ground in the Korean market, which is one of those top 10. The United States has just signed a free trade agreement with Korea and the tariffs to the United States will come down.

Korea is a huge market for Canadian pork and beef. However, the discussions between Canada and South Korea just seemed to have dried up. I do not know whether it is a dispute or whether the Minister of International Trade is trading off Canadian pork producers because the Minister of Finance is so concerned about the auto industry that is in his backyard.

The government has to come together and balance, in an auto-pact kind of way, in order to protect the Canadian car industry, which the Minister of Finance clearly wants to do as it is in his own backyard. However, the Minister of International Trade has to stand up to the Minister of Finance and say that Canadian pork and beef exports to Korea, where we trade over $1 billion in that market now, are important too.

Every day from here on, with the United States tariffs coming down, we are going to start to lose our Korean market share. It will go up for the United States and down for Canada. It is time that the Minister of International Trade stood up for Canadian pork producers in that particular market.

This is not Panama, but is an important market and we have to pull the whole trade agenda into context. Panama is important, but it is extremely important that we not lose markets wherein we have already established a market share.

Canada is a trade dependent nation with 80% of our economy depending on access to foreign markets for Canadian exports. The Liberal Party supports the principle of free trade. We support initiatives that improve market access for Canadian business.

To look back at how we got into some of these established markets, we see a failing with the current government. Prime Minister Chrétien led trade missions, sometimes with premiers and businesses, to China and other countries around the world to establish and expand the trading relationship. That is not happening with the present Prime Minister. The trade minister seems to be flying around the world, but as I said, we are losing established markets. We cannot continue to allow that to happen.

The international trade committee studied Bill C-46 in the previous Parliament and consulted with stakeholders to ensure that the agreement was generally good for Canada. The committee travelled to Panama and I believe to Jordan as well. I congratulate the committee on its work.

However, I agree with the parliamentary secretary that we do not need to go through that broad hearing process again. It is on the record and we can look at it. I think there are other issues that we need to look at as a committee in order to do our work, but we do not need to repeat what was already done. I would hope that we can give this piece of legislation relatively quick passage in the House.

Panama has a relatively small economy. In 2009 we exported $90 million in goods to the country. It is, however, a stable country which has made significant progress in recent years in terms of development and democracy, which Canada is well placed to encourage.

Some of the exports that have great potential in Panama, such as fish, shellfish, french fry potatoes and agriculture products, do come from my region of the country, so the agreement should be good for some businesses and farmers in my own particular region.

I would like to put this into perspective. While this is a very worthwhile venture, the Conservative government has been lagging behind our competitors in important emerging markets like China and India, and this has been mentioned by previous speakers, and has only recently attempted to engage in those markets. Canada should be focusing its trade agenda on larger growing markets where there are more opportunities for Canadian businesses and Canadian employers.

The Conservative government has been failing, and I underline that, to protect Canadian interests vis-à-vis our largest trading partner, the United States. The United States is engaging in increasing protectionism, which has already hurt Canadian businesses, yet the Conservative government seems to be doing virtually nothing.

Time and again we have asked the Minister of International Trade about the buy American issue, and he has surprised and disappointed us. We asked him about the additional fees on products going by sea and air into the United States, and he surprised and disappointed us.

Against the rule of law and undermining democracy, the Canadian government is trying to do away with the Canadian Wheat Board, and the bill may pass through the Senate tonight against the ruling of the Federal Court and against the rule of law.

To the disadvantage of producers in this country, the government is giving to the Americans, undermining democracy in the process. The Americans have challenged Canada 14 times with respect to that particular agency. Canada won every time and now the government is going to give it away. One has to wonder who the minister is really working for. Is he working for American or Canadian producers?

It is one thing to kill the Canadian Wheat Board, but are the Americans going to reduce their subsidies? No, they will not. They never negotiated anything like that. It is a win for the Americans, and that is the problem that we are seeing with the Conservative government.

At the WTO we won the issue with respect to COOL, country of origin labelling. Is the government demanding that the Americans pay compensation to our producers? No. Our industry lost over $5 billion as a result of that illegal, improper action by the United States, and the minister just sits on his hands. It just gives them something else in return. That is the key point in terms of the trade perspective.

Panama is important. Bill C-24 is a reasonably decent bill, but the government has been avoiding the bigger and broader trade issue. At the end of the day, even with a new trade agreement, Canadian exporters and Canadian businesses seem to be consistently losing ground, and they are feeling it in their pocketbooks.

We support Bill C-24, but our focus in terms of trade is on the larger issues and larger trading partners, both existing and potential, that the government is neglecting to the detriment of the Canadian economy and Canadian jobs.

The agreement with Panama is helpful and in the opinion of the Liberal Party the legislation should move to committee for further examination. As I said a moment ago, we do not need to take months to examine it. We should be able to give the bill reasonably quick passage if we examine it critically.

I have a couple of points on Panama. In spite of the global economic downturn, Panama's GDP grew at 10.7% in 2008, one of the highest in the Americas. In 2010, Panama's GDP growth stood at 7.5%. Panama is Canada's largest export market in Central America. The bilateral trading relationship has grown 61% since 2009, reaching $213 million in bilateral trade in 2010.

Primary Canadian merchandise exports to Panama include machinery, vehicles, electronic equipment, pharmaceutical equipment, pulses and frozen potato products. Canadian service exports include financial services, engineering, information and communication technology services. Merchandise imports from Panama include precious stones and metals, mainly gold; fruits; nuts; fish; and seafood products.

The existing Panama Canal, vital, as we know, for the international trading system, is being expanded, with completion slated for 2014. The $5.3 billion expansion is expected to generate opportunities for Canadian companies in construction, environmental engineering and consulting services, capital projects and more. That is an opportunity for Canadian companies to work on the ground and to gain economy back home in terms of increasing the size of Panama Canal so it can handle super Panamax vessels.

Elements covered by the FTA include market access for goods, cross-border trade and services, telecommunications, investment, financial services and government procurement. Panama maintains an average most-favoured nation, applied tariffs on agriculture products of 13.4%, reaching as high as 260% on some products. The FTA would eliminate these immediately, and that is a good thing, in the case of 90% of the products and gradually on the rest over the next 5 to 15 years. This would likely enhance the competitive position of Canadian agriculture products, such as frozen potato products; pulses; beans and lentils; pork, which was previously taxed at 47%; malt; processed foods; and beef. As I said earlier, several of those products are important to the Atlantic region.

On non-agriculture goods, Panama maintains an average MFN applied tariff of 6.2%, reaching as high as 81% on certain key Canadian exports. The FTA would completely eliminate these tariffs, which could help Canadian exporters of fish and seafood, construction materials and equipment, industrial and electronic machinery, paper products, vehicles and parts. Canada would immediately eliminate over 99% of our tariffs on current imports from Panama.

The free trade agreement also addresses non-tariff barriers by adopting measures to ensure non-discriminatory treatment of imported goods, promoting good regulatory practices, transparency and use of international standards. Ratifying this free trade agreement appears to have little economic risk for Canadian industries. The concerns that have yet to be resolved and relate to the issue of Panama is Panama as a tax haven and the issue of money laundering. I do not want to get into the technicalities in those particular areas. That is an issue that we need to talk about at committee. I asked the parliamentary secretary a question earlier. We see that as an important issue that really does need to be addressed.

The bottom line is that we are supportive of this particular trade agreement but we are critical of the government in terms of its overall trade agenda where it continues to lose out on already established markets as it vies to find new ones.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated listening to the member for Malpeque talk today. I can remember being down in Washington with him a couple of years ago when we were fighting together for our farmers, fighting against the country of origin labelling on which the WTO backed us. I know the member has great passion and great understanding for the agriculture industry.

I have a question for the member for Malpeque. It seems like the Liberal Party will stand behind this bill, and I commend them for that, but could he explain to the government why the NDP is opposed?

If we listen to the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, he said, “The problem with this bill is it is about the Conservative Party”. There is no issue with who develops the bill. If the bill is good for Canada, it is good for Canada and it should not matter who develops it.

Could the member explain to us and maybe give us some insight on why the NDP is so against any type of trade deal?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it would not be up to me to speak for members of the NDP. They are quite capable of speaking for themselves.

I did listen to the trade critic's remarks earlier when he talked about some of the concerns with this bill. I do recognize and agree with him on some of those concerns.

However, from the Liberal Party's point of view, the overall initiative here is a good one. I outlined in my remarks that we think it is very important that the FTA does have the side agreements on labour and on the environment. It is a good enough bill that we believe it should be given relatively quick passage at committee, move ahead and get on with some of the other trade issues that are irritants to Canadians.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although we might have some differences with the bill, the one thing we seem to have in common is with regard to the tax haven, even though Panama has been moved on the list to the white list.

Would the member be open to an amendment to this bill that would analyze the changes in Panama and then one year later having some consequences if it has not abided by those changes or it continues to be a tax haven and continues to be an area for money laundering, drug laundering and where corporations can use tax haven loopholes to their benefit against Canadian corporations and others?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is open to any kind of discussions. We would look at those amendments very seriously.

The member is correct to mention that Panama is moving on the list through a grey area to a white area, and that is a good step forward. However, I do think it is our responsibility as members at committee to not just take the OECD or somebody else's word for it, but to look seriously at a couple of concerns. One of them is certainly money laundering of mainly drug money and two is the tax haven issue.

We will be aggressively pursuing witnesses who can talk about that issue and outline what is really happening within Panama on those two points. We are well open to looking at amendments that could clarify the matter and put the pressure on to see that some of these issues are indeed resolved.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member is surprised and disappointed by the number and frequency of occasions on which the Minister of International Trade has been surprised and disappointed?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, one of the historical statements by the Minister of International Trade will be “surprised and disappointed”. I mentioned it in my remarks. He was surprised and disappointed when the Americans came in with buy American even though President Obama was telescoping that they were going that way, that they were looking at implementing some policy of buy American, which would be against everything, our protectionist stance since June 28. Come October sometime and the minister was surprised and disappointed that it happened. Where was the proactive activity on the part of the government?

The second area where he was surprised and disappointed was on the $5.50 fee from sea and air going into the United States. That was in legislation in the House for four weeks and yet the minister was surprised and disappointed.

The point being is that the minister needs to be proactive in relations with the United States, our most important trading partner. It does no good to flit and fly all around the world when we are losing ground in our most important economic trading relationship. The minister, instead of being surprised and disappointed, needs to finally stand up for Canadians in this trade arena.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to travel with the member for Malpeque this past week, as we travelled to Europe on some issues relating to international trade. The reason I mention this is that in his earlier statement the member said that this government was ignoring major countries around the world. I cannot think of a larger trading block, frankly, than the EU. The member would also know that we are on the verge of doing some great work with India as well. Those are two major markets around the world.

The member expresses surprise and disappointment. I think if he were to sincerely express surprise and disappointment it would be over the lack of free trade deals that in the 13 years he was part of the Liberal government the Liberals, frankly, did not put together. What he should be pleased about is the fact that we have had so many free trade deals established around the world. Frankly, that is a harbinger of great things to come.

I wonder if he would comment on those great opportunities.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the member for London West missed it during my remarks but the reason we are doing so well in the export arena to this day, including in China, is because of some of the trade trips Prime Minister Chrétien took premiers and business folks on with him. That is where we started expanding trade. Maybe he missed it.

As I also said in my remarks, this is the first time in 30 years that we have had a deficit in merchandise trade and the current government is there. Just talking about trade is not enough. We have trade agreements in place with the United States, being one. We have a good export market in South Korea, being another. However, because we are not in the South Korean market, because I think the Minister of International Trade has caved in to the Minister of Finance, we are now seeing ourselves in the position of losing a billion dollars worth of pork and beef exports to Korea. As the member for London West and I found out when we were in Europe, and good work by the committee there I will admit, we probably will not regain the pork market, which we have lost in Korea, in Europe.

My point is that, while it is important to establish new agreements, it is even more important to not lose ground in the agreements that we have already established with the United States, Korea and elsewhere. That is where the government is going wrong. That is why we have a merchandise trade deficit for the first time in 30 years.

I would ask the member for London West and certainly the Minister of International Trade to wake up and smell the roses. They must start standing up for Canadians in the trade agreements we already have. Yes, do the expansion, but hold our ground on the trade agreements that we already have and see that we are not taken of advantage of by protectionism in the United States south of the border.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about the issue of labour in the context of the Canada free trade agreement.

It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about the issue of labour, in the context of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

We live in an increasingly global community and it is integral that we work to broaden and deepen our trading relationships with countries around the world. Canada's pro-trade plan is creating economic opportunities and jobs for Canadians. As our focus remains on the economic recovery, trade agreements are opening up new markets and helping Canadian workers and businesses compete internationally. While improving trade opportunities for Canadian workers and businesses, we also recognize that ensuring strong labour principles, practices and standards is important. That is why Canada has negotiated a strong labour provision in parallel with this free trade agreement.

This labour agreement would ensure a level playing field for Canadian workers and businesses while creating good well-paying jobs for Canadian workers by making it clear that as we grow our economies, we will create jobs and economic growth in both our countries.

We know that the NDP does not want to support freer trade and we have a fundamentally different approach to engaging internationally than the NDP has. It prefers isolation, but we know that through engagement we can promote economic growth that would benefit workers in both countries. The NDP's record speaks for itself. It has opposed every single free trade agreement Canada has ever signed, including the North American free trade agreement and agreements with Chile, Costa Rica, Israel, Peru, Colombia, Panama, the European free trade association, Jordan and Honduras.

Through trade we are creating jobs and prosperity here in Canada. One in five Canadian jobs is generated by trade. We understand that through trade agreements such as this one, we create jobs and prosperity right here in our country. However, as part of the Canada–Panama agreement on labour co-operation, Canada and Panama have committed to ensuring that their labour laws as well respect and embody the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. It is through this declaration that we demonstrate our shared commitment to improving labour standards and protecting workers' rights. It also demonstrates this government's firm belief that through trade we create economic growth and prosperity for workers in both countries.

I can confidently say that despite the NDP's protestations, the provisions found in the Canada–Panama labour co-operation agreement are thorough, comprehensive and robust. Both countries have committed to provide protections for occupational health and safety, including compensation in cases of injury or illness. Both countries have committed to establishing and maintaining minimum employment standards, including with respect to wages and hours of work. The parties have also agreed to provide migrant workers the same legal protections as those afforded to nationals. This prevents discriminatory working conditions and protects some of the most vulnerable workers. Overall, this agreement would help create and maintain productive and healthy labour environments that would benefit both countries.

As members can appreciate, these commitments are only as strong as the dispute resolution mechanisms and penalties that back them up. That is why this agreement also includes a strong dispute resolution mechanism that is transparent and easy to use. Both countries would be obligated to respect the agreements and could face financial penalties should they fail to respect internationally recognized labour rights or fail to enforce domestic labour laws. The Canada–Panama free trade agreement also includes a non-binding chapter on labour that reaffirms both countries' obligations and objectives as found in the parallel agreement on labour co-operation. As part of the Canada–Panama agreement on labour co-operation, the Canadian government has agreed to work with Panama to actually improve labour standards and help protect workers.

Through the international program for professional labour administration, Canada is currently funding projects in Panama to build institutional capacity, to foster social dialogue and to promote rights-based labour migration administration strategies. The Government of Canada also recently provided funding for a project to promote occupational safety and health.

By voting in support of Bill C-24, the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act, our government will further strengthen the relationship that we are building with Panama. The bill seeks to implement the free trade agreement and the parallel labour co-operation and environment agreements with Panama.

This Conservative government will be voting to pass this legislation in order to support strong labour practices, strengthen Canada's economic position and build on our previous successes with our global partners.

I move:

That this question be now put.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as it seems that the debate has just begun at second reading, I ask the hon. minister, what is the reason for any haste at this point to invoke closure on debate yet again? Frankly, I am quite shocked by this and I would like to hear some attempt at an explanation for why the House of Commons cannot continue to debate this important legislation.

Are the House of Commons and parliamentary practice now merely nuisances for the government of the day?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been very clear that we view trade as important to this country. In fact, we are the most trade-dependent nation in the G8. We have seen great results from trade. Time is of the essence. It is very important that we move on with the economic recovery and with our trade agenda.

I am very pleased to outline all of the benefits for Panama with respect to labour agreements, funding and helping capacity. Quite frankly, the sooner we get on with this, the better

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

Mr. Speaker, I am again disappointed at the way the government is so quick to move closure on any debate that comes up in this Parliament. It is not happy enough to have a majority, it wants to bring the hammer down on any debate and make sure that nobody has the opportunity to raise important issues.

The Minister of Labour has a mandate to be responsible for labour and for rules and regulations that affect working people in the country. I would think that she too would be concerned and vigilant about similar regulations and laws as they relate to working people in other countries. If we are to be respectful and treat workers properly in this country, why would we not want to do the same in other countries?

I would like the minister to give me some assurance that she has been vigilant. I would ask her to tell us that in fact labour rights would be protected under the terms of the Panama agreement.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that we do take it very seriously.

The other free trade agreements that have labour co-operation agreements attached I think would be the best examples. For example, I was able to travel down to Colombia last year to speak not only with the government but with the United Nations representatives, who were doing incredible work there on social dialogue. I also spoke with members of the union to ascertain their point of view as to what help the Canadian government could give to improve capacity and occupational health and safety. I have done the same in terms of travelling to Brazil and speaking to counterparts there. There is always that tripartite relationship of speaking with the government, the workers and business to ascertain what Canada can do to bring a stellar labour law legislation system to other countries. They can learn from us and we can learn from them too.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as a point of information for myself, regarding Panama, where is it right now with this deal? Does Panama feel as compelled as we do to pass this agreement very quickly?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can only speak for the current Government of Canada and that we do feel an urgency for it to pass.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Well, what if they don't?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

We have worked long on it. There have been several rounds of negotiations. My officials in labour have been talking to officials in Panama. As I mentioned in my remarks, we have had the ability to do some co-operative and funding programs with Panama. I look forward to having a bilateral discussion with my counterpart in Panama in order to ratify this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for sharing her time with me.

It is a pleasure and honour to rise in the House to talk about the benefits of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement and what it would bring to Canadian workers and their families from coast to coast to coast.

With one in five Canadian jobs generated by trade, we recognize how important our success depends on our ability to access foreign markets and global value chains. Our government received a strong mandate on May 2 to implement an ambitious job-creating free trade plan that will benefit Canadian workers and their families. Our plan is creating jobs and economic growth for Canadian workers and their families. For example, on August 15 of this year, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement came into force. Through that agreement, Canada's producers and exporters will benefit from reduced or eliminated tariffs on nearly all of Canada's current exports to Colombia. This agreement demonstrates our government's commitment to creating good new jobs and economic growth for Canadian families, workers and businesses.

We continue to work to provide Canadian workers and companies with opportunities for growth in key economies. The access to foreign markets and the rules for secure and stable trade and investment across our borders is of key importance. Passing the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act is an important part of this plan. This agreement represents an opportunity for Canadian workers and businesses to expand their operations in the growing and dynamic Panamanian economy.

Although small in size, Panama is a significant player in the region. It is a platform for commercial activity through Latin America and is a nexus for world trade. Canadian workers and businesses want to deepen their ties with Panama, access new commercial opportunities, and further develop their operations in this exciting market. Passing the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act would help our export-oriented industries, investors and service providers do just that.

Many Canadian sectors have already demonstrated their interest in Panama. These include the machinery, motor vehicles and parts, pharmaceutical equipment, pulse crops, and other sectors. Our agreement with Panama would give these and other exporters enhanced access to the Panamanian market, addressing both tariff and non-tariff barriers. The agreement would offer tangible benefits to Canadians and companies across all regions of this country.

We should consider the prospective benefits to Western Canadian families. This agreement would specifically help my home province of British Columbia, as wood exporters would no longer have to pay Panamanian tariffs of up to 15% on their wood products. It would remove a significant barrier. It would be a great opportunity for British Columbia and the western forestry industry. Exporters of fats and oils would see tariffs as high as 30% eliminated from their products.

Alberta's power generating machinery sector and information and communications technology sector would no longer have to contend with tariffs of up to 15% on their exports to Panama. Agriculture producers in Saskatchewan would see the elimination of tariffs on pulses and cereals, which currently amount to 15% and 40% respectively. In Manitoba, producers of precious stones and metals, as well as iron and steel, would benefit from the elimination of Panamanian tariffs of up to 15% on their exports. In addition, Western Canada's investors that are active in the mining sector in Panama would benefit from this agreement's investor protection and legal framework.

Shifting to the other side of the country, the Atlantic region would also stand to significantly benefit from the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. My hon. colleague, the member for Malpeque, will be especially interested to know that Prince Edward Island potato producers would see the elimination of Panamanian tariffs as high as 81% on their exports. I think that would make our folk legend, Stompin' Tom Connors, sing about Bud the Spud from the bright red mud rolling down the highway smiling, because the spuds are big in the back of Bud's rig and they are from Prince Edward Island. There would be more spuds rolling down to Panama if we get this agreement through the House.

In New Brunswick, producers of frozen french fries would no longer face Panamanian tariffs of up to 20%. Paperboard producers would see the elimination of tariffs reaching up to 15%.

Nova Scotian exporters of trees and plants will see the elimination of tariffs of up to 15% and tariffs of up to 20% will be eliminated for vehicles and parts exporters.

In Newfoundland, the information and communications technology sector will see the elimination of Panamanian tariffs of up 15% on Canadian products.

That is not all. The benefits of this free trade agreement will also be felt in Ontario, where key exports to Panama include pharmaceuticals, industrial and electrical machinery, vehicles and scientific and precision instruments. For pharmaceutical products, tariffs as high as 11% will be eliminated. Exporters of industrial and construction machinery, information and communications technology, electronic equipment and precision instruments will see the elimination of tariffs as high as 15% for their respective sectors.

In addition, Ontario service providers active in this market, including those providing mining, banking and engineering services, will benefit from a secure, predictable, transparent and rules-based trading environment, something we have heard about over and over from Canadian businesses. They want secure, predictable, transparent and rules-based trading. They will have the advantage of being able to plan for the future.

For Quebec exporters, investors and service providers interested in expanding into the Panamanian market will receive real, tangible benefits from the implementation of the free trade agreement. With $25.7 million in merchandise exports to Panama last year, Quebec accounts for the largest share of Canada's two-way trade with Panama. These exports are primarily in the areas of meat, mainly pork, paper and paperboard, pharmaceuticals, fish and seafood and electrical machinery and equipment.

Quebec's automotive sector will enjoy improved access for vehicles and auto parts, with tariffs of up to 20% eliminated. Quebec's pork producers will see the elimination of tariffs as high as 70%.

For Quebec's highly competitive aerospace sector, current Panamanian tariffs of up to 15% will be eliminated. Tariffs as high as 15% on pulp and paperboard will be eliminated.

As the Forest Products Association of Canada has testified in the Standing Committee on International Trade, the Panamanian market for forestry products such as pulp and paperboard is currently worth $120 million, but this figure grows by 10% a year, a great opportunity for the forest products industry.

Canada currently only exports $6.5 million in these goods, so there is significant room for growth and this tariff elimination will help considerably. In particular, it will help Quebec plants that supply a large quantity of the Canadian paper to Panama.

Quebec's service providers will benefit as well. For instance, SNC Lavalin, a company with substantial interests in Panama, has indicated that the Canada-Panama free trade agreement will “provide a good framework for further business”.

In 2010, Panama announced a $13.6 billion strategic investment plan that would focus on economically sustainable infrastructure projects, including a $1.5 billion metro system and an airport project that will triple its current capacity.

As we can see, the passage of the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act will provide economic benefits to Canadian workers across the country from coast to coast to coast and across a wide number of industries and sector. It will provide new business opportunities for exporters countrywide, from forestry workers in British Columbia to farmers in Ontario, from information and communications technology providers in Newfoundland to manufacturers in Quebec.

We live in an era of global competition. Succeeding in the global economy means keeping pace with competitors and securing new access to foreign markets. There is no question that Canadian companies are world competitors, but the government has a role to play as well.

We need to strengthen Canada's trading relationships abroad, eliminate barriers to trade and provide opportunities for Canada's businesses to expand and grow in key markets. Our government is doing just that. We are fighting for Canadian workers and businesses to connect them with new opportunities in growing markets like Panama and to ensure they are not at a competitive disadvantage, vis-a-vis competitors benefiting from preferential market access.

With one in five jobs and over 60% of Canada's economy generated by trade, deepening Canada's trading relationships will create prosperity and opportunity for Canadian businesses, workers and their families.

While we are focused on protecting and growing Canada's economy with our job-creating, pro-trade plan, the anti-trade NDP wants to slap job-killing tax hikes on families and employers, which would kill jobs, hurt our economy and set families back. We cannot allow that to happen.

For this reason, this Conservative government and this party will be supporting the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act.

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

Mr. Speaker, Panama's labour record is not very good and it is only getting worse. Our Conservative colleagues often wonder why the NDP has problems with free trade agreements. It is simply because the emphasis is placed on the economic aspect and very rarely on the human or environmental aspects.

My question is simple: why does the Conservative government insist on trying to conclude free trade agreements that focus almost solely on economics and very little on human and environmental rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is new to the House. I had the opportunity to serve for five and a half years on the international trade committee and to travel to Panama with it in May of 2008.

I share her concerns that we all need to be responsible globally to look after the human, social and environmental components of any sustainable community. Within the trade agreement with Panama, we have what is called the labour co-operation agreement. Canada and Panama are committed to ensuring that their laws reflect internationally-recognized labour standards, including the right to freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to organize in collective bargaining.

As far as the environment, both countries will pursue high levels of environmental protection to improve and enforce the environment laws effectively. They will maintain appropriate environmental assessment procedures and ensure that they do not relax the environmental laws to encourage trader investment.

The fact is we are not silent on either one of those issues. We are working hand in glove. It is a balanced approach between the economy, the environment and the social aspects of the community to have a sustainable future for all.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of clarification. He mentioned something in Newfoundland and Labrador that would be of benefit by quite a bit in telecommunications. I think there was a percentage on it. Precisely of which company was he speaking? My colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl and I would like to know.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact name, but I would be happy to find out the specific company.

The industry overall is looking at the information and communications technology sector. There are opportunities for growth by removing barrier tariffs for industries across the country. Representatives of many businesses from the Atlantic provinces have come to the committee. This issue has been debated for over 30 hours. Between the House and committee meetings, there have been many discussions. As I said, committee members went to Panama and met with the former Panamanian ambassador. There is a new Panamanian ambassador now who will come before the committee and we will be able to provide the specific information. This agreement is a great opportunity for Canadians from coast to coast to move forward.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting House in which we all work. As part of this whole debate, the member for Malpeque had the floor at one point and we went back and forth on some questions. Then he suggested that the member for London West, who happens to be me, stop and smell the roses, while in the same breath saying that he, along with his party, would be supporting this trade agreement. I find it a very curious thing that on the one hand we can work together on something, but Liberals can still find a way to say things that, frankly, demean this process.

However, I would like to ask my hon. colleague, who I have the privilege to sit with in the committee, this question. We know that 73% of tariffs with Panama would be eliminated immediately and that this is intended to be a good deal for all of Canada. Coming from Ontario and knowing that he comes from British Columbia, what are the major benefits for British Columbia as he promotes this free trade deal with Panama?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the city of London, the 10th largest city in Canada, as I have been reminded of at a few meetings along the way, for his great work on the trade committee.

As I mentioned, for the forest industry specifically, this agreement would be a significant investment potential for forest product associations across Canada. I do not believe my hon. colleague across the way would insinuate that he does not stop and smell the flowers. He is one of the most sensitive members in the committee and I appreciate his hard work.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

I have a copy of sections of the proposed Canada-Panama agreement, including article 9.11 regarding expropriation, which describes it as being, in effect, equivalent to nationalization or expropriation except for public purposes. The language would not worry people if we did not have the experience of similar language used in chapter 11 of NAFTA to undermine decisions taken by the democratically-elected House in relation to bills that protect human health and the environment. I specifically recall the issue of the Ethyl Corporation challenging the Government of Canada.

Will the hon. member commit that we will have adequate time in the House at second reading to look through the implications of this kind of legislation, or are we to have debate closure once again?

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

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to be in the riding of the hon. member on Friday to open up Canada's largest indoor climbing wall. It is an incredible facility. Gary Lunn, who was the minister of the day, partnered with the province in this significant asset for Canada.

One of the specific questions that the member asked was on rules-based trading. It is significant and something that has been called for by businesses coast to coast to coast. They have come to our committee asking for some certainty and predictability.

We also have the side agreements on labour and the environment, which will be debated at committee. We will then come back at report stage when we will have an opportunity to debate those issues as well.

I want to reiterate for all sides of the House the significance of moving this project forward. The Minister of International Trade was in Europe last night and will be working for the next 10 days or so with the World Trade Organization.

There is an excellent article in The Canadian Press that came out last night. It talked about how Canada was working with Brazil, China, India, as well as Panama and Jordan. We are diversifying markets, as was committed to in the throne speech by the Prime Minister, so we can create jobs, hope and opportunity for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member for his intervention. However, I wish he had not blown what was a pretty good speech by including some rhetoric in it about the anti-free trade NDP.

I know the member is a very conscientious member of the international trade committee. Does he agree, and maybe he could speak to this, that it is extremely important when doing a trade deal, or any deal for that matter, to understand what the impact of the deal will be before one signs on the dotted line? People should take the time to consider all the items on the table and the different clauses that have been signed off in order to understand what the impact is so they could say with some confidence what would good and what would not.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague served a short term on the committee with us. I wish him all the best in his leadership race for his party.

We have had significant debate. We will have additional debate at the committee and it will come back to report stage.

I refer back to the article in The Canadian Press with my hon. colleague, the Minister of International Trade. He said:

I realize how critical it is to actually engage at a much higher level and much more often with our key trading partners to develop trust...Sometimes you are so close and so far away from a solution because you haven't developed that bridge.

The hon. Minister of International Trade has worked closely with the Panamanian ambassador. I have had a chance to meet with him. I know he has met with several ministers and trade officials around the world, as I mentioned, with Brazil, China and India.

This is all about relationships as we continue to work forward to build new markets for Canada. I am thankful for this opportunity and I look forward to moving this agreement through the House.

The House resumed from December 12, 2011, 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.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to speak to Bill C-24 regarding the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the interests of the people of my riding, La Pointe-de-l'Île, I would like to thank them once again for placing their trust in me on May 2. I continue to work hard every day on their behalf.

It is important to mention that the NDP does not oppose free trade agreements, despite what the Liberals and Conservatives often like to say. They say that the NDP has always been against free trade and that our party opposes all free trade agreements. That is false. We do not oppose free trade agreements; we are simply saying that Canadians must benefit from them.

I would like to commend the important work done by our former international trade critic, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. Most free trade agreements do not benefit Canadians and we can see the result of that. Every time Canada has adopted a free trade agreement, our exports have declined and our trade balance has become increasingly negative. For instance, since the Conservatives came to power in 2006, the trade deficit has gone from about $16 million to $81 million. This proves that free trade does not create jobs in Canada; instead, jobs go elsewhere, to other countries.

That was my introduction.

By way of context, since the failure of the Doha round on freer trade, the Government of Canada, in all its wisdom, has decided to negotiate a great number and variety of free trade agreements, especially bilateral agreements, without any clear strategy and without taking into consideration the possible consequences for Canadian workers of adopting multiple free trade agreements. It has not taken into account the consequences that freer international trade would have on Canada's domestic markets.

We often hear the parliamentary secretary say that one job in five relies on trade, but there are still four jobs out of five that do not and therefore rely on commerce within Canada. Those are the jobs we are talking about here.

The government is trying to copy the strategy of the United States because to this government, any American idea is a good one. It seems that the government did not take certain essential factors, such as resources, into consideration. In the same breath as the government is making cuts to the public service, it is asking the departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to simultaneously negotiate 14 different agreements, with Morocco, the European Union, the Caribbean common market, Ukraine, India, Singapore, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Korea and the Dominican Republic. Exploratory talks are also under way with Japan and Turkey.

In terms of the negotiations under way with the European Union alone, a number of stakeholders are saying there is a major risk for Canada because we are in the process of negotiating an agreement that will have a direct, major impact on businesses here. No serious impact assessment has been made by the government or, if it has, the government certainly does not want to share the results with us. While the government is struggling to create jobs in Canada, it wants to export jobs abroad. That is irresponsible.

We might also talk about the trade balance, as I mentioned earlier. It is further proof of this government's inadequacy and of the Conservatives' failure to do a satisfactory job. In 2008, we had a positive trade balance of $50 billion. Since 2009, we have had a negative trade balance of approximately $5 billion.

The government should think seriously about creating jobs here before negotiating free trade agreements that, as we know, do not promote job creation in the Canadian marketplace.

The lack of a strategy is not this government's only shortcoming. A denial of the democratic process also seems to be this government's wont. The entire negotiation process is but a farce. It makes a mockery of the democratic process if the content of what is being negotiated is, quite simply, unknown. Everything is shrouded in great secrecy and the government’s true intentions are kept secret from Canadians. We find out the details once the treaty is being ratified.

How do we expect members—who are supposed to represent the interests of their constituents—to do their job if the government keeps everything from them? There are no studies, no consulting of members, no opportunity for members to simply get information on the key negotiating points of the treaty. No information is provided. It is almost as if members had to go and ask members of the European Parliament, for example, for information on the negotiations. The government refuses to give members this information. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I am afraid that this will be a recipe for disaster and that the final product will reflect the interests of the major lobbyists, the multinationals and, of course, that small segment of the population, the top 1%. We are quite familiar with that concept.

Once again, it will be the workers who pay the price for this government's policies; they will have to pick up the tab for the caviar and champagne that the CEOs crack open when it comes time to celebrate the ratification of these free trade agreements. These individuals will in no way whatsoever take into consideration the thousands of people who will lose their jobs.

A report published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the CCPA, says that the treaty between Canada and the European Union will lead to a deepening of the Canadian trade deficit and massive job losses.

Economist Jim Stanford modelled three scenarios in order to study the socio-economic repercussions of such an agreement. In each of the scenarios considered, the model indicated a worsening of the current situation. It is important to understand that Canada already has a large trade deficit with the European Union of approximately $20 billion, of which $15 billion involves trade in goods and approximately $4 billion, trade in services.He estimates that this deficit already amounts to approximately 70,000 jobs that have relocated to Europe.

Based on the scenarios reviewed, a free trade agreement between the two regions could lead to the additional loss of somewhere between 28,000 and 150,000 jobs. According to Jim Stanford, this deterioration is due to the fact that Canadian tariffs are currently higher than European tariffs. This means that an agreement would first adversely affect Canadian products.

Is there a plan to correct this discrepancy, yes or no? The government refuses to tell us. Personally, I do not think there is one.

Unfortunately, the government does not stop there. The House is currently dealing with Bill C-24 on the implementation of the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

Again, not only is the government not creating jobs, but it is sending our money to a tax haven. Could it be that tax havens serve the middle class? Tax evasion is not something to be taken lightly.

Panama is a tax haven, and not just any tax haven: it is one of the most active, one of the least co-operative and of the most integrated with organized crime. When large corporations and rich people transfer their assets to tax havens, it means that huge tax revenues are lost for Canadian taxpayers. None of this will benefit workers, whether they are from Panama or Canada.

Let me summarize. Our jobs are being transferred to Europe, our revenues are going into Panamanian banks, corporations are not paying taxes, billions of dollars that should be reinvested in education, health and infrastructure are lost, and I see no plan to help Canadian families make ends meet, and no plan to help the Canadian economy improve.

A fair tax system is based on everyone paying a fair share of taxes. The Government of Canada is losing $9 billion annually because of these tax havens. Does this mean that, in order to make up for this shortfall, it will have to increase the tax share paid by citizens and by small and medium size businesses? Or will it have to reduce the tax rates for big companies even more, to induce them to continue doing business in Canada? This will not change anything at all. They will continue to send their money to tax havens.

The government would have us believe that cutting taxes for big corporations will stop them from putting their money in Panamanian banks, which costs Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars, but that is not true. How can this government claim that the economy is its priority? Its real priority is exporting our jobs and our money and raising individual and small business taxes.

At the same time, the government is cutting services. Take, for example, Service Canada and employment insurance, a vital service that helps people who have lost their jobs put food on the table. One of my constituents lost her house because she waited three months for her first cheque even though claims are supposed to be processed within 28 days.

The government says that this agreement is good because Panama is an established market for Canadian exports and because there is significant potential for long-term growth in bilateral trade and investment. Some large Canadian companies have sensed good business deals in the making and believe that an agreement will facilitate trade with Panama, which has a dubious tax reputation. But what will be the cost to Canadians? That is the real issue the government should keep in mind during negotiations, not the interests of its big business buddies.

There are no restrictions on capital entering or exiting Panama. Transactions are protected by banking secrecy, and financial activity is not monitored. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—the OECD—which is nevertheless fairly accommodating when it comes to evaluating how co-operative tax havens are, did not remove Panama from its grey list until July 2011. The grey list includes countries that have not signed a series of agreements to comply with international standards. The OECD Secretary-General, Angel Gurría, stated, “Panama has worked hard to achieve this milestone and has made remarkable strides toward complying with the international standards in a very short time.” However, he cautioned that the global forum must still evaluate whether Panama's domestic laws will allow for effective availability, access to and exchange of information. He said, “The global forum will follow up to make sure they work as intended. It is important that Panama continues to work to fully implement the standards.”

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. It offers foreign banks and firms a special offshore licence to conduct business there. Not only are these businesses not taxed, but they are subject to little or no reporting requirements or regulations.

The Canada-Panama trade deal would only make the tax haven problem worse. As the OECD has said, having a trade agreement without first tackling Panama's financial secrecy practices could incentivize even more offshore tax dodging.

As the member for Windsor West, the critic for international trade, has said, when we want to get into a fair trade deal, we need to have access to the same types of conditions and strategies as our competitors. These tax havens give advantages on trade arrangements that do not favour Canadian exporters, and that is why we have seen the trade surplus diminish under the current government and a trade deficit emerge and become the norm.

Our manufacturers and our workers abide by international and Canadian standards that prevent them from competing with corporations that are able to use subsidies or tax havens to reduce their costs and become more competitive, and so the relationship becomes unfair and unequal. The trade deal will not only increase tax haven abuses but will also make fighting them that much harder.

The NDP is calling for an agreement with Panama to transfer tax information. The United Kingdom, the United States, France, Italy and the Netherlands have already signed such an agreement. How can the government not respond to this demand? If the government really had the interests of Canadians and the people of Panama—who gain nothing at all from this transaction—at heart, it would stand up today and tell this House that it commits to requesting that an agreement to transfer tax information be included in the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

In 2007, the Auditor General of Canada mentioned that she had expressed concerns about the fiscal arrangements for foreign subsidiaries on several occasions in the past. The June 2008 study by the Université du Québec à Montréal concluded that the five Canadian banks avoided paying $16 billion in federal and provincial taxes by means of their offshore subsidiaries between 1992 and 2007. I would call that a hemorrhage of tax dollars.

Statistics Canada reported that $88 billion in assets of Canadian corporations were transferred offshore, that is to tax havens, in 2003. The secrecy of financial transactions in Panama makes it a major site for money laundering. According to the U.S. State Department, major Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, as well as illegal Colombian armed groups, use Panama for drug trafficking and money laundering purposes. The funds generated from illegal activity are susceptible to being laundered through Panamanian banks, real estate developments, and more.

Because money laundering consists of using illegal investments to covering up the use of money obtained through crime, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement will promote, in Canada, the illegal transfers of these black market funds. Conversely, the Colombian and Mexican mafias, which are very active in Canada, will view the agreement as a series of formalities facilitating the reverse transfer of proceeds of crime.

The Canada-Panama agreement will foster illicit activities in that country and increase tolerance for such activities. Although the importance of dealing with problems caused by tax havens was highlighted at the 2009 G20 meeting in London, Canada is moving in the opposite direction and is creating a new means of facilitating the flight of capital. This type of strategy is irresponsible. Do we really want to foster money laundering and drug trafficking? The Conservatives, who like to pass repressive bills, should be outraged.

Let us be clear. The government is negotiating an agreement at the expense of Canadian workers. This agreement will lead to the loss of millions of dollars in tax revenues. This proves that a small country like Panama can dictate Canada's policy on tax evasion. If the Government of Canada cannot stand up to Panama, how will it defend our country's interests when negotiating with the United States or the European Union?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île on her speech. I am honoured to serve with her on the Standing Committee on International Trade, where she pours her heart and soul into a subject that can be somewhat dry.

My colleague's speech raised some very important points. Teresa Healy, a senior researcher with the social and economic policy department of the Canadian Labour Congress, appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade in the course of its work on the free trade agreement with Panama. When she talked about the issue of jobs in Canada, she raised a large number of concerns and pointed out that, again recently, the president of Panama announced many unilateral changes to labour law.

We know that Panama is far from being a model in terms of workers' rights. Furthermore, it has serious problems managing its own affairs when it comes to obeying tax rules. Can my colleague tell me if entering into this agreement would not amount to condoning the serious problems that exist in Panama in terms of labour law?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question. As a member of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, this is an issue that concerns me a great deal as well. In fact, at the Standing Committee on International Trade, I have focused my speeches on human rights. There are certain provisions that have to do with human rights in the free trade agreement, but they are not an integral part of the agreement, but a separate part of the agreement.

The Americans have included these provisions in the agreement. Why is the Government of Canada refusing to ask the Government of Panama to specifically include provisions in the free trade agreement to ensure that labour rights and the fundamental rights of workers will be respected?

Here, the international organizations' fears might be realized if the government does not make more of an effort to ask the Government of Panama to stand up, be responsible and respect the rights of workers, as Canada asks of a number of its economic partners elsewhere in the world. Why not do the same in Panama? Why not ask the same of the Government of Panama? If we are talking about tax evasion and everything to do with organized crime, then it is even more important. In that type of country, human rights violations are even worse and people are generally much more at risk.

The government has to take a stand and call on the Government of Panama to respect human rights. This has to be spelled out in the agreement and not be a separate part of the agreement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we in the Liberal Party also recognize the importance of labour laws and working conditions, the environment and so forth. Whenever we go into negotiations or discussions in regard to freer trade they have to be at the top of the list in terms of ensuring as much as possible that we are contributing to that debate.

The example I will use is the pork industry. In the province of Manitoba it is a huge industry with so much potential, much like many other industries across Canada that depend on foreign trade in order to sustain themselves and allow them to grow.

What is the New Democratic Party's position on trade in general? Does it support freer trade agreements with countries such as India, the Philippines, and other countries of that nature?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I began my speech by talking about the false stereotype that the NDP is against free trade.

I am well aware and I heard many witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade say just how important free trade agreements are. However, in my speech, I demonstrated that, most of the time, the Government of Canada negotiates free trade agreements that are detrimental to local Canadian farmers. We have a trade deficit, and our exports have been drastically declining for a number of years, which shows that our exports do not increase when we sign free trade agreements and that our jobs are going elsewhere.

We are not against trade. It is important to make that distinction. There is fair trade and international trade. We know that the world is experiencing an economic crisis, but that does not mean that we have to run to every country and claim that free trade agreements will solve all of our problems. On the contrary, these agreements will create other problems.

The NDP wants to ensure that the people of Canada benefit from free trade agreements and that these agreements create jobs and benefits in Canada before giving other countries all the advantages to the disadvantage of Canadians.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, one point I find very striking when we look at proposed free trade treaties to be signed with small countries like Panama or Jordan, where there is really very marginal economic activity, is the eagerness of those countries to sign treaties with Canada. That is understandable, because Canada has an excellent reputation around the world, although it is deteriorating now that it is becoming increasingly sullied.

I recall one striking aspect of the 2008 campaign, when I ran for the New Democratic Party. I was approached by an entrepreneur of Latin American origin who told me that when he went to South America, he was told straight out that Canada was now no better than the United States, in terms of the things we have done that have seriously weakened our reputation.

Given what I consider to be unwise conclusions on the part of the government, does my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île share my concerns about Canada’s reputation and its ability to serve as a model around the world?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I share my colleague’s concerns, but simply in terms of the fact that Canada seems to be playing both sides.

Canadians are hearing something totally different from what the government says in other countries. I observed this when I went to Europe with the Standing Committee on International Trade for the free trade treaty. What the Canadian government says outside Canada sounds reassuring: do not worry, everything will be fine, the government has a majority, and so on. That is a total denial of the situation in Canada that Canadian producers find themselves in. The government is signing free trade treaties, it is abolishing the Canadian Wheat Board, and it may want to discuss supply management.

We do not know what the government wants to do, but all I know is that what it says to Canadians in an election, and even here, is completely different from what it says outside Canada. At some point, everything is going to blow up in the government’s face and it will not be able to continue along this road and sign 15 or 20 free trade treaties, thinking that Canadians are going to manage and will not understand the game it is playing now. The government is trying to distance itself from the United States as an economic partner, which is entirely legitimate, but to Canadians’ disadvantage, which is not.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

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 Mount Royal, Iran; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Poverty; the hon. member for Etobicoke North, The Environment.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this House to discuss a government bill that involves much more than simply entering into an economic agreement.

Bill C-24 is an example of a bill where one questions what benefits there will be for Canadians and Panamanians and what problems it could cause. It is quite obvious that Panama has, unfortunately, a long history of money laundering. It is not the only problem with the country's reputation, but it is the most visible. Panama is famous for the huge amounts of money laundered there in order to escape the taxman and law enforcement authorities in other countries.

One has to ask what Canada will get out of this treaty with Panama. The government wants us to approve this process. The core problem is that Bill C-24 proposes a treaty without sufficient guarantee that Panama will go to the effort required to improve its situation and become a good partner from a trade, political and social standpoint. In short, a country that is making progress for its population and for good order in the world. Panama is a far cry from that.

Throughout my speech, I am going to provide facts on Panama and the relationship that it has with Canada. I am going to put things into perspective to demonstrate the dangers that this government could expose us to by entering into this kind of agreement.

Just like my colleague, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, I serve on the Standing Committee on International Trade. Over the course of the last few months, having observed the manner in which members of the governing party have acted, I have been surprised, and even disgusted, by the government's bad faith. The government is trying to lecture us, ram through measures, and short-circuit the process of consideration without giving us an opportunity to act as equals and carefully study the issues we face. The government is trying to silence us on every issue we deal with. The government is trying to reassure us, as my colleague said previously in her speech, by telling us that it is going to negotiate in the best interests of all Canadians. The government is asking us to blindly accept what it is doing.

The elected representatives in this House and I cannot simply give this government a blank cheque. If the government really wants at least minimal approval from us, it should be amenable to debate. And I am not necessarily referring to criticism. My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île expressed it well.

On principle, the New Democratic Party is not opposed to pursuing free trade agreements. However, as regards all the free trade agreements examined in this House, and in all the debates that have taken place here, the New Democratic Party has always made observations on various fundamental aspects that affect the interests of all Canadians.

We are certainly not asking for any preferential treatment, or anything like that. We are simply asking for a respectful debate as equals between all members from all parties, whether in committee or here in the House of Commons.

I have been watching the behaviour of government members for a number of months. The government is running away from the issues to avoid facing the real challenges, its own turpitude and the problems it is creating on a large scale. That is not too strong a statement. By running away and signing all sorts of free trade agreements with countries with which we have limited trade, compared with Canada's overall trade activity with the world's nations, the government is trying to hide the fact that it is leaving Canadians to fend for themselves.

I would remind the House that, in my riding, I was the victim of the government's reprehensible abandonment when the management of White Birch Paper brutally shut down the Stadacona plant. Now, there is a possibility that management and the workers may reach a respectful agreement as equals and that the plant will resume operations. However, through its inaction or, rather, its desire to run away from the reality of Canadians and go all over the world to engage in marketing operations, the government is putting the weight of all these new treaties on the shoulders of officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Unfortunately, we recently learned that there is a bottleneck. The government does not even care about the impact that these free trade agreements, which are multiplying for no good reason, could have. That is very disturbing.

The problem is that the government wants us to approve a free trade agreement with a country that has a very bad reputation but that seems—yes, “seems”—to want to clean up its act. Unfortunately, Canada seems content to rubber-stamp the agreement without insisting on guaranteed outcomes. France did not hesitate to criticize the Republic of Panama, and it signed a tax information exchange agreement, but Canada did not. Canada wants to sign a partnership with another country without protecting itself and without knowing what it is getting itself into or whether the Government of Panama is truly making an effort to improve the situation and become a respectful and respected member of the international community.

The absence of a tax information exchange agreement is a problem to begin with, but in the context of this agreement, it can be interpreted as an agreement to protect investors. I must say that I cannot support the government in this folly. Let me be clear. I want Canadian investors to benefit from a certain degree of protection when they do business in Panama, but how is it in Canada's interest for a Panamanian investor to be protected by this kind of clause? This kind of clause in NAFTA, in chapter 11, was really bad for us. In Canada, the rule of law prevails, and all investors, like all Canadians, can rest assured that their rights will be protected if they have been wronged.

The problem is that this type of provision to protect investors creates two classes of citizens. We have seen this with our American and Mexican trading partners and, unfortunately, we risk seeing it if we sign an agreement with our European partner. On one hand, there are the average Canadians for whom the normal legal protections are in place if ever their rights are violated and if they have the means. In fact, that is another problem—whether a person has the financial means, the perseverance and the moral capacity to use the court system. All Canadians are protected in that sense. On the other hand, there is the investor class, who have extraordinary powers to take the Canadian government, or a province or municipality, to court if they feel their rights have been violated by legal provisions legitimately passed by the House.

What is this perspective, this direction that the government wants to commit to taking? Based on this provision alone, the New Democratic Party absolutely cannot support Bill C-24. Nevertheless, it is far from being the only problematic provision. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I mentioned another problem earlier: when an agreement such as this is signed with a country like Panama, we find ourselves in a position where, to some extent, we are directly supporting that country's practices and reputation. We are telling the whole world that Canada believes that everything is going very well, or at least rather well, in Panama and that, ultimately, we do not see any problem with supporting the government's practices and we are prepared to live with the consequences if things ever go awry.

It is important to remember that this type of agreement will create strong ties with Panama—very strong ties—and that the government of Panama stands to benefit very handsomely. Such an agreement is far from benign because Canada has already signed many other international agreements, whether it be human rights agreements or agreements against illegal money laundering and tax evasion.

Canada has already made commitments to all the countries in the world, or at least with all those who have signed this type of agreement, to say that it finds certain practices to be unacceptable.

This means that, by passing this bill, Canada could find itself practically committing perjury, to use a legal term. It would be perjuring its signature, its commitment to defend rights, justice, and good behaviour and to oppose bad behaviour.

Coming from a government that claims to defend victims and uphold law and order, if this were not such a serious subject, such antics would almost be funny. However, this is definitely no laughing matter. Indeed, this means that Canada is going to earn a bad reputation by association. Any time Canadians are travelling abroad, whether for business or pleasure, wand showing off Canada's savoir-faire, they may find themselves accused of supporting tax evasion, money laundering and repressing workers who are simply asserting their right to respectful, egalitarian negotiations. Those are rights that workers in Panama unfortunately do not have.

Then, Canadians will have to say that there is no problem—it is business as usual—and that this agreement is important because of business and trade worth $149 million in 2008, which really is peanuts. Too bad for our reputation, because the important thing is that we enter into this free trade agreement. I can clearly see the media scrum with a staff member of the Minister of International Trade, where this agreement will be described as “fundamental”. We are talking about $149 million. I know that trade, without free trade agreements, is increasing significantly, but this really is a small amount. It is an insignificant fraction of all of Canada's economic activities. Are we willing to sell our reputation for next to nothing for this? To use the biblical terms, in the end, Canada will sell its birthright for a mess of pottage. This is very worrisome. I do not agree with this.

As a legitimately elected representative of all Canadians, I want to maintain that reputation. Canadians have quite often said they are proud of having a reputation that until recently was practically above reproach. We see the government frantically running, out of breath, to conclude free trade agreements with Panama and Jordan, without any serious studies, without any serious guarantees that everything will go well. At the end of the day, those countries, which have very serious domestic problems, will make no effort to correct those problems. I am sorry, but Canada is positioning itself for a future role as a has-been in the community of nations. That is not an exaggeration.

I have been interested in matters of international relations for a very long time now. I even studied international relations at Laval University. Let us not forget that in the community of nations, in terms of international relations, the actions of a country are very closely observed. I know—I am convinced—that this agreement the government is trying to conclude too quickly will forever alter Canada's reputation. Indeed, a very large number of countries, upstanding ones and good partners to Canada, are going to react quite negatively to this.

The government is on notice. It cannot count on our support and I will continue to denounce this type of hastily concluded agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. The government members are trying to make this a black and white issue, and trying to say that the NDP is simply against free trade. My colleague has introduced many important nuances. My question and my comments will focus on a fairly central aspect of his speech, the international impact.

When I attend events in my riding, people often talk about Canada's international image. It is not just about involvement in a war or financial aid to countries in difficulty. It is also about our conduct when trying to reach agreements with other countries. What kind of dealings do we wish to promote—although it may be done in a more subtle and not necessarily direct manner—with a free trade agreement that is bad for the other country and for human rights in general?

I would like to give him an opportunity to provide more details about that and to tell us what we could do to improve Canada's reputation when negotiating free trade agreements.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Chambly—Borduas. As well, I congratulate him on his work on the ground. I know he is a very engaged member of Parliament. I would like to mention his youth, although I would not want to embarrass him. It is particularly important for him to be concerned about this issue, because—and not to suggest that I am a little old man since I too am very young—the fact remains that his generation is going to be committed for a long time to the kind of agreement the government is trying to get us into.

I recall very clearly that when I was his age, it was the era of the North American Free Trade Agreement negotiations with Mexico and the United States. There were several provisions I was not happy with and I criticized some of them at that time. Free trade agreement or no, we will agree that there is still work that can be done, and trade, cultural and other exchanges that are happening with countries. Often, we are too easily sold on the principle of a free trade agreement as a panacea, which it is not.

Unfortunately—and I am going to engage in a little caricature—the treaties that are signed in haste and in secret are snake oil remedies that easily end up making us sick. Let us use that image. That is why we must be vigilant and there must be a full debate in this House. That is why we must use this time fully to understand the implications and examine the impacts for all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats have been clear that they intend to vote against this bill.

I want to address the issue of international trade. All the provinces rely heavily on exports. Exportation contributes immensely to the Canadian economy and creates thousands of jobs. Canada would benefit from freer trade among nations.

To the best of my knowledge, New Democrats have never voted in favour of any free trade agreement. If that is not the case, could my colleague give me one example of a trade agreement that they have voted for?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his particularly germane question. We have always opposed free trade treaties for very simple reasons: these treaties were signed in the most naive way with our trading partners. I would offer an example relating to NAFTA. Canada is tied in to supplying oil and gas products to the United States. Unfortunately, the American government could demand delivery, even at the expense of our own interests in that regard.

The Mexican government had the wisdom not to get involved in this, even though Mexico is a major oil producer. The Mexican government valued its autonomy. I will not conceal the fact that there has been an appalling lack of candour on the part of successive governments in Canada. Because, while Canada essentially keeps its head in the clouds when it says it is freeing its market, when it invites countries to invest freely and assures them that there will be no problems, those countries, all around the world, like the emerging nations with their very productive economies, are taking strong action and seriously protecting their domestic markets, and from now on are not going to let themselves be tricked when it comes to the massive export of good jobs, which is what we are doing here.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his interesting speech. The question raised by the member who spoke before me is very interesting, but I would like to modify it. Clearly, the NDP supports trade agreements between Canada and other countries, but not at any price and not under just any conditions.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about the conditions that must be included in an international trade agreement. Such conditions would allow us to support this kind of agreement. We must ask who wins and who loses in these agreements and if they protect those who need it. The NDP often opposes such agreements. Thus, it is important to point out what conditions must be included in agreements of this kind for us to support them.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. This is a very good time to talk about what would make it possible for the New Democratic Party to support free trade agreements. I talked about the investor protection clauses, which are utter nonsense. Let me be clear. Chapter 11 of NAFTA is pure garbage. The United States and Canada are two countries governed by the rule of law that provide full protection for investors and all citizens. Why have an extra clause to protect investors? Perhaps such a clause would be useful for Canadian or American investors wishing to invest in Mexico, but even in that case, the governments of the United States and Canada could simply ask Mexico to harmonize its domestic laws.

With respect to labour law, what are we to make of free trade agreements with Jordan and Panama if these two countries do not even respect basic worker and citizen protection principles? These countries permit the authorities to engage in the arbitrary beating and imprisonment of union leaders and workers who want nothing more than respectful negotiations between equals. Unfortunately, this element, among others, has been left out of the free trade agreements brought forward by various governments over the past 20 years. That is why the New Democratic Party will never support the Canadian government in this endeavour.

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

Madam Speaker, I also want to allude to the comments made by our Liberal colleague. He said that, given that we have never voted in favour of any free trade agreement, we are automatically against any effort to promote our products and our businesses. As my two NDP colleagues said so well, we do not have to conclude such agreements at any cost and under any conditions. So far, no free trade agreement has met the expectations of Canadians and those of the international community. I would like to allow my colleague to conclude his speech by talking about that.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his remarks. The blunt statements we are getting from the government and the representatives from the Liberal Party are truly deplorable. In Quebec—and my colleagues can attest to this—on May 2, we were sent a very clear message that Quebeckers no longer tolerate this type of gratuitous accusation. The New Democratic Party will continue to look at the details and make constructive proposals for all Canadians.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to 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 co-operation between Canada and the Republic of Panama. As members of the House are aware, the Liberal Party supports this bill. The Liberal Party supports free trade and free trade agreements, and has provided leadership in that regard over many decades.

This has been an interesting bill on which to prepare my thoughts. Yes, this is a free trade agreement and we support that. In addition, Panama is the largest market for Canada in Central America, and that is significant.

It should also be noted that the Panama Canal, which is essential to international trade, is undergoing expansion to the tune of $5.3 billion. This work will create significant opportunities for Canadian companies working in construction, environmental engineering and major project consulting services, among other things.

There are some opportunities here. I want to keep in perspective in this debate that in 2009 Canada's exports to Panama totalled about $90 million. That $90 million is important to those companies that sell goods and services to Panama. I do not want to minimize that, because $90 million is $90 million. That amount could grow 30%, 50% or 100%, in which case it would be $180 million.

We support the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. It is a small positive step forward. However, I want to frame that by looking at the purpose of the free trade agreement and whether it is a good choice for Canada's resources compared with other things the government, the civil service and parliamentarians could be doing to accomplish those same objectives. My conclusion is no it is not. It is a distraction. This is yet another free trade agreement with a minor trading partner. We have seen the Conservative government ratchet up numbers with other minor trading partners to say there is another free trade agreement. It appears to be optics over substance.

I would contend that what the government needs to accomplish as its goal is a vital thriving economy that provides jobs and benefits for Canadians. That objective is not being met by the Conservative government. It is spending its time signing many small, minor free trade agreements. Where is the strategic thinking? There has been no strategic thinking. It is all optics.

The objective should be to have a strong thriving economy that creates jobs and benefits for Canadians. However, the facts clearly show that the Conservative government has a history of mismanaging our economy. For example, the government greatly increased government spending while reducing government revenues which threw the country into a deficit situation even before the onset of the recession. The government did not recognize when the recession was upon us. In fact, the government said that Canada was not in a recession and would not be in a recession. There has been a record of mismanagement by the government. One of the unhappy effects of that mismanagement is that today, Canada still has 525,000 fewer net full-time jobs than it had before the recession.

Members opposite have been throwing around job growth numbers, but they have been measuring that from the trough of the recession, which is not a metric that represents the kind of progress Canada wants to make. From before the recession to today, we want to see a country that is building jobs, building its economy and having the kind of fundamentals that allow Canadians to have jobs and feed their families.

There are 525,000 fewer full-time jobs thanks to the government's policies at a time when our population has increased by more than one million. Not surprisingly, the unemployment rate is much higher than it was when the Conservative government first took office. In fact, the unemployment rate is 7.6%, which is two percentage points higher. We are seeing somewhat of a jobless recovery. How is the free trade agreement with Panama going to help that?

Canada had $90 million in exports to Panama. What was the total exports of Canadian goods and services from Canadian businesses in and around 2009-10? It was $339 billion worth of exports, so $90 million versus some $339 billion. The exports to Panama turn out to be something like 3/100th of a percent of our total exports, which is $3 on every $10,000 that Canadians export.

Should we not be signing free trade agreements? No, that is not my point. My point is whether we are focusing on the key success factors for our economy and the job creation that is the goal of this? I see spending some three years negotiating a free trade agreement with Panama as being destructive to some of the much more significant things the government could and should be doing to accomplish that goal.

Unfortunately, we are going backwards with many of the government's policies. I will mention one other one which is the impact of the government on small and medium size businesses, which has not been positive. Industry Canada's analysis shows that in its last 20-year analysis of job creation it was not only the small and medium size businesses that created the jobs. On a net level, they created all of the net new jobs in Canada. In fact, large 5% of the jobs created by large businesses were lost on a net basis in that 20-year period up to 2003 which, as far as I know, was the last analysis of a 20-year period that Industry Canada has done.

What does that tell us? If we want jobs in Canada, we need to work with the small and medium size businesses. What has the Conservative government done? Unfortunately, it has done the opposite. The tax rates for large businesses have gone down from 22.5% to 15%, the ones that are net job losers. What has been the corresponding reduction in tax rates for small and medium size businesses? Actually there has been no reduction. There has been an increase in their costs through an increase in the EI payroll tax rate. Although the Liberals, the business community and the economists across Canada argued that taxing employment was the wrong thing to do at a time of economic challenge, in a recession, the Conservative government went ahead and did just that and added $1.2 billion in EI payroll tax increases.

We have a situation where we have a jobless recovery and we have the job engines, the small and medium size businesses, being ignored by the government. Industries that are big job creators, like tourism, have been mismanaged, unfortunately, by the Conservative government.

Tourism is an incredibly vital and important industry for the small and medium size businesses but we are falling behind. Even though Canada is recognized as the number one tourist destination, we have fallen from being seventh in the international competition for overnight visitors to fifteenth. We are losing market share dramatically. During the Conservative government's six years, we have seen a lot of that market share decline.

Why is that declining? The tourist industry representatives have some answers to that, and it is the policies of the Conservative government for the most part. Yes, there are some factors that have been outside the government's control but the government did control its decision to slap a visa on Canada's fastest growing tourist market, Mexico, with no consultation, upsetting an important trade partner and reducing the number of Mexican tourists substantially, by some 35%, through that act.

The government has been told time and again that its fees and taxes at airports make air travel uncompetitive and drives tourists to airports in the United States. It is very costly to businesses along the border in Canada. As far as I know, nothing has been done to address those cash grabs through the airports. In fact, we are seeing another addition to the cash grab at the Vancouver International Airport with an additional $5 being added to the airport improvement fee that all travellers will be paying.

In the skills and trades training, we know there is a serious mismatch between the kinds of skills and trades training happening in Canada for the jobs of today and in the future. Some of the key analysts on this issue are telling us that within about five years Canada will likely have 1.5 million jobs without people who are suitable to fill them and 1.5 million people without jobs. Where is the overall strategy to address that?

Unfortunately, the government is ideologically against having a hand in providing leadership on issues like this. It is leaving it to the provinces to solve. The government says that each of the 13 provinces and territories can battle it out themselves. The present federal government does not want to provide leadership or some kind of a framework to address a national problem that impacts national productivity and undermines Canada's prosperity, our economy and the jobs that a thriving economy can produce.

Given those challenges that the government is facing and has created, its answer is a free trade agreement with a country to which we sell $3 out of every $10,000 of our export goods and services? I would argue that if that same time and energy had been put into managing more effectively the relationship that Canada has with our most important trading partner, the United States, there would be a far greater return on effort.

We need to look at what is happening with our relationship with the United States in terms of trade. Our trade with the U.S. exceeds $1.4 billion every day. That compares with $210 million on both sides of the ledger between Canada and Panama in a year.

One would think that we would be focusing on the United States and our trade relationship, really being present where decisions are made in the United States, ensuring that our case is understood, using the department's resources that instead are doing free trade agreements with countries like Colombia, Jordan and Panama, and focusing on where it can really count. When organizations want to achieve a result, they focus on the key factors that will drive that result.

We have a government that wants to notch up some more numbers by saying that it has more free trade agreements than other governments have had. It is as if that will deliver the result that Canadians need, which is a thriving economy and jobs.

Eighty per cent of Canada's economy depends on access to foreign markets, and our largest partner, of course, is the United States; that is 75% of Canada's merchandise exports go to the United States. Panama is not even on the list if one looks at the top countries of importance for Canada's exports.

How are we doing with our U.S. exports? Canada's share of United States' imports have fallen in a great number of sectors. In furniture, we used to have a 25% share and it is down to 9.1%. In electrical equipment, we used to have a 10% share of U.S. imports and we now have just over half of that, 5.4%. In textiles, we used to have a 6.8% share that the U.S. imported and now it is down to 2.2%. Printing has fallen from 30.3% down to 17%. Fabricated metal used to be at 18% and has now dropped down to 10%. Rubber and plastics used to be at 31%, and are now down to 19.9%.

What has been happening? We have been losing market share with our biggest trading partner that accounts for 75% of Canadian export sales.

The government has had its talented people running around and organizing a free trade deal with Panama. What was the rush? Why did it not spend that time working on recovering some of our market share in the other core markets and the other core products and services?

The Prime Minister insulted the United States president and its people who wanted to take the time they needed to properly study a potential thousand kilometre pipeline on American soil that would run through some environmentally sensitive areas. Did we say that we would respect the right of Americans to study the costs, benefits and risks and make a decision? No. The Prime Minister postured and basically insulted our largest trading partner by saying that if it did not take our crude oil without any questions, we would sell it somewhere else. That was very diplomatic. That will really help. Canadians need the United States to be a co-operative trading partner. However, the government is essentially amateur hour when it comes to trade, and that has been shown from day one.

The Prime Minister has been blindsided by U.S. protectionist policies. The Conservatives were surprised by the initial buy America provisions in the 2008 stimulus package. They negotiated a solution to that, which lasted all of a year, and then buy America was back, which surprised the Canadian government's administration again.

The Prime Minister and his minister were taken off guard by the surprise announcement of a maritime commission. The commission will do research and could potentially impose fees and tariffs on U.S. goods coming through Canada at our ports. Canadians will have to pay a new border tax. These costs undermine our trade with America but we are busy doing a free trade agreement with Panama.

The complete and utter amateurishness of the Prime Minister with respect to the government's relationship with China has put Canada back about four years in terms of getting its assured destination status. This was important for tourism and we lost about four years of that tourism boost.

As a result of the kind of insults that the Prime Minister has delivered in public to the Chinese leadership, our trade with China has been languishing. Other countries are taking advantage of the great growth and the economic well-being of China while Canada has been stagnant. Canada has a four to one trade deficit with China. For every $4 that we spend buying goods from China, we only receive $1 from selling our goods to that country. Have we had a strategy focused on that key success factor for Canada's trade? No, we have not. We are busy negotiating free trade agreements with Panama and posturing about our natural resources.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member may add a few more comments in questions and comments. Her time has elapsed.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Saint-Maurice--Champlain.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech. She spoke a little about the environment when she indicated that negotiating free trade agreements with certain countries is more important to the government than improving relations with the United States.

Does she believe that this government is using this indifference towards the environment to seek out contracts in countries that do not care about the environment and people's living conditions?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question because the environment is indeed very important. There are some very worrisome issues with respect to environmental regulations in Panama.

In fact, the United States trade representative noted that, according to a Congressional Research Service Study Panama faced a number of challenges in protecting its environment as it supported its economic population and growth. These concerns included deforestation, loss of wildlife, threats to water quality, et cetera. It also included the poaching on protected territory that was under the stewardship of the Embera first nations. There are some 7,000 hectares that settlers have moved in on with the Panamanian government being complicit in that.

Therefore, I ask the government this. What was the hurry? Why not try to settle some of these regulatory improvements that are needed before and have bargaining power for our free trade agreement?

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

Madam Speaker, I am a bit confused. The member of the third party has said that this is just a distraction and yet the Liberals will support it. I am not really sure. Are they going to support this? Are they going to support the fact that Panama is a tax haven, that there is money laundering that goes on there with drug traffickers, that by taking measures toward eliminating trade deals with tax havens, we could recoup lost revenue of tax dollars?

What I got from the member is that if the economy is a powerful one, the Liberal party is willing to get into bed with it and damn the negative aspects, just because it will bring money or economic growth. This shows where the Liberal party stands with its principles. It flip-flops. Basically, it is not willing to stand on principle for the environment, against money laundering. The Liberals are saying that they are going to support this even though it is doing bad things because it helps the economy in some way. I think Canadians are tired of this.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed at that kind of rhetoric. We are talking about something that is important to the lives of Canadians, their jobs and their ability to support their families.

I think my debate has been clear. It is as though the Conservative government is like a chef that has prepared a very tiny snack of a few peanuts and spent the same amount of time for which that chef could have prepared a healthy meal for a family. Do we throw away the peanuts? No, we eat the peanuts, but we ask why the Conservatives have wasted their time with those peanuts when we are hungry. We wanted the meal and they could have provided it. That is what we are saying.

Free trade is positive, but we believe these resources could have been far better utilized in managing our trading arrangement with the United States, or China or managing some of the key failures of the government on the economy itself.

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

Madam Speaker, the NDP actually looks at the ingredients before we prepare a meal, rather than giving carte blanche to putting whatever ingredient into the meal that is being prepared, like the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. We look at the ingredients and we look at the bad things and we make propositions.

Unfortunately, the third party and the government rejected propositions we made to this legislation in the past. These propositions would have improved the legislation in terms of the environment, which the member spoke to, yet the party does not act on it when it comes time to vote. We also made propositions on tax havens, which the third party and the government rejected. Therefore, I find it a bit rich for the member to stand and talk about peanuts and good healthy meals for Canadians when she does not look at the ingredients of the food she prepares.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, Liberals know that the member of the NDP is with a party that is ideologically against free trade agreements and will find ways to express that. I do not take very much from what the member is saying in terms of moving the debate forward.

The reality is it is positive for farmers and growers of pulses and potatoes who would like the tariffs removed that Panama has placed on those goods so they could potentially sell more to Panama. That means farmers could increase the size of their farms and profits and possibly put a family member through school. Unfortunately the member is adhering to an ideology to really think about the people.

It is useful to have free trade agreements. My view, though, is that this has been a distraction. Now that the government has spent three years doing that, why would we flush it away? It makes no sense and it is not in the interests of Canadians or the jobs that depend on those industries that, even in a small way, will benefit from this free trade agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, I fail to see ideology in protecting the environment and workers' rights or the fact that certain countries are havens for money launderers and to make propositions to change those things. I do not see that as ideology; I see that as common sense.

I find it troubling that the third party continually flip-flops on these issues. She talks, on one hand, about helping farmers and the poor in Panama, but, on the other hand, is unwilling to implement changes to the legislation that would protect the poor families in Panama and the Panamanian environment and put pressure on that trading partner to adhere to international standards. It troubling that she is willing to write this off as ideology. That is symptomatic of the fact that when push comes to shove, the third party is willing to give up its principles for the sake of an easy buck.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member has reiterated his position three times now. There was nothing new in that question.

My request of the Conservative government in the debate today is to look at what it is doing to undermine small business growth in our country with its EI tax increases and why it is choosing large businesses over small businesses by giving major corporate tax reductions to the large businesses and nothing but a slap in the face to small businesses. I would ask the government to create a tourism strategy that has some actual numbers, accountability and action in it rather than vaguely referencing the problems the government has created and having no road map to fix those problems.

I encourage the government to take a look at the bigger issues around our trade-dependent country and really focus on repairing some of the damage the Conservatives have done with our important trading partners, including Korea, China, India and America, on behalf of Canadians who need the jobs and want that trade. We appeal to the government to actually focus where it counts.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-24, a bill that troubles me because of its weaknesses in addressing many issues, including tax havens, possible money laundering, lack of fairness provisions and a seeming lack of responsible policy making.

The lack of leadership of that milk toast government troubles me when I see other countries, like Australia, showing true leadership on fair trade, innovation and building an economy for the 21st century, not only for the sake of their own people but for all global citizens.

The process of this bill began in October 2008 and here we are four years later. This is a government that is interested in policy making by template, resting on its laurels. Most troubling is the blind eye that the government is willing to show toward tax havens.

I will not hide my allegiance here. The member for Outremont in our party would like to see a smarter tax system, one that eliminates illegal tax havens and ensures that our economic players play fair, in other words, that everyone who is an economic player in Canada pays his or her fair share of taxes and does not use tax havens to hide money from respective governments for personal enrichment.

Panama is a country that has refused transparent measures to ensure that money laundering by organized crime and drug traffickers does not happen. Therefore, it pains me that the government puffs its chest continually about cracking down on crime, while permitting laundering of drug funds, through tacit approval of Panama in this area, by engaging in a trade agreement with a country that permits money laundering of proceeds of drug trafficking, of illegal activity, of organized crime. The hypocrisy is pretty evident in this position.

Conservatives elsewhere in the world understand this fact of not promoting tax havens. Recently French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in a speech made at the end of a G20 conference in Cannes in November, named certain countries, such as Antigua, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, among eight others, and he included Panama in the list of countries that were troubling tax havens. Sarkozy threatened that countries that remained tax havens would be shunned by the international community. Apparently Canada does not want to participate in the international community that shuns these tax havens.

Social democrats elsewhere in the world understand. Australia's Labour government has a comprehensive policy on tax havens. That is one of the reasons why the work of that government has been recognized worldwide. Wayne Swan, its minister of finance, was named the best finance minister in the world recently, making social democrats worldwide proud of our achievements.

As the opposition, we have made propositions in the past to improve this agreement. During the clause-by-clause review, we proposed 11 amendments that would have made progressive changes to the bill. These included the addition of crucial concepts of sustainable development and sustainable investment and, most important, we proposed a requirement for taxation transparency. All of our proposed amendments were voted down by the Conservatives with the help of the third party. That shows where those two dinosaur parties stand on proper, responsible tax policy.

If we look in the past at former Prime Minister Paul Martin and Canada Steamship Lines, anybody in the know will know of the former prime minister's actions to avoid paying proper taxes. We see examples where members of both parties used loopholes for their own personal enrichment and to avoid paying their share of taxes.

Even worse is the Conservatives' protection of big-time organized criminals, the real drug traffickers, the big guys, the big players, by supporting Panama. Cocaine and heroin dealers can find a good partner in Panama to launder their money and the big profits they have made off the backs and misery of the cocaine and heroin addicts of this world. Meanwhile, the government is planning on punishing the small-time guy while letting the big-time organized criminals go. It leads to questions about our ports and the government's real willingness to prevent the importation of hard drugs.

For instance, the talks for this process began in October 2008, under the Torijjos government. Torrijos put Manuel Noriega's old team in place. Members of a certain age in this room will remember Manuel Noriega. He was apprehended by the Americans for complicit activities and drug trafficking. The Torijjos government put Noriega's old boys back into key positions.

Colonel Daniel Delgado Diamante, the minister of government and justice, is another example of people Noriega had worked with in the regime when the Conservatives started talks with the Panamanian government. Anyone sufficiently schooled in politics would know that it is never just a single actor who contributes to corruption, crime or criminal activities but always a team.

Trade agreements are an opportunity to brand Canada. Instead we see that the government does not understand this concept. Australia, our Commonwealth partner, understands. On November 8 last year, in the biennial Sir Alan Westerman lecture delivered by Australian Minister for Trade Hon. Dr. Craig Emerson, he asked whether free trade can be fair. His answer was that free trade can be fair. We in the NDP agree.

The Australian government knows its brand. Dr. Emerson said:

Australia's future is as a high-skill, high-wage country. It is in the interests of working Australians that we compete in the production of goods embodying high levels of skills and innovation, not on the basis of low skills and low wages.

Furthermore, he said:

The existence of people struggling on very low wages is not unfair to rich countries; it is unfair to them and the families they are trying to support. For them, free trade is fair and if we have any compassion for them we should agree.

One would think this would support the Conservatives' bill. Not at all.

Dr. Emerson talked about the World Trade Organization. He said:

Members are protected from unfair practices by other members, but non-members enjoy no such protection. The philosophy of the WTO is free trade conducted under fair rules; there's no inherent conflict between the two. But the world trading rules are far from perfect in ensuring fairness. Some countries have high tariffs while others have none. Some countries have tough quota restrictions while others have none. Some countries have many nasty non-tariff barriers in place behind their borders while others have few. Some countries have big subsidies on domestic production of agricultural and manufactured goods while others have none. Some countries dump their surplus products onto export markets at below-cost prices while others do not. Some countries heavily subsidise their offshore fishing industries--contributing to fishery depletion--while other countries do not.

Clearly, the WTO's rule book contains loopholes and has pages missing, such that trade is neither free nor fair, though it is freer and fairer than would be the case if there were no rules. The objectives of both free trade and fair trade are best served by applying rules to everyone and making sure the rules cover all unfair practices.

The idea is not to close our eyes and say everything is fine, but to propose improvements. Instead, we face the laziness and complacency of the government that sees no problem using a template from 1988 repeatedly. Free trade can be fair trade. In the words of our former leader, Mr. Jack Layton, “Don't let them tell you it can't be done”.

Here are the kinds of things that we proposed. The first was regarding sustainable development. The amendment would define sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, as set out in the Brundtland report published by the World Commission on Environment and Development.

The second amendment was regarding the definition of sustainable investment. The amendment would define sustainable investment as investment that seeks to maximize social good as well as financial return, specifically in the areas of the environment, social justice and corporate governance in accordance with the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment.

The NDP has consistently opposed NAFTA-style trade templates that focus on the interests of multinational corporations and ignore workers and the environment. These trade agreements have increased inequality and decreased the quality of life for the majority of working families. That is not fair. That is not fair trade and we need to be future forward on trade. We need to look to the future.

We strongly believe in proposing an alternative and better form of trading relationship such as the one that could be established with Panama or any other country, if we are willing to make the changes to the legislation. We need an overall fair trade strategy that provides a comprehensive common sense impact assessment on all international agreements that demonstrates that Canadian negotiations are beneficial to Canadian families, workers and industries.

The government does not sign any trade agreements that would lead to a net job loss. Here we can look at what Air Canada did with Aveos and how we are bleeding jobs now because of this agreement that was made with a foreign company. Also we can look at the fundamental principle that all trade agreements must promote and protect human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any product that is deemed to have been created under sweatshop conditions, forced labour or other conditions that are not in accordance with fundamental international labour standards and human rights.

We will not be supporting the bill, not because we are against trade, but because it is weak on trade. It is weak on fairness and it will only serve to legitimize the activities of organized crime groups. It will fail to help the workers of Panama. Furthermore, as long as the government continues with its lazy template, we will continue to oppose free trade deals that are not fair trade deals as well.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we have heard these arguments time and time again, because with every free trade agreement that comes up the NDP uses variations of them.

The NDP members are actually against trade. The member opposite claims they are not, but they are. They stand against trade at every opportunity. Every time we have had to deal with these free trade agreements, NDP members stand against them. They seem to think that it is somehow good, that they are trying to protect people with poverty. They are trying to protect them by keeping them in poverty. We do not believe in that. We believe that we should be protecting them with prosperity.

Clearly the free trade agreements that we have dealt with and have been able to bring in have protected people with prosperity. Earlier the Liberal member opposite was talking about peanuts and large meals. The reality is the Liberals did not serve Canada anything at all. They did nothing in their 13 years. We have had to step forward and begin to bring these free trade agreements into place.

I have a lot to say, but I want to ask the NDP members opposite, why do they oppose every free trade agreement? I have never heard them come to the House and say that they will support one. At the end of his speech today the member said it was all about criminals and not supporting workers. The reality is every free trade agreement that we have made has improved the lives of workers in this country and it has improved the lives of the workers in the countries we have made agreements with.

Why do the NDP members refuse to support every single free trade agreement?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple. It is because every single free trade agreement uses the same flawed template that started in 1988. That template does not truly protect workers' conditions, does not protect the environment and is not fair to the people of that country.

I am sure his constituents would disagree with the member's definition of prosperity. In some of the countries with which we engage in trade deals, workers are making 50¢ an hour. I think his constituents, if they saw the working conditions of people in these countries, would fail to see the prosperity that these trade deals are supposedly bringing to the countries.

I am glad to see that the government has finally woken up in this debate tonight. I received my first question from the government and I look forward to getting more.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not necessarily agree with the Conservative member's assertion regarding Mr. Martin or Mr. Chrétien, former prime ministers. He might want to rethink the whole team Canada concept. That was a federal Liberal initiative which brought provinces and the federal government together to travel to places like Asia to attract trade.

The Council on International Trade, 2011, was an international trade strategy for the Province of Manitoba. Peter Bjornson, who is a New Democratic cabinet minister, talked about how free trade agreements are in fact beneficial to the Province of Manitoba because they take away from some of the problems with tariffs. The concept of free trade was perceived as a positive thing.

Would the member say that the national federal New Democratic Party is different in terms of its position on more open markets which would ultimately generate more jobs for all Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, a week in my riding among my constituents has done me good.

When I am there I often wonder if the member for Winnipeg North stays here in the chamber, because he seems out of step with Canadians and his own party in seeing that the government he opposes is over there. I have given ample examples of our propositions. Maybe the member should listen instead of continuing his election campaign while here in the House.

I implore the member to go home to Winnipeg and to listen to his constituents. He asked about our free trade position. We do not flip-flop here in the NDP. We are true to our principles. The Liberals seem content to vote to support free trade, as long as it makes some sort of economic growth for somebody.

It is a far cry from the time of John Turner and his spirited opposition to free trade agreements in 1988. It seems that Liberals are supporting money laundering. I find it sad. I find it very sad.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would just remind hon. members, and I know the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges did not specifically say so, to please take some caution when referring to the absence or even the presence of hon. members in the chamber.

The member for Chambly—Borduas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard it in the questions posed to my colleague and I also heard it from other speakers: it seems that the NDP's opposition to certain free trade agreements automatically makes us the villain who is always opposed to any kind of trade.

It is important to point out that if there is continual opposition to something, it is because the same mistakes are being repeated. As my colleague said so well, since the 1980s we have seen the same problems in Canada and in the countries we trade with, or in countries where wages are very low or the working conditions are very poor. I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to go into more detail about what he just spoke about.

In the history of Canada, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have traded positions depending on their status, that is, depending on whether they were in opposition or in government. The NDP, however, has practical proposals that we have not yet had the opportunity to put forward, and we will oppose measures that are unacceptable in Canada and elsewhere.

I would like to hear a little bit more about this from my colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly it: the two old parties have never really taken a principled position.

That is what we have been doing for years and years. We believe that free trade can be fair too. Free trade and fair trade can go hand in hand. We have seen examples in Australia, where the government is taking steps to promote truly fair free trade.

We believe that Canada should do the same. We should promote free trade agreements that are not only free, but also fair to both parties.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to ask a question a little bit earlier, and the member opposite referenced my constituents. I can tell him right now that my constituents need trade. I am from an agricultural area and the people there need to have trade.

My constituents know full well the penalties that were paid when the provincial NDP was allowed to implement its policies. I come from Saskatchewan where, by the time the provincial NDP government was done with us, we were 50 years behind the neighbouring province. It seems that those policies implemented anywhere in this world will have the same result.

I want to ask my hon. colleague why he is against Canadian companies being able to more effectively export things like machinery, precious stones and metals, aerospace products, minerals, fuels and oils, electrical and electronic equipment, paper and paper board and those kinds of things, and pharmaceuticals? Why is he against our being able to bring in some of those same things, like gold, fish and seafood, and articles of stone and plaster?

All of us understand that as we increase trade, we increase the opportunities for people and that folks who have lived in poverty will begin to move up the economic chain and be able to rely more on the things they are doing and the money they are making themselves.

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

I am not talking about protectionism here. We are not talking about shutting off the borders and stopping the import and export of goods. What we are talking about here is having standards and principles when one enters into international trade agreements with partners.

Panama is a tax haven. There is money laundering going on there by drug traffickers, by big-time organized criminals who launder their money through Panama.

We are not opposed to increasing the prosperity of the people of Panama or the people of Canada. We are not opposed to these things, but we must have standards and principles and ethics. When we enter into a free trade agreement with a country like Panama, knowing it is a tax haven for drug traffickers and organized criminals, how can the government sit back and say, “Oh, we are not going to look at that because it is going to be good for and benefit some people”.

Everyone has to benefit from it. There has to be prosperity for all parties.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-24 on Canada-Panama trade.

However, earlier today I was up on my feet talking about Bill C-7 on Senate reform. I know we have moved on, but during the debate on Bill C-7 I pointed out that I was hard pressed to name the senators from Nova Scotia and noted that they were politically absent from the scene in Nova Scotia. I received an email from a constituent who was at home watching. He wrote:

Excellent points. Here's a note: since 2008 I have been periodically emailing Nova Scotia Senators...in relation to various political, environmental, or other issues. If memory serves me correctly, in those four years I've never received a response from any of them. I've never met any of them. You're right: they're absent from the Nova Scotia political landscape.

I know it is off topic, but it is the same day and I am hoping for a little latitude on this.

Getting back to Bill C-24, I would love to give a little shout out to Meghan Lawson who is working in my office through the parliamentary internship program. She has helped me greatly in doing research on the bill and for this speech.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to this piece of legislation. As with many other pieces of Conservative legislation, the title of the bill tries to paint a pretty rosy picture of a quite troubling proposal. The bill's long name is 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, otherwise known as the Canada–Panama economic growth and prosperity act and the protecting Panamanians from childhood predators act. That last part may not be part of the title, but the point is that we have a short title painting a rosy picture of something that just does not exist.

It is a very worrying piece of legislation. I think it jeopardizes Canadian growth and overlooks distressing concerns when it comes to Panama's record on environmental issues and workers' rights. We will hear this as a theme in many NDP speeches, because those are two things that we hold dear to our heart: the planet and the rights of people who are working. It is about the rights of the environment and the rights of people.

We think that Canada's trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade. Canada should build trading partnerships with other countries that support the principles of social justice and human rights while also expanding our business and economic opportunities.

If we just pursue these NAFTA-style deals, we are adopting legislation with a one-size-fits-all mentality. They overlook the fact that some of these countries we are negotiating with are not on the same footing, which is the situation here: Canada and Panama are not on the same footing.

We are taking the NAFTA template designed to function between large industrialized nations and are applying it to Panama, a global south community or a “developing nation”. Instead of helping Panama to grow in a sustainable way, this trade deal is really just about benefiting big multinational corporations. It would actually promote further inequity and inequality within Panama. Instead of these shortsighted bilateral deals, we need multinational trade deals that are going to benefit all trading partners both now and in the future.

As I pointed out, bilateral trade deals usually favour the dominant players. They facilitate a degree of predatory access by large corporations to less powerful domestic economies, in this case Panama, not us. If this legislation passes, we risk failing not only countless Canadian workers but also countless workers and families in Panama. They will be subject to increased inequality, and possibly a decreased quality of life.

According to the UN, a third of Panama's population lives in poverty.

Some of my colleagues discussed testimony that was submitted to committee by witnesses. Teresa Healy, a senior researcher at the Canadian Labour Congress, appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade this past December and gave some interesting testimony. She stated:

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

We need trade deals that promote sustainable growth for all partners, not ones that put big business before people. Remember that tag line, “big business before people”, because I will shortly talk about a company in Nova Scotia that specifically talks about people and the planet before profits.

The glaring shortfalls of this trade deal do not actually stop there. Although Panama refuses to sign a tax information exchange agreement, the Conservative government is still going ahead with this deal. This is really troubling considering the large amount of money laundering that takes place in Panama, including money from drug trafficking, as we know. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Panama is a major financial conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers' money laundering activities. Both local and international corruption watchdogs also rank Panama really low in terms of its transparency.

Panama's complete lack of taxation transparency has even led the OECD to label the nation a tax haven. As another parentheses about tax havens, we have recently seen the U.S. trying to crack down on tax havens. It loses about $100 billion a year to offshore tax evasion and avoidance. Canada loses about a tenth of that or $10 billion a year. The U.S. is trying to crack down on these tax havens by making sure that people are tax compliant and introducing new legislation like FATCA, for example. The problem is that they are actually scooping up the wrong people. They are not going after the folks who are tax avoiders or are ferreting off this money and trying to hide it, but are hitting ordinary citizens, like ordinary Canadians.

In my riding of Halifax, there are many people who have immigrated to Canada from the U.S. and are dual citizens, as well as people who are American by accident, whose parents were American citizens and whose offspring are therefore considered American citizens for tax purposes. They did not know they had to file taxes over all these years and are now finding out that they may face tens of thousands of dollars' worth of fines. The phone was ringing off the hook in my constituency office from these folks calling and saying that they were scared, too scared to find out what their rights were and too scared to find out if they are considered U.S. citizens and do not know what to do.

As a result, we held an information session on rights and filing obligations, how the amnesty works, and those kinds of things. Myta Blacklaws in my Halifax office organized this information session. We booked a room for 60 people but when we managed to fit 125 people into that room, we started putting people into a second room. It was unbelievable. It was standing rooms only, as it were. This information session was led by a woman named Blair Hodgman, an immigration lawyer, and some tax accountants were also present.

It is really stressing people. People are scared and under a lot of pressure. Yet the NDP has been asking the Conservative government to take action to start discussions with the U.S. about what is going on, why regular folks are being penalized and that this is not what we are going after with the tax haven legislation, that this is not the intended effect and that we should be reasonable.

We have not seen action from the government on this issue. I know it is the opposite situation that we have in Panama with tax havens, but the track record on tax havens by the government has been pretty appalling, so I cannot imagine that it is going to try to enact anything when it comes to Panama as well.

Anyone who has been in the House for any period of time knows my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster and his passion for international trade and for fair trade. He has spoken to this many times in the House. He has done a lot of dedicated work on many pieces of international trade legislation and free trade deals, including this one. He actually proposed that the Canada--Panama trade agreement not be implemented until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement. That sounds reasonable. We can do that. We can say that Panama only gets this if it does something. We can offer up a good faith piece that we can work with.

My colleague brought this up I think at committee. His motion was defeated by the Conservatives and the Liberals who argued that the double taxation agreement that Panama agreed to was satisfactory. The problem with the double taxation agreement is it only tracks legal income. We heard that Panama has some pretty big issues when it comes to non-legal or illegal income. What my colleague proposed would actually track all income, including income made through illegal means. As the OECD has noted, having a trade agreement without first tackling Panama's financial secrecy practices could incentivize even more tax dodging. We could be making things worse by having this agreement in place. Why would we not try to avoid making it worse, but also mitigate the problem in the first place? I think he came up with a really good solution. Considering Panama's history and reputation on these matters, it is pretty clear why this kind of agreement is absolutely necessary before signing a trade deal.

This deal also fails to take real action on addressing Panama's record on the environment and workers' rights.

First, let us look at the environment. I am the environment critic. While this deal includes an agreement on the environment, as we saw with the free trade agreement with Colombia which has a separate agreement on the environment, it actually provides no enhanced environmental protection or resources for affected communities. Given Panama's lax environmental regulations especially when it comes to mining, this oversight is extremely worrying. Let me illustrate.

One current proposal from the Canadian mining corporation, Inmet Mining, includes plans for an open pit copper project west of Panama City. This plan would see 5,900 hectares of mostly primary rainforest deforested. According to media reports, the controversial presence of another Canadian mining corporation, Corriente Resources, on indigenous lands has spurred protests from civil society groups and indigenous nations in Panama. Earlier this month reports surfaced of protesters being killed in violent clashes with police.

We know full well the devastating impact of deforestation, especially in that area of the world. Instead of taking real action to address the current and impending threats to Panama's precious natural resources, the Canada--Panama trade agreement risks encouraging a race to the bottom on environmental protection.

Why is the government so willing to ignore huge threats to Panama's environment? All trade agreements, including this one, should respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems. That is another carrot and stick idea. We could say we are not going to enter into this agreement until we see action, but we are not seeing any action on that.

Lack of concern for labour rights in this trade agreement is also deeply troubling. As Teresa Healy pointed out in her testimony before the Standing Committee on International Trade, this agreement is weaker than previous agreements when it comes to workers' rights.

This agreement does not include specific protection for the right to organize and the right to strike. It provides instead for the “effective” recognition of the right to collective bargaining. The Conservatives appear to assume that the free flow of trade and investment automatically leads to better wages and working conditions, but we know that is not the case, whether it is in Panama, Canada, or wherever.

The fact of the matter is that the agreement fails to ensure that labour rights are not denied to Panamanian workers as they have been in the past. In effect, this agreement creates a free trade zone that belittles the rights of labour. This is a serious problem that already is prevalent in Panama.

I have heard some comments from the other side that the NDP is at it again, that we are against trade. That is not the case. The reality is that fair trade should be the overarching principle, not just an afterthought, of any trade negotiation. It is possible. We see these winning examples in our local communities.

For example, in Nova Scotia there is a company called Just Us!, which in 1997 became the first certified fair trade licensed coffee roaster in North America. It is actually in the riding of Kings—Hants but it does have a coffee shop in my riding. It was the first in 1997 which was not too long ago. Now there are 250 licensed fair trade companies just in Canada. They are in communities all over Canada. They recognize the need for sustainable development, the need for relationships with communities in the global south, and the need for fair trade.

The motto of Just Us! is “People and Planet Before Profits”, but mark my words, it is a profitable company. It is doing very well. It has expanded. It has a museum of fair trade in its coffee shop in Wolfville. It has two coffee shops in Halifax. The company keeps getting bigger and bigger. It is all based on the principle of fair trade. This is an idea that came from our local communities and it is working.

I also note that behind the chamber's curtains there is a little area where we can have a cup of coffee or a glass of water. I note that the coffee there is fair trade. It is good enough for parliamentarians, but somehow it is not good enough for Canada, not good enough for Canadians, not good enough for our trade agreements. I do not understand how that works.

Canadians need an agreement that supports our sovereignty and the freedom to chart our own policy, an agreement that supports our ability to be a competitive force on the world stage. We need an agreement that upholds the principles of a multilateral fair trade system, but instead we have an agreement that shows complete disregard for corruption and money laundering practices that are rampant in Panama, not to mention the country's glaring environmental and labour rights records.

We need an agreement that puts people before big business.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned a number of companies that embrace fair trade. She seemed to embrace that concept across the board. Many of us on this side have successful, profitable companies in our ridings that pursue fair trade.

Would the member not agree though that often these companies have grown out of a local initiative, often making profits, in a country that trades on the basis of a huge number of free trade agreements? There is a lot of skepticism in my riding about her party's position on this point. Would she be prepared to point out which trade agreements that Canada now has and which, if any, that we are now negotiating her party would support for the benefit of companies in her riding and mine that pursue fair trade on the basis of the trading relationships we have or are pursuing around the world, one of the most liberalized trading relationships that any major advanced industrialized country has?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would be hard pressed right now to find anything that we support because of the problem with the template that is being used. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it is a NAFTA-style template which is really a template for negotiations between two countries with essentially the same power level. That is not the case here. I stood up in the House in the last Parliament and spoke against the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement as well, which used NAFTA as the template as well, which neglected to consider workers' rights as well, which neglected to consider environmental issues as well.

The local companies in Canada are successful working in fair trade in a country that has free trade, but they are doing it in spite of that. They are actually going to communities in the global south and developing fair trade relationships as a model despite what our government is doing.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's speech, I picked up on the issue of this being fair trade. The condition precedent for fair trade is access to a fair justice system, a system which actually balances the rights of parties in a fair and transparent manner.

I wonder if the hon. member would be able to tell me if this particular treaty allows an aggrieved person in Panama to actually pursue judicial remedy in Canada.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I am able to answer that question. It is a good question.

I know that in the appendices concerning environmental rights and workers' rights, there is recourse, but I also know that we have had the same type of appendices in other free trade agreements and we have seen absolutely nothing come of it. Canada is not willing to actually pursue this.

That is a good question. I will do my research.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the hon. member for Halifax West, for identifying the systemic problems in the NAFTA model. Certainly there are trade agreements for blocs around the world that were premised differently. Members might look at the way the European Union was organized. All countries within the European Union were called upon to raise themselves up to the highest standards of environmental regulation. The poorer nations within the EU received some funding assistance from the wealthier nations.

The NAFTA model, as the hon. member for Halifax West said, is a race to the bottom.

I wonder if the hon. member has any comments on the investor-state provisions within the Panama-Canada trade deal.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am getting some very technical questions today. There is nothing wrong with that. I welcome them. That is great. I like being on my feet.

My colleague raised the EU issue. All nations were called upon to reach an agreement together and to develop some sort of consensus around how to move forward with the EU. In stark contrast here, this trade deal was negotiated in record time. There was no consultation with trade unions, with environmental groups, with civil society organizations, nor with citizens.

That is not what we should expect, a fast, quick trade deal where people are not consulted. However, we do see time and time again here in Canada that is exactly what the Conservatives are doing on pretty much every subject, especially when we consider things like the pipeline with the minister saying there are too many people who want to testify. I guess it is in keeping with the Conservatives' general theme.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Halifax for her comments.

The members opposite always talk about the right of workers to reach a fair agreement that deals with their education and status. That is a problem for the free market.

If trade does not make for real progress, then we are preventing these countries from one day developing an actual market. People who have gone to school and who have decent jobs create a market. The position of the members opposite is inconsistent, as though standing up for fundamental rights does not lead to a better quality of life and the development of markets. I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on this issue.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's point makes me think a lot about the idea of using a carrot.

We can say to countries with a bad record on workers' rights that we want to do trade with them, that we want to engage in these kinds of relationships but not until they clean things up, not until they actually respect workers' rights and put in place legislation and we see there is a real commitment.

We could tell them that they have a terrible environmental track record, but that would be the pot calling the kettle black. We could tell them to clean up their act, and once we see that we will engage in trade negotiations.

Canada should be taking that kind of position where we offer an exchange for securing workers' rights, where we offer an exchange for securing environmental protection in other countries. That is the way Canada should act on the international stage.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated the hon. member's speech because he clarified the NDP's position on trade agreements.

A little earlier, I heard a Conservative member ask why the NDP did not want to export Canadian products abroad. That is a completely ridiculous blanket statement. It makes me think of when the Conservatives said that, if we did not support the lawful access legislation, then we supported pedophiles. In fact, I would like to give the hon. member time to clarify our position further. An agreement like the one proposed here can serve to increase inequality. We know that there are always winners and losers when it comes to this type of agreement.

According to the hon. member, what conditions must be included in a trade agreement such as this one in order to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected and do not end up the losers?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share something with my colleague from Just Us!. In its mandate it says:

Most importantly as small-producers organize, they gain collective power and a collective voice. In many areas they have traditionally been exploited by colonialism, oppressive regimes and large corporate commodity traders. Cooperative organization increasingly allows farmers to control their economic and social activities and to make the decisions and investments that impact their own communities. We see their choice to farm...in the Fair Trade market, as a statement to work towards a healthier existence....

Would that not be nice?

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before recognizing the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier, I must inform her that I will have to interrupt her at 6:30 p.m. at the conclusion of government business. I will let her know when she has one minute left.

The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canada can play a positive role in taking up the challenges faced by Panama, a country that has to carve out a place for itself with a population of barely three million people in an ever-changing America. These three million people, for the most part, deserve to participate in and contribute to the growth being enjoyed by Latin America.

There are, however, facts that cannot be ignored if we wish to enter into a free trade agreement with Panama. Panama is one of the most active tax havens. The main economic activity in Panama is the provision of financial services. The G20 met in London in 2009 and stressed the importance of dealing with the problems caused by tax havens and now, Canada is working in the opposite direction and opening up a new front to facilitate tax leakage. An agreement with Panama will promote tax evasion, which involves depriving the taxman of huge sums of money. Canadians will not benefit from the agreement any more than Panamanians.

One aim is to significantly reduce tariffs. However these reductions in a poor country such as Panama could have serious consequences. For example, Panamanian products will end up in competition with Canadian products when, in fact, Panamanians will have little chance of exporting their own goods unless it is produced in conditions of poverty.

We know that the Conservative government has calculated the potential gains for Canada. Nobody is denying that Panama has a lot to offer. Nor is anyone denying that Panamanians are every bit the equals of their Latin American neighbours when it comes to their talent and their determination to provide a rich and honest life for their families.

An outstretched hand between two nations has tremendous potential. Today, I would say that such gestures are necessary. Canadians have extended a hand to welcome, dialogue and co-operate. Obviously, this co-operation benefits Canadians, who in turn create coveted wealth with their partners: jobs, good jobs, a peaceful youth, well-being, and even some money under the mattress. Canadians have a hand extended, but we are not sure that the government really understands why.

Canadians are afraid the government will use this outstretched hand to take without giving back. Canadians are afraid the government will flout Canadian values in its trade with other nations. The many oversights in this free trade agreement only fuel this fear. We need to ask ourselves if they are in fact oversights or if they are deliberate omissions. As it has done regarding the environment and in other areas, is the government limiting itself to developing international agreements based on what it can get out of them? Is it forgetting to include what it has to offer and should offer because it has run out of steam or run out of ink, or is it doing so deliberately? Are these omissions an invitation to Canadian companies to simply take what they like, without giving anything back, an invitation to traffickers of all kinds to continue to plunder?

I am certain that Canadian values are dear to the Conservative members. I have travelled with some of them and, together, we have seen how Canada can help meet certain challenges faced by these countries.

We were all touched by the difficulties being experienced by a number of our neighbours in the Americas. We discussed some promising solutions.

For that reason, I find it difficult to understand the lack of ambition in the bills they are introducing today. Having seen what we are capable of and what contributions we can make, I am surprised by the silence of the proposed agreements. The Conservatives could use the opportunity afforded by this new relationship to provide more education for young Panamanians, and more training for workers and upgrading for those who persevere.

However, they are taking the laissez-faire approach. They are choosing to let others promote Canadian values, and to let corporations make the decisions on trade reciprocity.

In its bill, the government claims to want to “protect, enhance and enforce basic workers' rights”. If the government were as serious about this aspect as it is about eliminating trade barriers, there would be more substance in these agreements. There might be a little more for Panamanians. If the government were serious, it would not merely list the areas of co-operation that are likely to be developed in the future.

The Conservatives could immediately guarantee adequate working conditions, whether by ensuring a minimum wage or labour standards that meet Canadian standards. Instead, they adopt a laissez-faire attitude. They could immediately protect children by offering them education and ensuring they are not put to work. This does not only mean eliminating the worst forms of child labour, but also asking businesses to reinvest 1% of their payroll in training, or promoting local hiring and co-operation with training programs. But the Conservatives adopt a laissez-faire attitude.

Yet, these would be winning conditions for all in an international relationship. He who extends his hand to grab is protecting his own pocket first and foremost. If the government's intention is to simply ensure a secure environment for Canadian investments, then it will confirm Canadians' fear and betray their values. On the other hand, if the government is serious in its desire to develop the potential of the Canada—Panama relationship, then it must be ambitious.

Canadian businesses must bring in as much as they take out. That is a principle of fairness essential to trade. If, in exchange for opening up the Panamanian market we only get a few fruits and vegetables at a discount, while also allowing tax evasion on a bigger scale, then there will be no gain for Canadians. Panama does not deserve to be isolated. On the contrary, that is the worse thing that could happen, including to us. Such isolation would give even more freedom to profiteers. Panama also does not deserve to open its frontiers to speculation and to investment without restrictions.

As for Canadians, they do not deserve to see their confidence and values betrayed by their government's negligence. They do not deserve to see agreements signed on their behalf promote abuse instead of combating it. We have all a duty here to ensure that this free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama is balanced and ambitious. Therefore, let us work together to ensure that it is indeed the case.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier will have 10 minutes remaining for her speech and another 10 minutes for questions and comments when debate resumes on this motion.

The House resumed from February 27, 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.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here in the House today to talk about the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act.

Our government recognizes that trade and investment are the cornerstone of our economic success as a nation. In Canada, 60% of our GDP and one in five jobs depend on trade. While our economy has outperformed much of the world in recent years, we cannot take our success for granted. Hard-working Canadians are counting on us to continue to expand markets and open doors for our businesses to succeed around the world. That is what our pro-trade plan is all about. It is the most ambitious plan of its kind in Canada's history.

The Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act being debated here today is yet another step this government has taken to help Canadians compete and succeed in the global economy. Canadian businesses have long been asking for closer ties with Panama. This government will deliver.

Panama is an innovative, dynamic and rapidly growing economy that offers huge commercial opportunities for Canadian firms. According to a recent report published by the CAPA Centre for Aviation, Panama is the fastest growing economy in all of Latin America. It is expected to be the fastest growing economy in Latin America for the next five years. In 2010, Panama's real gross domestic product growth was 7.5%. It is expected to expand at an equivalent rate in 2011.

This growth, driven by the expansion of the Panama Canal and other major infrastructure projects, represents tremendous opportunities for Canadian businesses. It is important that Canadian firms establish an early presence in this emerging market and build solid relationships that will provide them with a competitive edge. However, the remarkable economic phenomenon that is taking place in Panama is not the only reason this government seeks to forge closer economic ties with this regional partner. Panama holds a unique and influential position in the global trading system, thanks to the Panama Canal. Panama represents an entry point for the broader region, thereby enabling access to neighbouring markets. Canada and Panama enjoy positive and expanding relations built on shared values. Our policies and objectives in the region are well aligned. Panama is a like-minded partner that has demonstrated its commitment to aligning its laws and regulations to international standards.

For example, Panama has made significant strides with respect to transparency in the area of taxation. In recognition of these improvements, in June 2011, the OECD formally placed Panama on its list of jurisdictions that have substantially implemented the international standards for exchange of tax information. This is an important milestone. It demonstrates Panama's progress in fulfilling its commitments to combat international tax evasion.

The Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act would mark a new chapter in the Canada-Panama relationship. We have negotiated a high quality and comprehensive free trade agreement. It covers everything from market access for goods to cross-border trade in services, to investment and government procurement. This agreement would help Canadian businesses and workers compete and win in the Panamanian marketplace. It would help forge an even stronger bond between our nations in the years ahead.

The Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act would create new opportunities for Canadian businesses and producers by removing the major tariff barriers that Canadian goods face when entering the Panamanian market. Currently, Panama maintains an average most favoured nation applied tariff on non-agricultural goods of 6.2%, with tariffs of 10% or more on a number of products of export interest to Canada.

Panama has agreed that it would eliminate the tariff on 89% of non-agricultural imports from Canada. The remaining tariffs would be phased out over the next 5 to 15 years. This would be a significant reduction in trade barriers expected to benefit a wide range of sectors across the Canadian economy, including fish and seafood products, paper products, vehicles and parts, construction materials and equipment, and industrial and electrical machinery.

Canadian agricultural exports would also benefit from this agreement. Currently, Panamanian tariffs of Canada's main agricultural exports to Panama, which are pork, pulses and Christmas trees, range from 0% to 70%. Once this agreement enters into force, 89% of Canada's agricultural exports would receive immediate duty-free access. The Panamanians would be buying their Christmas trees without tariffs. That is great news for the Christmas tree sector, along with the pork sector and the beef sector.

Products such as beef and pork, frozen potatoes and pulses would receive immediate duty-free access. Other Canadian agriculture exports would see tariff reductions and eliminations over 5 to 15 years.

That is not all. The Canadian services sectors would also benefit from the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act. This agreement would provide Canadian service providers with a secure, predictable, transparent and rules-based environment which would facilitate access to Panama's $20.6 billion services market. Panama is a services-oriented economy offering opportunities for Canadian service providers, in particular for financial, engineering, mining and petroleum extractive services, construction, capital projects and environmental services.

On investment, the free trade agreement would grant investors access to transparent, binding and impartial dispute settlement through international arbitration. The strong obligations in this agreement would ensure the free transfer of capital related to investment, protection against expropriation without adequate and prompt compensation, and non-discriminatory treatment of Canadian investments. Panama is an established destination for Canadian direct investment abroad, particularly in the banking, financial services, construction and mining sectors. This agreement would serve to further promote this bilateral investment flow.

Among the key priorities for deepening our trade relationship with Panama are the remarkable procurement opportunities that exist in the Panamanian market.

In addition to the ongoing $5.2 billion Panama Canal expansion project, the Government of Panama has numerous infrastructure projects either under consideration or already in progress to build and improve roads, hospitals, social housing, bridges and airports. They are part of the $13.6 billion strategic investment plan from 2010-14. Among these projects is the Panamanian government's plan to construct a metro system in Panama City at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion.

The opportunities are out there and more are on the way. Under this agreement, Canadians suppliers would be granted non-discriminatory access to a broad range of government procurement opportunities including those under the responsibility of the Panama Canal Authority. Canadian firms possess the expertise in the areas that Panama is looking to develop. This agreement would enable them to bid competitively in pursuit of such opportunities.

However, it is important to note that many of these projects are already under way. If we delay implementing this agreement, Canadian companies risk losing out on major procurement contracts because they would not be able to take advantage of the government procurement provisions contained in the FTA. It is therefore critical that the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act be implemented without delay.

I know some hon. members have raised concerns about the potential impact of pro-trade agreements on workers. The benefits of this FTA are clear. Canada needs more growth and more jobs. But let me assure the House, this government believes that growth and jobs cannot come at the expense of workers' rights or the environment. That is why the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act would also be accompanied by an important side agreement that demonstrates our joint commitment to corporate social responsibility, the rights of workers and preserving the natural environment.

In parallel to this free trade agreement, the government has signed robust environment and labour agreements with Panama. I know that some members of Parliament here today think that Bill C-24 should be debated at length and ask why this government is in such a rush to pass this bill. The Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act was concluded and signed nearly two years ago. We have already lost tremendous opportunities by waiting to implement this agreement.

A bill to implement the Canada-Panama FTA was introduced in the 40th Parliament. The legislation was debated for 15 days and almost 30 hours. The Standing Committee on International Trade thoroughly studied this trade agreement in the previous Parliament and reported the bill back to the House without amendments.

At this point, I sincerely hope the hon. members of the House will work together to complete the debate at second reading on an expedited basis. We cannot continue to lose tremendous opportunities by waiting to implement this agreement. It is time to get the bill through the House.

It is important to note that Canada is not alone in its efforts to forge a closer economic relationship with this economy. Other countries are taking notice of Panama's potential and they are looking to gain first-mover advantage into this strong and growing market.

We in Canada cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while other countries vigorously pursue trade deals to secure market access for their products and services in Panama. Panama has an active and ambitious pro-trade agenda that includes FTA negotiations with a range of partners. Panama's FTA negotiations with the European Union were conducted in May 2010. This free trade agreement is expected to be signed later this spring and could possibly enter into force by the end of 2012.

Even more important to Canada, however, our main competitor in the Panamanian market, the United States, has completed an FTA with Panama. The United States Congress has already approved this agreement. The United States-Panama trade promotion agreement could very well come into force this year. If the House does not act swiftly and decisively, Canadian companies will be at a significant competitive disadvantage. Canadian firms will lose market share in Panama if U.S. firms benefit from preferential access to the Panamanian market while Canadian products continue to face duties.

We must act now to ensure Canadian companies compete on an even playing field and remain competitive in the Panamanian market. Closer economic ties with Panama promise to deliver further gains for Canadian exporters, investors, consumers and the economy as a whole. The benefits of a pro-trade agreement with Panama are clear. An agreement with Panama would support more Canadian jobs by enhancing our ability to export more goods and services into this market.

One of the associations I work with is ParlAmericas. I had the chance to go to Panama to speak with the diputados there about this agreement and what it means to them. This past summer I spent some personal time there with one diputado, who took me around to some of the high-risk communities that are in very poor suburbs in Panama City. He showed me just how much they rely on trade. They view trade as the ticket for the four-, five- and six-year-olds, who came running up to us looking for baseball bats or toys. Their parents and families want good jobs. They say they would have opportunities if they were allowed to compete in the world. They asked me why Canada will not sign this free trade agreement and what is taking so long.

The people of Panama understand trade. They are not scared of it. They understand that trade would bring benefits to their country just as it would to our country. That is why this is such a fair trade agreement and why the Panamanians have been asking us for so long to get this through. The ambassador for Panama here in Canada has been working around the clock trying to make sure that all members of the House understand how good this agreement is for Canada and Panama. This is a positive step forward. This is important for our companies and businesses.

When we talk about growth in Canada and our position in the world, we need to keep making trade deals like the one we have created for Panama. We also need to keep making trade deals like the trans-Pacific partnership agreement in areas like India and Korea. We have to be willing to allow our companies to compete with fair and unfettered access. That is what this government is doing.

I want to credit the Minister of International Trade for the action he has taken in this regard. This is a minister who gets it. He understands the importance of trade. He gets it because he talks to Canadian business people. He asks what he can do to help them grow their businesses, to make their businesses stronger and to ensure they continue to employ people. They tell him they want market access to Panama, Colombia and the United States. They want to make sure that when they have market access and have disputes, they can settle them. They say they simply want fair market access. Canadian companies are willing to compete and love to compete.

In my riding there are a lot of pulses grown. I have an agricultural riding and the pulse growers are ecstatic about this. They see a tremendous opportunity to sell pulses into the Panamanian market. They view Panama as a good stepping stone into the entire Latin American region for the pulse sector. They are not scared to compete. In fact, the Panamanians look at the quality of the pulses that Canada produces and the protein that comes from them. They say it is great and they are excited. If we do not have the FTA in place, another country will fill that market.

Do not think that other countries are standing still. Other countries look at the strategic importance of Panama and say they need to be there, that they cannot let the Canadians beat them there. What has Parliament done? It has delayed, delayed and delayed. There have been elections and other things that have delayed it, which are no fault of any parliamentarian, but in the same breath, there is no reason to delay now.

We need to move forward now. We need to see this agreement come to fruition. We need to allow our businesses to go down there and build those relationships in Latin America, especially in Panama. One thing we have to understand when we are dealing with Panama or any of the countries in Central America and South America, is that they deal based on relationships. Canadian companies need time to go down there and build personal one-on-one relationships with partners they can work with down there. They need the time. Canadian companies need this agreement passed so that they can go down there and take advantage of all these economic opportunities that I have talked about. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

We only need look at the growth potential of Panama, its location, the Panama Canal, the airport in Panama City, where Copa flies into, which is to be an international hub for every country in Central America and South America. There is so much potential. I would sure hate to see us delay our businesses from taking advantage of this potential.

That is why I would strongly encourage all members to look forward and talk to their constituents. The reality is that we need to get this agreement done as quickly as possible and get the bill through committee.

I would remind members it has already been vetted at committee. There is no reason for the committee to take a whole lot of time before bringing this back to the House. The committee should be able to look at previous testimony and understand the issues.

I would also remind the House that it did come back to the House from committee with no amendments, not one amendment. I would also remind the House that occurred during a minority government situation. It was a committee that had the involvement of all parties to push it through.

I would encourage my colleagues to use that co-operation as they did before to push this bill through, in order to allow Canadian companies to take advantage of the Panamanian market and allow Panamanians to experience the products Canadian companies have to offer.

Our businesses will benefit. Jobs will be created. Canada's economy will get stronger. Our constituents will thank us for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I like the hon. member and I certainly think he put what is a fairly poor argument from the government's standpoint across as well as he could. He is dealing with the PMO's talking points.

The reality is the government has been a massive failure on trade. Canada now has the largest merchandise deficit, the largest current account deficit on balance of payments in our country's history. Why is it happening? We are fundamentally exporting raw materials and jobs out of the country, importing the finished goods that come with the higher-end jobs, which is why Canadians are strapped like never before, have seen a reduction in real wages, have seen lower salaries, and are at the highest level of indebtedness in history. That is the Conservatives' record. They have done the worst in practically everything.

The Conservatives are moving forward with this Panama trade deal. I just want to raise that Panama is one of the world's worst tax havens. We heard that in the trade committee. It has an estimated 400,000 corporations, according to the U.S. state department, and major Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, as well as Colombian illegal armed groups using Panama for drug trafficking and money laundering purposes.

Nothing in this bill prevents that continued money laundering. In fact, there is nothing in the bill that provides for full disclosure.

Why would the member support something when the due diligence was not done, and when the concerns about the laundering of dirty drug money are everywhere on this planet? Only the Conservative Party seems to support the laundering of dirty drug money.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member would have credibility if the NDP actually agreed with any type of forward movement in trade.

The member has not agreed with any trade deal. He has never said that it has been good for businesses. He has not gone out to talk to prairie farmers who said they have market access for their pulses and pork, which means that farmers are going to have more money in their back pockets. The member has not done that.

He seems to go on with rhetoric and more rhetoric, over and over again, which kind of fits the NDP profile. Those members are just going to oppose. They will never give anything a fair chance. When it comes to a piece of government legislation, they are never going to say that it is probably the right thing to do, and that they will vote with the government because it is the right thing to do.

An example would be the pooled retirement pension plans. It is a very simple piece of legislation that would help workers and business owners provide pensions for people. Instead of supporting something as simple as that, the NDP opposes it.

Could the member provide an example of when the NDP might agree with a piece of legislation that comes from the government? I do not think those days are coming.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has recognized the valuable role free trade agreements can play in terms of generating very important jobs. Somewhere around 20% of Canadians are dependent on exports and having those secure markets.

I found it interesting to hear the member talk about how we need to move quickly to pass the bill. I would remind the member that there were other pieces of legislation that the government moved much more quickly on which may have caused the delay on this bill coming before us. There was a bill designed to kill the Canadian Wheat Board which consumed debate time and ultimately hurt prairie farmers. There was the bill on increasing the size of the House of Commons. Those bills seemed to have higher priority, a bill to have more politicians and a bill to kill the Wheat Board, than this bill.

Could the member provide some comment as to why those bills had a higher priority than this bill?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the Liberal Party at least understands that trade is important to Canada. However, I do not think the member understands how important it was to change the Canadian Wheat Board. In fact, the Canadian Wheat Board is still alive today and will be alive five years from now. It is just the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board that has changed.

The member also needs to understand that if the opposition was not trying to continually delay we would not have to use closure to get legislation through. Things would have flown through in a much more timely fashion and probably this legislation would have come forward a lot quicker.

He could help us do that on this piece of legislation. He could help us ensure that it goes through committee relatively quickly. The ball is in his court. I look forward to his co-operation at committee so that we can get this bill through, get it back to the House, get it off to the Senate and get royal assent. I know that he is a fan of Canadian businesses and cheers them on. Once the bill is passed, we will be able to get to work in Panama and get some jobs for our employees here in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the member talk about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. When the NDP were asking questions, I could not help but think of a number of things. First of all, the NDP has never supported a free trade agreement and we do not expect the NDP to start supporting one in the immediate future.

More importantly, this agreement has side agreements on labour and environmental practices, and an agreement against money laundering. These are all things that would help to move the Panama government and economy forward. An increase in exports of Canada's superior agriculture products would improve nutrition in Panama. Over and above that, with the twinning of the Panama Canal, Panama will handle 5% of the world's trade. The opportunity for Canadian companies is huge. I would like the hon. member to comment on that.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary could help me educate the member from the NDP on just how important this is to the people of Canada. Let us look at other countries where we have done trade deals in the past.

We made a trade deal with Costa Rica and the quality of governance has gone up in that country. We can look at the quality of lifestyle for the people of Costa Rica. We see those types of things happening in Panama. We also see that happening with some of our other trade agreements, with Colombia for example, and Honduras, which we hope will get through the House fairly quickly too.

Economic growth is good. It is not a bad thing. Profit is not a bad word. It is not a problem. I expect it helps people socially when they have a job and they can go to work. They want to do something.

There are numerous examples of Canadian businesses that have gone into different countries around the world with strategic partnerships which have benefited the other country and Canada. A good example would be Research In Motion. The BlackBerrys that we all use are developed here in Canada, but are made in Mexico. What a great partnership for both Canada and Mexico.

Those are the types of things we need to build as we do these trade agreements. Those are the things that will see both countries thrive in future.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to come back to the member for Prince Albert because he is well aware that the NDP put forward a series of amendments to this bill because, as with most of those who are concerned about dirty drug money laundering, we believe that an agreement like this without a tax information exchange agreement is not a prudent or responsible course. However, the government just went ahead. Panama said it wanted to remain as a tax haven and to continue to launder the money that comes from drug gangs in Colombia and Mexico. The Conservatives love to stand in this House and pontificate about how they are tough on crime, and we hear that expression all the time. They are going to allow those drug gangs to continue to launder money in Panama and the Conservatives are not going to put anything in this agreement to reduce or curtail it. Financial institutions dealing between Panama and Canada do not even have to report back.

How does the member for Prince Albert, whom I like and respect, think his constituents would take his going back and saying the Conservatives did not get a tax information exchange agreement, which has to be done with a money-laundering tax haven, but the Conservatives think it is fine that drug money laundering continues in Panama and they want to facilitate that in Canada? How would his constituents respond to that?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, again it goes back to the classic NDP position to oppose everything. It does not matter what is on the table, the NDP is just going to oppose it.

When my constituents look at this deal they understand that no country is like Canada. Canada is a great beacon to the world. Canada is a nation which every other country looks at and strives to be like. We could offer a hand up or we could ignore them. We could actually work with them and help them improve the capacity of their government or we could ignore that. I would rather do trade with them. I would rather see their standard of living rise so their public security would get stronger. I would rather work with the Panamanian government or any government in Central or Latin America on public security, the drug trade or human trafficking, rather than discipline it or lecture to it.

The member would prefer to go and lecture to Panama about all the things that are wrong with Panama. I would rather go down there and work with the Panamanians to try to understand the issues and help them achieve results and improve their governance. If I can do that through a trade deal, that is a good first step in ensuring that happens.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the trade agreement between Panama and Canada. However, before I speak to that, I would like to speak about the general trade policy of the government.

It has been said in debate in the House that for the first time in 30 years, under the Conservative government, we have seen trade deficits. This is in part due to our over-dependence on the U.S. economy and the U.S. downturn, but it also has something to do with the failure of the government to effectively defend Canadian interests, the Canadian economy, Canadian companies and Canadian workers, against U.S. protectionism. We know there is a knee-jerk protectionism in the U.S. that crosses party lines. It is in the Democrats, the Republicans, the Tea Partiers and the occupiers in the U.S. There is a knee-jerk protectionism when times are tough, and we know that times are tough in the U.S.

We have to do a better job on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue: at one end, the administration, the White House, and at the other end, Congress. We have to do a better job in defending Canadian interests legislator to legislator, senator and member of Parliament to senator and congressperson, government to government, minister to minister, prime minister to president. We have seen stronger relations between presidents and prime ministers than we have between the current President of the United States and the current Prime Minister of Canada.

The reality is there needs to be more attention placed in Canada on defending ourselves from U.S. protectionism. We have seen more than one set of legislative actions in the U.S. in buy American type provisions, which have threatened, hurt and, in fact, eliminated Canadian jobs and cut Canadian companies out of participating in U.S. government contracts. That has had a pernicious effect. We have seen buy American type provisions rear their heads again just recently and there is tremendous concern among Canadian manufacturers.

Looking at the overall Canadian economy, it is important to realize that while the macro numbers look reasonably good in some areas, if we go just below and break them down by region, we are having a very strange sort of recovery in Canada. In fact, what the world is going through now is not an ordinary recession and recovery, but is really a global economic restructuring.

Part of what is happening in Canada reflects that global economic restructuring with the rise of China and India and the demand for natural resources, such as oil, gas, potash and minerals of all sorts. We are lucky in many ways, as a country, to have so much natural resource wealth. The positive side of it is we do have that natural resource wealth and we do have the capacity to meet the demand for those resources. We do well within those sectors and within those provinces that have those resources.

If we look at Alberta, Saskatchewan and parts of Newfoundland, the economy looks much better than it does in the traditional economic heartland of Canada, Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes, where we see a real falling back and a falling behind. In many ways what we are going through as a country reflects what some people call the Dutch disease, where our dollar is being driven up by demand for our natural resources and there is a crowding out of traditional manufacturing and value-added jobs. That is something we have to look at as a country. We have to consider that as parliamentarians. We have to understand the growing disparity between have and have not provinces.

One of the ways to address that is through a more robust trade policy. The current Conservative government spent its first three years in office chiding China and ignoring India. The government has turned around on both India and China as of late. It is going to take a while to rebuild relations with China. Canada's relationship is at a historic low after 40 years of remarkable relations with China, going back to prime minister Trudeau's opening up of China in 1968. He was the first western leader to establish diplomatic relations with post-revolution China. Before Nixon built a bridge to China, Trudeau had done that.

Much of that goodwill was damaged in the first three years of the current Conservative government. I do see that it is working assiduously to try to rebuild those relations, and that is the right thing to do. However, it is important to recognize that damage was done to those relations early on.

If we ask many global economists where they see the growth coming in the next 10 to 15 years, it is broadly believed that Africa represents tremendous opportunities. We have had a traditional aid relationship with Africa. We have to move from simply aid to an increased discussion and movement forward on trade with Africa. It is a continent with which Canada has had traditionally strong and historic relations and friendships. We need to redouble those relations. We should see the great commercial opportunity in Africa, opportunity that can benefit the people of Africa and the people of Canada. We could be partners in progress as Africa moves forward.

The Conservative government has focused largely on Latin America. Deepening our trade relations with Latin America is generally a good idea. It is not mutually exclusive, however, with having deep trade relations with China, India and Africa.

I see an opportunity for Canada to be a centrepiece in terms of global trade in many ways, to be a more central and leading figure in global trade for a number of reasons.

First, we have the best banking system and financial services system in the world. Not only are our banks successful in Canada, but they are successful globally, in China, India and Latin America. In some of the fastest growing economies in the world, Canadian banks are present and they are growing. A few months ago Bank of Nova Scotia bought 20% of the Bank of Guangzhou in China. A little over a year ago Bank of Nova Scotia bought all of Royal Bank of Scotland's Colombia assets. More recently, Bank of Nova Scotia bought a significant retail operation in Colombia. Bank of Nova Scotia can be found everywhere throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. It is not just Bank of Nova Scotia but Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal and TD Bank, particularly in the U.S.

One of the things that gives us influence in other countries is the presence and the strength in the reach of our financial services sector. We could be doing more to harness the power of the success of our financial services sector to affect positive change and influence in those countries.

Second, as I mentioned earlier, we are blessed in Canada with tremendous natural resource wealth that the China's and the India's of the world need. We have become very good at extraction. Our expertise in the extractive sectors is second to none in the world, not just in terms of oil and gas but also in mining. Much of the way we have developed our extractive sectors and our oil and gas sectors in Canada has given us the capacity to export wherewithal and technologies to other countries that have the benefit of natural resource wealth and are in the process of developing that wealth.

There is a lot of natural resource wealth in Latin America. Many of the countries in Latin America face some of the same challenges we have faced over decades in Canada. Many of them have a lot of natural resource wealth and need to now face the reality and the opportunity that there is unprecedented demand for that wealth. We can help, work with and partner with these countries.

Colombia is a country like Canada, with a lot of natural resource wealth in mining and in oil and gas. However, we also share a history with the people of Colombia in that neither Canada nor Colombia is a colonizing country. We are countries that were colonized. We also have a history of indigenous and first peoples in both countries.

Thirty years ago in Canada, most first nations and aboriginal peoples and their leadership were opposed to the development of natural resources and extraction in oil and gas. Today they are business and financial partners in the development of those extractive sectors. I would like to see us working co-operatively with the governments of Latin America to help them and us learn and partner in terms of best practices around the responsible development of natural resource wealth in a way that shares that wealth with first nations and indigenous peoples.

In these countries and in Panama there continue to be challenges. There have been issues around tax havens in Panama. There has been progress on that, but there needs to be more. I am of the belief that, in the same way there were and are challenges in Colombia, we have to ask ourselves, as people outside of these countries, how can we best influence and effect change in those countries. I believe that free trade agreements, with robust rules-based frameworks on things like labour, environmental practices and human rights, can strengthen our capacity to effect positive change and to partner with good people in those countries who want to move forward and to help their people move forward. Free trade agreements with strong labour and environmental frameworks give us more influence and the capacity to help in these countries, not just to build wealth for Canadian business people or to create jobs for Canadians but also to help those countries develop their economies and societies.

I share concerns that people in the House have expressed, from all parties sometimes, about some of the challenges faced in these countries in the past and present. The drug trade is an example. If we do not provide legitimate trade opportunities to these countries, the only opportunities that people have growing up in their villages and cities to make a living will be through the drug trade, narcoterrorism. If we are concerned about the drug trade in these countries, one of the best ways to help these governments and people fight narcoterrorism and the drug trade is to extend to them legitimate trade opportunities to buy their legitimate products. If we are not willing to do that, we are leaving many of those people stranded, potentially with their only lifeline being the drug trade, which is destroying their country and their society.

Free trade agreements with strong rules-based approaches to labour, to human rights and to the environment can help wean some of these countries away from the criminal activities that have sadly been part of their history over far too long a period. There has been a lot of progress in Colombia. Throughout Latin America, the economic growth in places like Colombia and Panama has been incredible in recent years.

For decades, Latin American countries were basket cases in terms of their economies. Whenever there was a World Economic Forum panel on Latin America, it was always on the basis of what we would do with Latin America. There was always another financial crisis, another series of government bailouts and country defaults. Last year, I served on a panel on the future of Latin America with President Martinelli from Panama. Last year, at the World Economic Forum, the focus of the panel was on the remarkable growth, opportunity and progress of Latin America.

I can tell the House that people like President Santos of Colombia and President Martinelli of Panama speak quite openly to the challenges they face in their countries. They speak quite openly to the challenges they face with corruption, organized crime, narcoterrorism, issues around FARC and other organizations, but at the same time as they acknowledge those challenges, they have put in place a road map to move forward.

Since the drug trade issue has been raised in the House as part of this discussion, I want to close with some consideration of drug policies in Canada, in the U.S. and in much of the developed world and their pernicious effect on Latin America. There have now been two different panels conducted by two different groups of former Latin American presidents, countries like Panama, Colombia and Mexico, on the impact of North American drug policies on their countries and the remarkable destabilizing impacts of our war on drugs on their countries.

I will provide a couple of facts. Prohibition did not really work that well with liquor. During the time of prohibition, Americans continued to drink but the biggest bourbon factory in the world was in Chihuahua, Mexico. However, after prohibition was lifted, it went back to Kentucky. The reality is interdiction, policing and incarceration did not work in terms of prohibition and it does not work in terms of our war on drugs. It costs a lot of money, it is hugely expensive economically and societally, and it is remarkably destabilizing to the countries of Latin America.

Colombia was largely successful due to the planned Colombia initiative, which was initially launched by President Pastrana and President Clinton and then further implemented by President Uribe and President Santos as a minister. In Colombia, the war on drugs was quite successful. However, Colombia's success in the war on drugs drove the drug cartels, which are very mobile, to Mexico. That is one of the reasons that Mexico and President Calderon have faced such challenges in the last couple of years. Production and distribution can be stamped out in one country but it goes somewhere else.

We need to actually develop rational approaches to drug policy in places like Canada and the U.S. and understand that interdiction, arresting and putting people in jail for this will not be as successful as treating drug issues as addiction and health issues. If we were to invest a fraction of what we are spending on police and incarceration in our war on drugs into treating drug addiction as a health care issue, treating mental health and helping people with addictions, we would have better results in Canada and we would stop punishing people in countries in Latin America who are penalized by our continued failed war on drugs policy in Canada.

When we are talking about that region of the country, I think it is important that we are open about all aspects of our engagement. One of the areas where are playing a negative role is in our drug policy here in Canada and in countries like the U.S. where we are playing a negative role in terms of our relations with Latin America.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before moving on to questions and comments, 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 Etobicoke North, the Environment; and the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, Citizenship and Immigration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees that Canada has a high volume of trade, both as an exporter and an importer. However, I have two concerns about such trade agreements: respect for the human rights of workers and for the environment, especially in countries with less environmental regulation. This can lead to abuses by major corporations that have a great deal of money.

My question is about sustainable development. My hon. colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster has proposed amendments that would result in a better definition of sustainable development in the agreement. The Brundtland Report, prepared by the World Commission on Environment and Development, defines sustainable development as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” I think it is a very good definition.

Does my Liberal colleague agree with this definition and, in particular, does he believe that sustainable development must be an integral part of the free trade agreement with Panama and must be respected?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree that we must find ways to foster the sustainable development of countries with which we enter into agreements. I acknowledge that this agreement contains many provisions that signal progress in terms of sustainable development. I would like to have a better understanding of this particular approach. I agree that we must develop other approaches, but I need to review the information and understand what is being proposed.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we live in a global society today and international trade is part of what is going on. We need to be involved as Canadians but that trade must be fair, equitable and sustainable over a period of time.

We know that Panama has been used as a money laundering, drug trafficking country by Mexican and Colombian cartels. The member was talking about how, through trade, we can help get people working instead of getting involved in the drug trade.

I have an example that I will present to my colleagues. We have seen what has happened in Mexico in the last number of years. We had a trade agreement with Mexico that was negotiated, NAFTA, and that trade agreement did not slow down the drug trade. In fact, as we have seen in news reports over the years, the drug trade in Mexico has gone up. Would the member care to comment on that?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the drug trade in Mexico for many years was in significant decline. Certainly legitimate trade between Canada and Mexico within NAFTA has grown significantly and continues to grow. However, the member is quite right. In recent years, the growth of the drug trade and drug activities in Mexico has grown, but it is very difficult to tie that with a free trade agreement.

I would say that most people who study the drug trade on an ongoing basis, most scholars and experts in this field, say that the biggest reason for the growth of the drug trade and crime in Mexico and the violence associated with it in recent years has been the fact that Colombia was successful in clamping down on it and driving much of it out. That goes to my point that the drug cartels are mobile. As long as there is demand here in North America and in Europe and as long as we impose this prohibition, this failed war on drugs, we will continue getting supply somewhere.

That speaks to the final point in my remarks. I think we need to consider our failed war on drugs here in Canada, not just in terms of its incredible cost to the Canadian economy and to society, but also its incredibly negative effect on a lot of the countries with which we purport to be friends.

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

Mr. Speaker, I work with my colleague from Kings—Hants on the trade committee and on finance. We do not always agree, in fact, often we disagree, but there were many points in his speech with which I did agree, particularly the point that the mean-spirited government's cut backs on addiction programs and crime prevention programs have helped to fuel what has been an ongoing problem in Canada.

I disagree with the member on the interpretation that a free trade agreement, particularly a right-wing free trade agreement like the Conservatives are bringing forward, would help the situation. We have seen demonstrably that, under NAFTA, a trade agreement that had as one of its attributes the idea that somehow this would stimulate development of the rural economy in Mexico, it has done the exact opposite. It is a meltdown. It is a catastrophe in rural Mexico. Part of that has been because of the removal of the subsidies that have allowed American corn to be dumped into rural Mexican markets that has helped to provoke what is an ongoing tragedy.

I want to come back to the Panama agreement. I know that the member shares concerns around how the government goes about negotiating agreements. We have an agreement with Panama where Canada approached Panama to sign a tax information exchange agreement a number of times but Panama just said that it would not exchange tax information.

I would like the member for Kings—Hants to comment on how the government could have possibly muffed what should have been a key consideration before it brought this agreement to the floor of the House of Commons.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, movement to greater transparency in finance and taxation is important. It is something that ought to be a strong priority of the government. I also believe that moving forward on a free trade agreement more deeply integrates our economies and increases the capacity for us to effect influence.

As with the hon. member, I would like to see, from a timing perspective, more movement on that as well. I would like to see the government move post-haste with that. However, I do not believe that signing a free trade agreement reduces the capacity of the government to do that at any time. In fact, it may have the opposite effect.

In terms of the general area of trade, this is where I think there is a fundamental difference between how the hon. member and I view these issues. I believe that the New Democratic Party in Canada ought to embrace some of the progress and evolution that other social democratic parties have around the world in terms of embracing trade. If we look at the labour party in Great Britain, the democrats in the U.S., or around the world generally, national social democratic parties have come to realize that globalization is a little like gravity: we do not have to like it but it is a reality. Instead of ignoring it and pretending that somehow we can shut off globalization, we would be better off if we were to engage with it and seek ways to increase our country's influence in that global economy.

In Canada, where we are such a tiny economy, we depend disproportionately on global markets. It is important to us, but it also increases our capacity to effect positive change in the world. My advice for the hon. member and his party is that they ought to move in that direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by talking about the NDP approach to fair trade issues. As members know, we have come forward in the House for years and offered some of the best existing practices on trading issues around the world. We have come into the House and talked about the binding social obligations of Mercosur, for example, by social democratic countries in South America that have come together and put in place binding social obligations to reduce poverty. When we have raised that in the House, the Conservatives, not wanting to have anything to do with any sort of progressive fair trade agreement, have always said no. We have brought forward the progressive and binding human rights components that the European Union signed with countries outside of the European Union, again a product of a strong social democratic practice and principles, to make sure that those trade agreements actually include binding human rights obligations. The Conservatives and the Liberals have said they do not want any part of that.

We have pointed to some of the social democratic innovations. Australia, for example, has said that it would not put in place investor-state provisions because these override democratically elected governments. In an almost Flintstonian approach to trade taking us back centuries, the Conservative government continues to say, “Even though we're the only country in the world with these right wing investor-state provisions, we're going to keep them, Fred Flintstone. We're just going to keep pushing these bad components, primitive components, that every other country has moved away from, including the United States”. After the United States signed the NAFTA, it moved away from the investor-state provisions which these Conservatives hold so dear. We have offered that innovation and the Conservatives again have consistently said no.

We have offered all of these progressive fair trade approaches. These are the kind of trade agreements that are actually catching fire around the world, but every single time the Conservatives have said no. They have never seen a progressive fair trade agreement they cannot say no to every single time.

We have offered examples like the auto pact that we strongly supported in the past, a pact that actually helped to sustain and build up our automotive sector. The Conservatives say no to that type of progressive fair trade agreement. The Conservatives have never seen a fair trade agreement they like. They have never wanted to move forward with any type of progressive legislation on trade. They continue with their Fred Flintstone approach to trade with an antiquated, 30-year old infrastructure and template coming out DFAIT.

Conservative members might say that although it is antiquated and is Fred Flintstonian, it creates jobs. Let us look at the facts. Let us look at the impact of this type of Conservative approach to trade over the last few years. I know members are aware that we have the worst, the most horrendous, merchandise deficit in our history in this country. That means we are not exporting manufactured goods any more but importing them. We are creating jobs in other countries of course, but the result in this country has been a hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs, good family-sustaining jobs, which used to sustain families right across this country. Nearly half a million manufacturing jobs are gone because of the government.

The government might say that it is exporting natural resources and, of course, the jobs go with them hand over fist. However, if we look at the overall balance, the current account balance of Canada's balance of payments, it is at its most horrendous deficit in Canadian history too. Even there we see a massive failure by this government to actually manage trading relationships in such a way that we would actually create jobs in Canada.

We have biggest most horrendous merchandise deficit and the biggest and most horrendous current account deficit in our balance of payments. Those facts speaks for themselves. There is not a single Conservative who is able to stand up and address that. It is a massive failure. The Conservatives just have to wave the white towel and say they have failed. I can see some of them smiling and nodding: they understand they have failed on this issue.

What has been the result? Of course, we have seen that hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs. What has replaced them? I will come back to the Conservatives' bogus job figures in a moment, but when we actually look at what they have done to the economy, they have lost jobs, and the jobs they have created have been part time and temporary. Most tragically, the jobs the government has managed to create pay on average $10,000 a year less than the jobs they have lost.

After six years in power, we have seen the Conservatives attempt to bring forward a very misguided and antiquated template dating back to another century and there has been a lack of follow-up. From that they have managed to create an economy where we are throwing the good jobs away and, at best, getting part-time and temporary jobs paying $10,000 a year less.

What has the impact been for the average Canadian family?

I know that members and the people listening to this debate are aware that the average Canadian family over the last year has lost about 2% in real wages. Real wages have been tumbling. The decline has been serious and has had an impact not only on families but also on small- and medium-size businesses across communities and, as a result, on whole regions and provinces. It has an impact right across this country. We are looking at a 2% real wage fall for our middle class and hard pressed, poor Canadian families. We are seeing Canadians living through a substantial problem.

Tragically, the result is that Canadian families across this country from coast to coast to coast are now living with a record level of debt like we have never seen before in Canadian history. This level of debt has a stupefyingly significant impact on the average Canadian family. Families are already earning less and less because of some deliberate economic and trade policies of the government, and because of that level of debt, families are being more and more constrained.

These are the economic results we have to look at when we talk about what the government has done after six years in power. The results are the worst merchandise deficit in our history, the worst current account deficit in our balance of payments in our nation's history, and the worst level of indebtedness in our nation's history. That is Conservative economics.

Now the Conservatives will say they have created some jobs. Their jobs poor quality, part-time jobs, but they say they have created those jobs nonetheless. However, the reality according Statistics Canada data is that since May 2008, the government has actually created a quarter of a million jobs short of the level required just to maintain the same percentage of the labour force employed. Some 450,000 Canadians have come onto the labour market since May 2008, and only 200,000 of them have found work. That was even before we entered the catastrophic last six months under the current government.

We have seen job closures, factory closures. We have seen White Birch Paper, Electro Motive Diesel, and a whole litany of closed manufacturing facilities. At the same time, we have seen 60,000 full-time jobs evaporate, that is, 60,000 families losing a breadwinner. That is the record of the Conservative government.

The Conservatives say that their trade policy accentuates job creation, that somehow, magically, by signing these trade agreements, it will lead to job creation. However, in virtually every case where Canada has signed a trade agreement under the Conservatives, the exports to those markets have fallen after the agreements were signed.

There is only one exception and that is Mexico. I will not return to what my colleague from Surrey North mentioned, the catastrophic meltdown in rural Mexico that has led to ongoing drug wars that have killed tens of thousands of people. That in part has been due to the economic policies of the Mexican government, as well as the removal of the tariffs that has destroyed much of rural agriculture in Mexico.

What we see in every case is a fall in exports to those markets, in real terms, which Conservatives do not use when they bring out the figures. Then, when they have put together such a catastrophic list of trade deals, where in virtually every case our exports to those markets goes down, what are the Conservatives doing wrong, aside from the Fred Flintstonian approach to trade templates from 30 years ago, stuff that has been disregarded by most of the progressive world? The other aspect is Conservatives simply do not walk the talk on providing support for export industries.

On research and development, we have the worst level of public investment among industrialized countries, the worst level of patent development among industrialized countries, the second worst level of Ph.D. development among industrialized countries. The reality is, even before we get to the research and manufacturing capacity, when we look at what Conservatives put out there in exports, it is tiny. It is pennies compared to what our major competitors are putting out to support product promotion and product support in those export markets. Australia spends half a billion dollars. Canada spends $13 million.

I have met trade commissioners, as I have travelled around the world with the trade committee and other committees, who do not even have the budget to buy a cup of coffee for a potential client of Canadian goods and services. The Conservatives have simply not walked the talk. They have starved that needed support for export industries for product promotion.

This brings us to Panama. The Conservatives failed on the trade strategy. They have not walked the talk on actually providing support for our export industries. For the third time they bring forward a bill, Bill C-24, on an agreement with Panama.

What is the problem with an agreement with Panama? We talked about this earlier. The state department in the United States has very clearly declared that Panama is one of the worst countries in the world for the money laundering that comes from illegal drug activity.

The government does not think about the impacts. It never does. There is never an in-depth study of the impact of signing a trade agreement with any country, which is part of the Fred Flintstonian approach of the Conservative government on trade issues. It does not do an evaluation before it enters into a trade agreement and it does not do an evaluation afterward. In fact, those figures I cited, in real terms, about export development did not even come from DFAIT. We had to get those figures ourselves. Nobody on the Conservative side of the House is even monitoring what happens after a trade agreement is signed.

What we have is an agreement that the government has signed, in complete denial of what is a fundamental problem with Panama, and that is the fact that Panama does drug money laundering on a significant and ongoing massive scale. It has been cited by a number of organizations, the IRS in the United States, the U.S. State Department and the OECD, all of which have said that this is a tax haven for drug money, for illegal drug gangs in Colombia and Mexico.

The government, so panicked by its lack of economic performance, throws this agreement onto the floor of the House and does not even have the decency to do its due diligence before it gives it to members of Parliament to evaluate.

On this side of the House, the NDP caucus does thorough evaluations. We read through the bills. We take the government at its word and read every word to find out what the actual impacts are. Since the government does not do any due diligence and has no evaluation of what the impacts of the agreement are, we have to surmise and look at the impacts of the agreement.

Very clearly, from the outset when the government put forward this idea, we said that there was no way we should sign a trade agreement with Panama unless there was a solid and binding tax information exchange agreement in place. In a very real sense, we should not be importing from Panama the drug money, money laundering that takes place in Panamanian financial institutions. We said that very clearly when the government talked about negotiating an agreement. We said from the very outset that we needed a tax information exchange agreement.

To its credit, the government sent a letter to the Panamanian government. In the letter, the government said that it thought the Panamanians should try to close out the drug money, money laundering. It said that tentatively. The member for Prince Albert said earlier that the Conservatives did not want to lecture to drug gangs. I am sorry but on this side of the House we believe that when there are drug gangs involved, we should be cracking down on them. We should be more than lecturing, but the Conservatives may disagree.

We are talking about pretty fundamental economic policy but, more important, it is a reflection of Canadian values. It is also this idea which, on our side of the House, is something we take very seriously. We believe in walking the talk. When we talk about economic development, we believe in putting in place the mechanisms so Canada can grow and prosper economically. When we talk about fighting drug gangs, we do not say that we will try to fight the drug gangs in Canada, but that it is okay if they are in Panama laundering money and then sign a trade agreement that has no provisions to stop that money laundering in Panama from coming to Canada. We believe in walking the talk and being consistent.

We said that the tax information exchange agreement needed to be signed. We made that very clear from the beginning.

We heard testimony from a wide variety of people who came to the trade committee to talk about the trade agreement. It is important for members of the House, particularly on the Conservative side, to understand what the witnesses said about this agreement and the advisability of signing an agreement without any mechanisms to prevent money laundering.

Mr. Todd Tucker, who is the research director for Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch said:

—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....According to the OECD, the Panamanian government has little to no legal authority to ascertain key information about these offshore corporations, such as their ownership. Panama's financial secrecy practices also make it a major site for money laundering from places throughout the world. According to the U.S. State Department, major Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, as well as Colombian illegal armed groups, use Panama for drug trafficking and money laundering purposes. The funds generated from illegal activity are susceptible to being laundered through Panamanian banks, real estate developments, and more.

As well, Dr. Teresa Healy, the senior researcher from the social and economic policy department at the Canadian Labour Congress, talked about the context of labour rights currently in Panama. She said:

In response to the international perception that Panamanian labour laws were rigid and a disincentive to foreign investment...[there were] unilateral changes to labour law...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.

She was talking in 2010. She went on to say, “At least six people were killed, protesters were seriously injured, and many were blinded by tear gas and police violence”.

These are the kinds of issues that were brought forward to the trade committee, concerns that were raised about Bill C-24.

On the other side of the House, Conservatives say that there are export markets to be had. However, the reality is when we look at the practices and we look at the record of the government, in every case, save one and that case over the past few years was one that was not signed by the Conservative government, following the signing of those agreements, we have seen a decline in our export markets.

We are facing a serious situation: a decline in manufacturing capacity, a decline in jobs, a reduction in real income and a profound level of indebtedness in our country that we have never seen before. We need a fresh, new approach on trade, not a Fred Flintstonian approach from 30 years ago that has clearly failed. A new NDP approach on trade could really bring jobs to Canada and could bring a new prosperity to our country.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member says four. He might be the only New Democrat MP who says that they have voted for four. I cannot recall. Could the member indicate clearly which four free trade agreements? He said he voted for four of them. Could he tell us which four free trade agreements he voted for that came through the House of Commons? I do not believe he is right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cited four trade agreements that we supported. There was the auto pact. I talked about the EU binding agreement on human rights.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

The NDP never supported us.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

That's not true.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would hope the member would show the politeness of actually listening.

There was the Mercosur binding social agreements. I also talked about Australia's move away from investor-state provisions.

Do we vote for bad Conservative trade agreements? No, only Liberals do, because they do not read the agreements. They do not understand the impact of the Conservatives' bad Fred Flintstone agreements that we say no to. The reality is when we look at the actual trade statistics, we have been proven right and they have been proven wrong.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder why today we are debating a free trade agreement between Panama and Canada. I wish I were standing here debating Bill S-4, the safer railways act, for example. That is a high priority for me.

The bill we are discussing would allow the Conservatives to be soft on crime and on criminals. How would the bill allow the Conservatives to do that? It would allow criminals to hide money obtained through illegal means in the tax haven of Panama. In fact, the Conservatives do not really want to track this money from illegal activities. They have no problem doing a trade deal with Panama even though Panama refused to sign the tax information exchange agreement which would disallow criminals from hiding their money in that country.

Right now there is absolutely no transparency. In a small country like Panama, there are 400,000 corporations, many of which are there just to hide their illegal funds. One might ask what kind of illegal activities those corporations in Panama are involved in. The country is used to launder drug money. It is used to divert aid. It is used to bribe the government. It is used to fund paramilitary groups. It is used to defraud shareholders. It is used to embezzle public funds. It is used for human trafficking. It is used to trade in illegal arms. Those criminal activities are intolerable and the people involved in them should be punished.

However, this trade deal would allow criminals not only to avoid taxes, but to also launder money and hide their funds. In fact, Panama is known as a major financial conduit for Mexican and Colombian traffickers' money laundering activities according to the U.S. Department of Justice and other entities. Let me read a memo from the U.S. Embassy in Panama that was revealed by WikiLeaks:

Along with its sophisticated banking services, Panama remains an environment conducive to laundering the proceeds from criminal activity and creates a vulnerability to terrorist financing.

These are the words of the U.S. Embassy, not of the NDP. The memo indicates:

The money laundering process of: placement (putting money into a legitimate financial institution), layering (distancing the money from its origin) and integration (causing the money to re-enter the economy in legitimate-looking form) is perfectly replicated in Panama.

My gosh. Placement, layering and integration; this is how criminals hide their money in Panama. Not just in that memo from 2006, but in 2009 a U.S. Embassy cable on Panama reported Panama's failure to report Colombian kingpin David Murcia Guzman's laundering of drug money. It is incredible. These criminals are using the drug money they have made from selling drugs and wrecking people's lives. They are able to take the money made from doing drug deals and hide it in Panama.

The Conservatives have said that is okay. They are going to turn a blind eye to it and will not even ask about who is behind the corporations. They do not want to know what kind of people are hiding money. They do not want to know about the illegal activities. They do not think it is up to them. They will see no evil and speak no evil, because it is another country. They are going to wash their hands of it and allow the criminals to continue their activities. That is inexcusable.

How would the trade deal make it even worse? The Canada-Panama trade deal would worsen the tax haven problems. As the OECD has noted, having a trade agreement without first tackling Panama's financial secrecy practices would encourage this secrecy and allow even more offshore tax dodging.

There is reason to believe that the trade deal would not only increase tax haven abuses, but it would also make fighting them that much harder. How would that happen? For example, even if we could persuade the government to put in place legislation giving Panama a deadline to clean up its act or face sanctions, and we tell the Canadian banks that they are restricted from transferring money to their affiliates, article 9.10 of this trade deal says that each party shall permit transfers relating to a covered investment to be made freely and without delay into and out of its territory.

What does that mean? It means speeding up the transfer of illegal funds. It means giving criminals more freedom to cheat. It means making sure that they can hide their funds without any barriers. Moreover, chapter 9 and chapter 12 of the FTA have non-discriminatory clauses that protect Panama's registered investors. That means protecting criminals from Canadians or anyone going after them.

Article 12.06 states that Canada will always allow Canadians to purchase financial services from banks operating in Panama.

This is the kind of deal that we are debating.

What is a tax haven? It means people do not have to pay any tax or very little tax on relevant income. They do not have to provide information about their income. There is a lack of transparency. There is no substantial activity by the taxpayers in that jurisdiction. That is the OECD's definition of a tax haven. Panama fits the criteria of this definition to a t. That is what it is known for.

Why are we doing a trade deal with that country? I looked at how much trade Panama is doing with Canada. I noticed that it is less than 1%. It is not a major trading partner for Canada.

Two-way merchandising trade between the two countries reached only $149 million in 2008 and is less than 1%. Therefore, why this rush for trade with Panama? I would understand if we wanted to discuss trade with China. There is a big market there. It is not as if Panama is a big country. It is well known as a tax haven.

This trade deal is being negotiated in record time without any consultations. Perhaps one of the reasons is that the government does not want people to rise up and say that to shelter criminals and be soft on crime is not the way to go. Perhaps that is why we are debating this bill.

Panama is well known for allowing people who are close to bankruptcy to take their cash and assets to an anonymous offshore company so that they do not have to pay their creditors. They rack up a big bill and owe a lot of people a lot of money, so they take their assets and hide it in a corporation in Panama. No wonder they have tens of thousands of these corporations functioning very well.

Panama is also known for allowing people to transfer profit to these offshore centres. In fact, in 2008, Goldman Sachs paid a federal tax rate of 1%. This was before it collapsed. It would have paid 35% in the U.S., but it only ended up paying 1% because it was able to move a lot of its money to Panama.

Global Financial Integrity estimates that there is $1.2 trillion in tax havens in secret jurisdictions around the world. One-third of that money, 33%, is money that comes from the proceeds of crime. As well, 3% of that money comes from corruption. That is $335 billion of criminal funds hiding in tax havens around the world. Because of these tax havens, one might ask how much tax is not being paid to governments such as the Canadian government. In total, governments around the world are losing $165 billion worth of taxes, which could go to AIDS, helping people in poverty, providing drugs for kids in Africa, providing education for women, creating jobs or building infrastructure around the world, but is not because of many tax havens, such as the ones in Panama.

Panama is also famous for the registration of ships. It is number one for flags of convenience. They could be Canadian ships. Some of us may recall that we have a famous person who has these ships that do not fly Canadian flags. Rather, they fly flags of convenience.

Do members know how many ships are registered in Panama? Eight thousand ships are registered there so they do not have to pay much tax. I would rather see some of these ships, those that are owned by Canadians and registered in Canada, pay Canadian taxes so we could take some of that money and provide health care for seniors, for example. There are lots of ways one could use the funds from tax avoiders.

Some of the 8,000 ships that are registered there, just registered but not really there, just fly the flag of convenience. Some of these ships do have crew members from Panama. What kind of people are they? Forty per cent of them are migrant Chinese workers who earn less than $3,000 per year. As a result of registration in Panama, illegal fishing vessels can avoid fisheries regulations and controls. Some of these fishing vessels can fish illegally using methods that are prohibited by international laws. Since they hide in Panama and fly flags of convenience, they do not have to be regulated. I focus mostly on these illegal activities.

French president Nicolas Sarkozy, in a speech made at the end of the G20 conference in Switzerland in November of last year, named Panama as one of the countries with serious problems. He said that countries that remain tax havens would be shunned by the international community.

Shunned by the international community, except Canada perhaps, because the Canadian Conservative government wants to be good friends with Panama. It does not want to curb these illegal activities. It does not want to understand or learn about the illegal arms groups that use Panama for drug trafficking. The government does not want to learn about the funds generated from illegal activities that are being laundered through banks, real estate developments and various corporations.

Panama is a country of extremes. It is a country of about 3.4 million people and yet 40% of the people living in Panama are poor and 27% of those folks, close to three out of ten, are extremely poor. The rate of extreme poverty is particularly acute in the indigenous population. Even though the country has endured extensive structural adjustments, liberalization and privatization in recent years, this has not translated into economic benefits for the population. I have no doubt that when this trade deal passes through the House of Commons it will not help four out of ten people in Panama and lift them out of poverty. It will help criminals, drug dealers, arms traders, people involved in extreme illegal activities and fraudsters.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side have unfortunately become all too familiar with positions taken by the NDP in comprehensive opposition to trade agreements, whether they be existing ones, future ones, those under negotiation or those under discussion today.

In my experience in the House, this is the first time that I have heard a member comprehensively denigrate an entire country. As a former member of Canada's foreign service, I find it curious, and to some extent embarrassing, that any member of the House would give such a negative characterization of a nation of over three million people in our hemisphere that is our partner in so many fields.

Would the hon. member opposite please correct the record and acknowledge that there are business people in Panama who run legitimate businesses, who want to trade in good faith, who respect the laws of their country and this country, and have a contribution to make by creating wealth to alleviate poverty in Panama and prosperity in this country?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my friend across the aisle did not want me to quote the U.S. embassy's cables on Panama. Of course, there are very good business people in Panama. There are good people conducting trade activities and doing business. We want to support them. Yet we cannot turn a blind eye to the people who are not friends of Panama but are just using it to hide their money obtained by illegal means.

If the Conservative government is serious about cracking down on crime and being hard on criminals, then at a bare minimum it should demand a tax information exchange agreement. Why would the Conservatives not want to do that? At least all income could be tracked going into Panama, including that obtained by illegal means. Why would the government not want to do that? What does it have to hide?

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina will have seven and a half minutes remaining for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on this question.

The House resumed from February 29, 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.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again enter into the discussion on Bill C-24.

Bill C-24 would implement the free trade agreement and the related agreements on the environment and labour co-operation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Panama, done in Ottawa on May 13 and 14, 2010.

We have said previously that the Liberal Party is supportive of this legislation and we remain so. However, we maintain the concerns we raised previously with respect to the fact that as the government is pursuing new agreements, it has been neglecting our relationship with our largest trading partner, the United States.

Pursuing new trade agreements is certainly worthy of support. However, we have to keep these agreements in context. I have raised questions in this House several times, that while the minister is travelling all over the world talking about trade here and trade there, the government is ignoring our most important trading partner.

The government is also ignoring another trading partner, and that is Korea. Hog producers and beef producers have been in my office over the last few weeks. They are very concerned about the South Korean market. We have an established market of over $1 billion of trade on beef and pork. It is a growing market. However, now that the United States has moved ahead and signed a trade agreement with South Korea, the tariffs will be coming down for the Americans. We are their most important competitor, and we will be left uncompetitive in that marketplace. We will in fact lose that market rapidly over time.

What seems to be the problem with the government in so many areas is that rather than being about results, it is very much about spin. It wants to be able to say that it has signed nine trade agreements, or has had 15 or 20 or 40 discussions, when in reality it is the results that matter. Again I emphasize that we are very concerned about the fact that the government is ignoring some of our largest trading partners while it talks and signs agreements with others around the world. The new agreement does not add up to the losses we are facing as a result of the government not emphasizing the agreements we already have in place.

While the Conservatives have proclaimed the promotion of trade, it has been under their watch that the mismanagement of the file in terms of trading relationships has resulted in trade deficits for the first time in over 30 years. Let me emphasize that. We hear the minister talk about all the great things the government is doing. Last year for the first time in 30 years, Canada had its first merchandise trade deficit. That tells me the results are far different from the spin we are getting from the Minister of International Trade.

With respect to the United States, we have seen the government surprised by increased United States protectionist actions. It was surprised by the initial buy American provisions in the 2008 United States stimulus package. It was again surprised in 2011 when the new buy American provisions were returned by the Obama administration. Those buy American provisions in fact will affect Canadian jobs and will hurt both the U.S. and Canadian economies.

The Conservative administration was also surprised by the announcement by the United States Federal Maritime Commission at the instigation of United States senators of an investigation into U.S.-bound container traffic being diverted to Canadian ports and whether to impose fees or tariffs as a result of this diverted trade. This would be another potential fee placed on Canada.

The government was also surprised when the United States government, in signing the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement, withdrew the exemption Canada had of $5.50 per individual in terms of sea and air entry into the United States.

I was in Washington, D.C. over the last few days where I met with senators and congressmen about a number of issues between our two countries. They too seemed to be caught by surprise in terms of that clause in the U.S.-Colombia trade agreement that took away Canada's exemption. After my visit to the United States, I am now more concerned by the fact that we had a lot of allies in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives but the government failed on its watch to pay attention to that serious issue which puts another fee on Canada.

The importance of the U.S.-Canada relationship is in the value of trade, and that exceeds about $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion a day. The government is very much ignoring our most important trading partner.

I want to emphasize again in the House that while the government is pursuing Panama, Jordan, and others, it is ignoring our most important trading markets. I have to outline this point with the minister.

Will the minister get on the ball and get on a trading relationship with South Korea? We need a free trade agreement signed with South Korea, or we are going to be displaced as a result of being uncompetitive with the United States which has signed a trade agreement. I cannot emphasize that enough. That is worth $1 billion in trade.

In spite of the global economic downturn, Panama's GDP grew to 10.7% in 2008, one of the highest in the Americas. In 2010, Panama's GDP growth stood at 7.5%. Panama is Canada's largest export market in Central America.

Panama is an important market especially for folks in my province of Prince Edward Island. We export fish, shellfish, french fried potatoes and other agricultural products. It is very important to producers in Prince Edward Island. We need this agreement.

The bilateral trading relationship has grown 61% since 2009, reaching $213 million in bilateral trade in 2010.

As I said, the primary Canadian merchandise exports to Panama include machinery, vehicle electronic equipment, pharmaceutical equipment, pulses, frozen potato products and other agricultural products, and shellfish. Canadian service exports include financial services, engineering, information and communications technology. These are also important. We import precious stones from Panama and a number of fruits and nuts, fish and seafood products. The relationship is important.

I do have to point out what remains a concern to us within the Liberal Party. The tax haven issue with Panama has not been addressed. The President of France talked about that at the G20. The tax haven issues that a number of countries have around the world have to be addressed. In particular, the Canadian government has to work harder with Panama to address that issue.

The bottom line is that we support this trade agreement. We especially want to see the labour, environment and tax issues addressed in it though.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to question my colleague who has brought up a number of issues in regard to Bill C-24. I know that those issues are important to all of us in the House. Over the past years that we have been working on this bill, we have proposed many amendments on the subjects the member has concerns about, yet I do not see that the Liberal Party has come through with support for those amendments. Can the member explain his and his party's actions in that regard?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure what specific amendments the member is talking about, but I can certainly say I know that his party is concerned with labour and environment issues. We do see these as a side agreement in the agreement. It is a step forward that labour and environment are attached as part of the agreement.

I will admit that one of the concerns I have with both labour and environment in many of the trade agreements that have been signed is that there is not the ability to enforce those rules as strongly as we would like. However, whether it is with respect to some countries where human rights are a concern, the Liberal Party's point of view is that having an economic relationship and trading relationship with that country in fact does provide an even greater ability to argue on human rights and other issues because it is then a part of the package.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned in his speech how important this deal was to his region of the country because there are a lot of exports from Prince Edward Island. I am wondering if he could explain why in 13 years of a Liberal majority government he was not able to deliver any type of deal like this for his province. I am wondering if he could also explain to me if the type of relationship building that he talks about with our friends to the south is the example we saw of the previous government where it was stomping on dolls of the American presidents and saying, “We hate those”, and I will not use the word in the House. Is that an example of the type of relationship building he is mentioning?

Again, perhaps the member could tell me about the Liberal Party's desire to build relationships with our American friends and why in 13 years the Liberal majority government and the member were unable to deliver a deal that is so important, as he said, to the people of his province.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the member that maybe he could get his head out of the sand. Maybe he could stop the divisiveness and look at the realities.

The fact of the matter is that when we were in government we balanced the books in this economy and gave the country the foundation which we find ourselves in today. It was the Liberal government. I was a backbencher and part of a committee that made the recommendations to ensure that the banking system remained sound in this country, which now his leader, the Prime Minister of the country goes around the world and brags about, but at that time the current Prime Minister was opposed to that particular merger.

I will tell the member that in terms of the U.S. relationship, the first government in 30 years to have a merchandise trade deficit on exports in this country is in fact the current government. Yes, we were there to establish a relationship with the United States, and we did. We continually built on that relationship.

I am proud of my time as a Liberal. I just cannot understand why the government and its members, whether they are talking from speaking notes from the PMO or what I do not know, constantly use divisiveness and fear tactics. That is what the member does in the House of Commons, and it is completely unacceptable.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to speak to this particular bill, which now has a new title and a new time in the House of Commons. Through the last Parliament we debated the bill at length because we had incredible concerns about our ability to understand what we were doing with our free trade deals across the world. We understand the difference between free trade and fair trade, but we want to know what the government stands for when it makes these types of arrangements with these countries and what drives it forward.

We agree that certain products are going to be easier to move into Panama. That is fine, but do we weaken our integrity in doing so? Do we weaken the direction our country can move in? Do we weaken the state of the world when we make deals that are unsatisfactory? Is that what we accomplish when we reach a free trade deal with Panama, a country dedicated to money laundering and tax evasion? Panama has so many corporations listed there, not because they do any work there but because they take advantage of the very lax practices there. Not only are the practices lax there, but they actually promote tax evasion and money laundering as a basis of industry.

Here we are, entering into a relationship with a country that has those principles and values. Does it bring us down to that level? By going along with these types of relationships, does it mean that we then lower the bar as far as our ability to enhance our prosperity is concerned? Is that what we are doing? Are those the trade principles of the Conservative government? That is our question, and I think it is a fair question.

I would welcome a debate in the House on trade, generally. We see that the government is engaged in trade discussions with other countries. We are all concerned with what the Prime Minister's visit to China means for our country and our relationships. Before the Prime Minister left for China, I remember his interview with Peter Mansbridge on CBC Television, in which he stated unequivocally that our energy policy is made by the free market and that we are an energy exporting country. He was saying that our exports are determined by the free market. That is his point of view. Two weeks later he was off to China, where he set up a deal to move energy, in a certain fashion, to the Chinese. We now see that the government, in its relationship with China, has agreed to terms and conditions regarding the environment and the processing of energy products with China. Those do not strike me as part of the free market, but rather an expression of Canada's need to enter into various relationships with a command economy like China's.

Do I appreciate those relationships? No, I do not, because I think the Prime Minister should have come back to Canada and set up a national energy strategy in which we could actually determine the value of the relationships we are establishing in exporting our products to countries like China. When we do export raw bitumen to China, as is proposed for the Gateway pipeline, we will become a supply link in a chain that can only be filled with that product moving to China for upgrading there. That is pretty clear. At the same time, interestingly enough, we have struck a deal to liquefy natural gas in Kitimat. Natural gas will be shipped over to China where it will be used to upgrade the same bitumen.

In reality, we are taking two energy products that we can use in Canada to increase the prosperity of our economy and do so in an environmentally correct fashion, and yet are moving them over to another country. That is our trade policy. That policy has an impact on billions of dollars of trade.

How does that fit with a free trade agreement with Panama?

That is my point, because we do not have any definition of what the government wants to accomplish with trade. What we have, as the Prime Minister said, is an ideological commitment to a free market. However, that is seriously disengaged from the reality of many of the products we are selling. I believe we are the only energy exporting country in the world that does not have a direct say on those energy exports. Now we have to take it on faith, and by confusion, and have to fill that role anyway.

We cannot be honest with ourselves and look at how the world is actually developing. It is not developing in the direction that we thought it would through the 1990s and the last decade when free trade was the mantra. No, in an era of increasing population and declining resources, command economies are taking over. We are starting to see that is the way of the world now. It is in this context that Canada, with its natural resources and riches, which we should be preserving for our grandchildren, is making decisions that are not correct.

When we come back to the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, we have to ask where the logic of it is. How does it work? Is it really a free trade agreement or is it a free investment deal? Is this really about Canadian multinational companies that want to take their profits out of Canada and invest them in things like the Panama Canal? Is that what this is really about? Is that the underlying principle that we are dealing with? We do not know because the Conservative government very rarely, if ever, presents principles and directions so that we can understand the purpose behind its actions.

When we look at these free trade deals, we have to be able to say to ourselves that, yes, we have followed to principles regarding non-criminal activity in our marketplace. We espouse the need to close down tax loopholes that have starved governments around the world from their rightful share of the riches that are made by corporations. These are things that we espouse, yet at the same time we are quite willing to give them up because some Canadian companies could perhaps invest in the expansion of the Panama Canal, then take those profit and give them to their shareholders around the world.

When we talk about free trade deals, we have to take them in the context of what the world is doing. The world is changing quickly in this new era, in which command economies will play a larger and larger role. We understand that and have addressed it.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, at the very end of the member's intervention he commented on the context.

Here is the context: the people of Northwest Territories, who make significant contributions to our supply chain in a number of important areas, are involved as a part of many, if not all, free trade agreements, including with Panama. I wonder if the member can tell us what kinds of products are involved in the Panama free trade agreement.

Why is he not standing up for the interests of the great folks up in the territories who want to contribute to this and produce goods for a number of countries, including Panama, where there are exciting economic opportunities for them and that country?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, that is a bit of a strange question, but I will try to answer it the best way I can because I appreciate my colleague's concern about the Northwest Territories. In the Northwest Territories right now, our people have all agreed to build the natural gas pipeline. That pipeline would supply the oil sands with needed natural gas to perhaps upgrade bitumen to a synthetic oil.

By aiming to put a million barrels a day across the border with the Keystone pipeline and 800,000 barrels a day out the door from Kitimat in northern B.C., we are basically saying to the Northwest Territories that we do not want to develop its natural gas now because we are going to send this product, unprocessed, to other countries where they can develop their natural gas supplies. In fact, we are going to take the natural gas from northern B.C. and liquefy it at a cost of about 35% of that energy and we are going to send it to China where the processing can be done.

Where does that leave the Northwest Territories in this whole equation?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that my colleague speaks not only highly of the Northwest Territories but that he is also a very hard-working member of Parliament for the north.

Trade deals are a reality, as we live in a global society. However, are the bases of these trade deals fair, equitable and sustainable? We know for a fact that Panama has been used as a money laundering state by drug cartels from Mexico, Colombia and other parts of South America.

I am very concerned about the danger of some of the money being laundered through Panama being invested in products or funnelled to Canada. Does the member share those concerns?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good point that my colleague makes. What happens to money laundered in Panama when there are many corporations that have registered in Panama to take advantage of a situation where money can be cheap? When money has to be laundered, there is an opportunity for other companies to pick it up. The more relationships we set up with Panama, the more we legitimize the work that is going on between our corporations in Panama and Canadians. The more we say that the free flow of money between Canada and Panama is going to be unhindered, the more we are saying we support this process. That is the reality of it and it really does not matter what the Conservatives say: reality is reality.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to enter the debate on Bill C-24. I thank my colleague for Western Arctic for very capably articulating many of the positions of the NDP and the reservations we have with this bill. I will do my best not to repeat the many legitimate points my colleague made.

However, I will say with some frustration that I have been tracking and following this debate since August 11, 2009. when the government, unilaterally and without consultation from Parliament, concluded its negotiations. I cannot criticize this, as governments do have the right to enter into free trade agreements. However, they then need to ratify them with the Parliament of Canada where the legitimate concerns that the parties may have on behalf of our representatives can be made known. In any serious consultation, there should be some accommodation of the legitimate concerns the other parties brought forward in the context of the free trade agreements entered into.

I raise this only because it has been a constant source of frustration to us that the consultation has not been meaningful or robust and it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, even meet the definition of true consultation if the government side has not accommodated at least some of the legitimate concerns brought forward. I would refer members to recent Supreme Court decisions that dealt with the issue of what constitutes meaningful consultation.

I do not think, by any stretch of the imagination, we can conclude that meaningful consultation took place, because not one of the amendments brought forward by the official opposition were entertained or allowed by the ruling party, even though some of the concerns brought forward would meet the nod test from the general public. A lot of Canadians would be upset to learn that we are entering into this trade agreement with a country like Panama without taking steps and measures to ensure that Panama is worthy of a free trade agreement with Canada.

I do not use that word lightly. Trade with Canada is a privilege, not a right. I am the first one to admit that free trade can help elevate the standards of both parties to a trade agreement. We do not look for mirror image countries. This is not some kind of vanity exercise where we will only trade with countries that are just like us, but surely they must meet some minimum ethical, labour and environmental standards. For Heaven's sake, they should not be the tax haven of choice and the money laundering country of choice for the international drug cartel. Why would we reward bad behaviour?

It comes to mind that Panama is probably dining out on the fact that it has achieved a good housekeeping seal of approval by Canada which has seen fit to enter into a trade agreement with it. It says that maybe all the accusations of being the drug laundering capital of Central America and South America cannot be true because otherwise a nice country like Canada would not sign the agreement with it.

I am here to say that the world is not satisfied that Panama has taken corrective action. It is not a responsible actor in the international financial community. The president of France said so as recently as November 5, 2011. He cited a number of countries that should be shunned by the international community. Guess what countries are on that list? They include Antigua, Barbuda, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Botswana, Brunei, Panama, Uruguay and Venuatu. President Sarkozy threatened that the countries that remain tax havens will be shunned by the international community. How does that jibe with us having this debate today and about to enter into a process that legitimizes and validates the behaviour and past practices of that country.

International tax havens are a scourge on the international financial world and they should be stamped out. They should not be allowed. I go to chartered accountants' websites sometimes to track what is being pushed around here. They call it “tax motivated expatriation”. That is the nice sanitary term for what I call “sleazy tax cheating loopholes” that are ubiquitous among a certain financial class of people.

The OECD has a grey list. Panama was removed from the grey list. It reads:

Panama today moved to the OECD’s list of jurisdictions considered to have substantially implemented the standard for exchange of information when it signed a tax information exchange agreement with France. This brings Panama’s total agreements to the critical 12 that meet the international standard.

Since then, it was when Mr. Sarkozy, in a speech made at the G20 conference in Cannes, named the Caribbean countries and eight others, including Panama, as countries that remain tax havens and should be shunned by the international community.

What is this almost obsession to sign as many of these trade agreements with as many countries as humanly possible without even doing the due diligence, the scrutiny and the oversight that one would expect? These are binding agreements.

The amendments that my colleague brought forward, the terms and conditions under which the government could garner NDP support for these, were reasonable ones that I think would meet the nod test from almost all ordinary Canadians. One was that we address the status of labour rights in Panama. If it is our goal to use our trade relationships as an objective to elevate the standard of living conditions for the trading partners with which we sign these agreements, why do we need to have a side agreement on labour rights that is virtually unenforceable? Why is that not part of the substance of the text of the actual agreement?

Environmental concerns are something that the NDP always wants to see addressed. We should be setting the industry standard, not tacitly endorsing the bad practices of other countries by entering into these legitimizing trade agreements.

There has not been a business case made on how this is categorically in the best interests of a majority of Canadians. Of course we want trade. We are a trading nation and we do rely on trade. We are blessed with natural resources. We export, we extract and export. However, some of us would say that current and recent past practices would indicate a lack of commitment and perhaps a disturbing trend of not putting enough emphasis on value adding our resources before they are exported from this country.

I will give one example as it relates to my own riding of Winnipeg Centre. I used to have 43 garment manufacturers in my riding, the largest of which had 1,800 employees at its peak. Many of them had 300, 400 and 500 employees. Some were small boutique custom made shops. We are now down to nine. I am talking about the period of time that I have been a member of Parliament, from 1997 to today. It went from 43 to 9, 10,000 to 12,000 employees, just in my riding, and that does not include Winnipeg North where my colleague used to have garment manufacturers.

We decided to cut that sector loose. Somebody made a conscious decision to stop the duty remissions and all the efforts we made to keep manufacturing in Canada. Somebody turned a blind eye to the trade provisions. When China was invited into the WTO, the partners to the WTO could have signed phase-in agreements but Canada chose not to.

Therefore, we got the 200% and 300% impact all in one year. Countries like the United States had a 10-year phase-in at 5% to 10% a year. For Canada, it was all or nothing and, believe me, that was the death knell of the garment industry in my city. To whose benefit was that? Those were great entry level gateway jobs, often for new Canadians. They were not big paying jobs but they were good unionized jobs with a day care centre, a pension plan and a dental plan, and they are all gone. The government in its wisdom watched them fly out the window and did not lift a finger to save them. That is the same attitude that we see toward these trade agreements. The government is being irresponsible.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member's use of the English language and the emphasis he puts on it is sometimes inspiring and sometimes not so inspiring.

The member said that there was no business case for the Panama free trade agreement. However, let us look at Manitoba with its precious stones and metals, oilseeds, cereals and pork. Farmers working in the province of Manitoba want their member of Parliament to stand up in this place and explain to them why he cannot support an agreement that would do so much for the great people of Manitoba, my next door neighbours, “Mantarians” we call ourselves collectively. The member should stand up for what is right in Manitoba and Mantario. Why will he not do that?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member from Mantario, for that remark and for the backhanded compliment about my oratory.

Since he raised agriculture, I will point out that the Conservative government just systematically dismantled the most effective export instrument that the Canadian agricultural sector has ever known, the largest and most successful grain marketing company in the world, a $7 billion a year corporation. The Conservative government just legislated it out of business. That was how we used to export the product of the prairie region, 20 million tonnes a year, consistently providing the best rate of return ever. We have the evidence, the Conservatives have none. They were on some ideological crusade because they thought it was Communism or something. When prairie farmers united together to act in their own best interests, the Conservatives systematically destroyed the largest, most effective and most successful grain marketing company in the world.

Canadian farmers will still export their grains and their products but we do not need to do a deal with drug dealers to sell our products. If we want the free movement of goods and services, then we should trade things that are legal, not deal with some narco-economy of money launderers and dope dealers.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the member for Winnipeg Centre for getting a little agitated at that last question from the member for Kenora.

I have had the opportunity to work with the member for Winnipeg Centre and I saw how he stood up for farmers in western Canada and others in the Canadian Wheat Board fight. However, the one thing I did not see were the backbenchers on that side who come from Western Canada stand up. They did not allow democracy to flourish. They would not allow a vote. They broke the law in order to implement their ideological position.

My question for the member on the Canada-Panama trade agreement is--

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are some things that we can let pass in the House, and the member for Malpeque has a lot of liberalism in the House, but he just stated that the Conservative government broke the law. He knows very well that the court decision that just came down about 10 days ago or less said that the Conservative government acted in full respect of the law in all of the legislation and everything that pertained to it.

The member should correct himself.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, one of the big areas in the Panama trade agreement is the reconstruction of the Panama Canal to allow super Panamanian vessels to go through it. The government has not informed us on this issue but the Panama Canal authority gives preference to Panama nationals and maybe even to the United States in this area.

Does my colleague see that as a concern?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely do see that as a concern. I think this might be a half-baked document that we are dealing with. If we have not gone to the greatest length possible to ensure the best advantage to our country and not just to benefit others in this, then why are we in such a rush to do it? We believe that fair trade should be the overarching principle and not just an afterthought of these negotiations.

We should not need to debate these things in the House. Eleven legitimate amendments were put forward at committee and not one was accommodated by the other side. Members cannot tell me that none of our international trade critic's comments had any merit whatsoever. That is not the spirit of open and honest debate and consultation. That is ramming something through for some other vested interest, not the best interests of Canadians and Canadian industry.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always better to follow the member for Winnipeg Centre because then everybody on the other side of the House is awake and I appreciate that.

I get nervous when I read about free trade deals with countries like Panama. I come from a labour background, working for trade unions. I know when we reach agreements with other countries that have very poor labour relations records and very low wages, generally Canadians suffer. Canadian workers suffer, unionized or not, because we are now trying to enter into a race to the bottom. That nervousness is part of what drives me to want to speak to this bill.

The agreement with Panama does not correct the very shoddy state of the labour relations in Panama. We are not dealing with a country on an even footing. I appreciate the comment of my friend from Winnipeg Centre, that we do not always want to be on an even footing. We want to have agreements with countries regardless of whether they are our equals because we hope that our entering into these agreements will raise everyone's standard of living in both countries.

However, the experience I personally have had is that when there is a low-wage jurisdiction to send jobs to and there is nothing to prevent the products or services that come from that low-wage jurisdiction, Canadian corporations, even big multinational corporations based in Canada, are quick to send those jobs to those other countries, thus hurting Canadian workers. Even in knowledge-based industries, film and television production and in the newspaper business, we have seen jobs move out of Canada into low-wage jurisdictions like Panama because there is nothing the government has done to prevent it. There is no barrier whatsoever. With this bill, we would create even fewer barriers to a low-wage jurisdiction and one that has very little, if any, labour protections for organized labour in that country.

We spent quite a bit of time debating Bill C-10, which had in it some raising of the bar for people who were involved in drug trafficking, with a mandatory minimum five-year sentence those people. Even if that person is growing as few as six pot plants to alleviate symptoms from multiple sclerosis, he or she might go to jail for five years. The good news in that case is that person would not stay in jail for five years because he or she would likely be dead before that.

The problem is we are about to enter into an agreement with a country with a large part of its economic basis being the drug trade. How is it that we are opposed to the drug trade when it is in Canada, but we are in favour of entering into a deal with a country where probably billions of dollars, because there is no way of disclosing how much, is being laundered from the drug trade in that country? That gives me pause and it should give everyone here pause, that we should not be encouraging deals with drug dealers. That is just not on, as far as this side of the House is concerned.

There is no agreement on tax information exchange, so we do not even know the size of the problem. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals have agreed that the tax-doubling agreement is enough. It is not enough. It does not disclose any of the illegal income that is floating around in that country as a tax haven, a tax haven for drug dealers and drug cartels. We believe most of this income is from money laundering that cannot happen in Canada because we have good financial and taxation regimes that prevent it. Now we getting into bed with a country that permits it and will not even disclose it. The OECD had it on its grey list as one of the countries to not do business with, yet we are about to do that.

There are already too many drug dealers in my riding. What kind of a message does it send to those people who are doing harm to our community and our citizens when we are entering into an agreement with a country that is notorious around the world for being a haven for money laundering for drug dealers? I am sure there are a few Panamanians in my riding, although not very many. There are probably far more drug dealers.

Last summer we had the police task force on anti-violence and drugs in my riding. Our riding was showered with many more police officers over the course of the summer to try to weed out some of that drug problem. Yet we are saying that it is okay to do business with what essentially is a country that harbours and is a haven for the drug trade. That does not make sense to me and it should not make sense to my constituents either.

For example, last week I had a meeting in my riding with a bunch of youth from the York Youth Coalition. One of the young folks asked me what he should tell the kids in the riding who could not get jobs. Over the course of the past few years of trade deals all the manufacturing jobs have left the riding. In part, they have gone to the U.S. and to low-wage countries as a result of free trade deals that the government has signed with other countries. These kids who cannot get jobs, or if they do get jobs, they are for 20 hours a week at $9 or $10 an hour, discover very quickly that they can earn $300 or $400 in an hour standing on a street corner selling drugs. He asked what he should tell these kids. He said he told them that it is wrong to sell drugs, but he wanted to know what to tell them about how they could move forward in society, how they could expect to, at some, point make a living that would sustain a family when the jobs had disappeared.

As with my friend's riding of Winnipeg Centre, which had huge and burgeoning textile businesses, we used to have a litany of manufacturing that was part of Ontario's manufacturing industry, to the point where every June the manufacturers would line up in the high schools to solicit the kids graduating to come and work in their factories. The last time that happened was probably 30 years ago. Stores like Wal-Mart certainly do not line up in the high schools looking for kids. The kids come pounding on those doors looking for $10 an hour jobs. It is a very desperate situation where I am. We have only ourselves to blame as a result of some of these trade deals.

I am not saying that we, as an opposition, are opposed to anything to do with trade. That is not the case. However, we need to protect our interests. We need to protect the interests of Canadians in the deals that we do exercise with other countries. We need to protect the labour rights in those countries. We need to ensure that we are not in a huge race to the bottom in which our minimum wage will never go up because we now compete with minimum wages of $1 an hour or $1 a day, depending on the jurisdiction with which we are about to compete. There are no protections from labour unions in those same countries.

We have made proposals in the past to amend these agreements to protect the labour rights of Canadians and to protect environmental rights and they have been rejected by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. Therefore, these kinds of sensible applications need to be made to this kind of an agreement before we enter into it.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the member correctly, he is saying that Canada should just ignore countries that have some internal problems with which they are struggling. In the case of Panama, he says that the drug industry is creating an economy there and that there is no hope for it. We should let the good folks of Panama suffer under whatever type of nasty environment is there, cut them loose and forget about them, rather than try to develop a relationship with them through trade and show them that there is another way to improve their economy, which is through good trade practices with a country like Canada. We have many things we can teach countries like Panama.

A few short years ago, Colombia was a country that no one wanted to go to. Look at Colombia now. We have a trade agreement with it. It has a burgeoning tourist industry. It has turned around because there were some people in charge of the government who said that there was a way out, that there was hope for the country and they looked for help.

Does the member, maybe just for a second, think that Panama is asking Canada to give it a hand to get out of that desperation? Is he cutting the kids in his riding loose? I do not think so.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is not that we cut these countries loose. The issue is that we insist, when we enter into negotiations, that they clean up their act, that part of the condition for Canada entering into an agreement with a country like Panama is that it prevents the money laundering that continues to go on for the drug cartels, that it enters into legislation that gives workers the right to organize and the right to have their disputes settled by arbitration.

Those are the kinds of things we should do, but for some reason, the government is opposed to those kinds of measures in these trade agreements. I think it is because they are really investor agreements and not trade agreements and the government is trying to protect the investors. I hope I am wrong.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada depends on international trade. We are a trading nation. Canadians share the same values in terms of wanting to do what they can to fight for issues such as human rights and basic labour standards. We do not like child labour. We want to ensure that environmental concerns are being addressed. The whole concept between sustainable development and so forth.

These are issues that are very important to us, but also we see the value in terms of international trade. There are trading countries in the world that we have concerns with today. I could cite China and many others that were very dependent on those trade links. Now we have a free trade agreement that we are supportive of in principle. We still believe we could have done more with our neighbours to the south and other nations like Korea and so forth, but we do believe in value for free trade agreements.

The NDP, to the best of my knowledge, has never voted in favour of any free trade agreement. Members are trying to make Panama look like an ugly nation when there are many positive things in Panama. Has the NDP ever voted for a free trade agreement, whether it is Panama or any other agreement that has come before the House of Commons?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that we are a trading nation. One of the difficulties with the current position on trade is that we do not all live in Alberta. Therefore, we cannot all benefit by the jobs created in Alberta because we do not all live there. As the jobs disappear from Ontario, 400,000 good manufacturing jobs that disappeared since the government took office, those people are unemployed and that is a problem.

The NDP believes in trade. We know that trade is a good thing, but there have to be protections in the agreements that we sign with trading partners before we will agree, and there are none in this agreement.

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.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of the NDP being against free trade. What we have always asked for is that trade be fair, and that labour and environmental standards be enshrined in trade agreements. That is a tenet of a social democrat. It is no good that the workers in this country benefit, if workers in the country that we are trading with do not benefit as well.

Let us look at Mexican workers. We were told during the free trade deals with Mexico that their living standards would rise and rise, and so would ours. Well, 400,000 people lost their jobs in Ontario, no rising there. I have been to Mexico a fair number of times, and I have seen some whose standard has not changed too much.

In trading with Panama, the reality is this is a country that is inadvertently a tax haven for nefarious organizations, such as the drug cartel. One would think that if Canada wanted to trade with Panama that it would be paramount that we get Panama to agree to stop being a tax haven for that type of activity. That should have been number one.

Number two, where are the labour and environmental agreements enshrined in this agreement? They are not there.

Number three, the fact is our colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster said very clearly that with the 11 amendments that would have strengthened the agreement, it would have gotten New Democratic support. However, every single one of the amendments was ignored.

I remember a Conservative committee that denied every amendment from a gentleman from Mount Royal on Bill C-10. Every single one of those amendments was defeated at committee. Yet, when it came back to the House for third reading, the government wanted to institute those amendments, but it could not do it. The government took it to the Senate, where the amendments that the gentleman from the Liberal Party proposed were then put in.

Why did the government do that? Just because it has a majority does not mean it has all the good ideas. Our colleague had some very sound and basic ideas to improve and strengthen the trade deal with Panama. They were rejected outright. It was not because the members of the committee understood what he was saying, it was because they were told to reject them. It is as simple as that.

If the government brings us back an agreement that includes labour and environmental standards, and ends the tax haven for drug dealers, maybe the NDP will support this initiative. Until that happens, the government should send it back. The reality is that on every single trade deal that has been out there, the NDP has been front and centre. We have been very clear that there is no deal unless labour and environmental standards are enshrined in the deal. There can be no side agreement, no bargain back here. They should be enshrined in the context of the deal.

That way, labour unions in Panama could collectively bargain with their employers and with their government to have the same rights that our trade unions have here in Canada in their collective agreements. That is the commonality we look for. We also want environmental standards to increase in both countries in order to improve the natural environment of both countries.

If the government does that, we should be able to enter into trade deals in order to assist businesses and workers. Unless that happens, there is really no deal on this side.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. 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 hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore will have six minutes remaining when the House returns to this matter.

The House resumed from March 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that the question be now put.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to speak today to this bilateral trade agreement between Panama and Canada.

It seems that we have not learned too many lessons from our experiences with NAFTA. As a result of NAFTA, we have seen hundreds of thousands of jobs disappear over the border and into other countries. We have also seen the logs that used to be manufactured right in B.C., where Canadians had a chance to have well-paying jobs, go over the border and Canadians jobs leave with them.

Instead of focusing on multilateral free trade agreement talks that actually focus on agreements that would benefit not only Canada but all the countries involved, that would take environmental factors into consideration, that would take labour laws into consideration and that would take sustainability in the long term into consideration, the government is going down the wrong path in signing bilateral free trade agreement after bilateral free trade agreement.

When we look at Panama's labour laws and the lack of protection for its working people, it absolutely amazes me that the Government of Canada, where we once valued the rights of working people, is so intent on signing an agreement with a country that has so little respect, so little regulation and so little support for working people.

This is no surprise as it is the same Conservative government that has attacked the rights of working people in B.C. It is attacking their pensions and is attacking the rights of workers, rights recognized by the United Nations, to full, free collective bargaining.

First, we must not forget the postal workers where the Conservatives did not allow the bargaining process to play out. We recently had the case of the Air Canada workers where the pilots had not even gone on strike and yet the government intervened with very draconian legislation, once again taking away the rights of working people.

On the other hand, we know the government favours corporations. Now that Air Canada is blindly allowing all the Alveos jobs to leave this country, we suddenly hear this mantra that those are private companies. The same government gives billions in tax giveaways to private corporations and thinks that kind of interference is okay but the kind of interference that keeps jobs in Canada is not okay. That is not okay on this side of the House. We are determined to keep jobs here in Canada for Canadians.

Let us look at another aspect of what is happening in Panama. When we want to start trading with a country, we need look at how that country is viewed. Panama is seen as a tax haven. We will not have a very clear understanding of the reporting of income. Not only are we worried about people and big corporations who will hide their money in a tax haven like Panama, we also need to be concerned about a lot of the drug lords who will hide their ill-gained money in Panama.

How can we enter into a trade agreement where there is so little transparency when it comes to the reporting of income and how the institutions work? Once again we need to relate it to what is happening back here.

The Conservatives talk about their so-called crime agenda, which is really a prison building agenda, and yet they are ready to sign a free trade agreement with a country that has flagrant violations when it comes to being a tax haven and flagrant UN violations of workers' rights, .

I had the pleasure of visiting Panama many years ago, which seems like another lifetime. I am sure many changes have taken place but, from friends I have talked to in Panama, I would say that two realities still exist in Panama. There is the reality of the gated communities, in which many American citizens live. They are huge fenced-in communities with a large amount of military hardware to protect them. Panama has had violations around labour rights and has been criticized internationally.

The French recently criticized Panama saying that it would be very difficult for the international community to trade with it as it was a tax haven. However, once again, no surprise here, our government is going ahead with its ill thought out agenda of signing free trade agreements without building in protections for Canadians. It is also our responsibility to ensure that the free trade agreement is not to the detriment of citizens in Panama. As Canadians, we pride ourselves on our international work and how we look at the rest of the world. We really need to start paying attention.

Todd Tucker, who is part of the Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, made a compelling case about Panama being one of the world's worst tax havens. He said that the Panamanian government had intentionally allowed the nation to become a tax haven. He went on to say that the tax haven situation in Panama was not improving under the current government and conditions in Panama. He also said that, in addition, a trade agreement with Canada would only worsen the problem and could cause harm to both Panama and Canada. That should be enough to give all of us time to stop and reflect before going ahead in a heedless way.

Teresa Healy of the Canadian Labour Congress spoke to the committee regarding the agreement on labour co-operation. She testified that while the international labour organizations labour standards are invoked, the agreement is still weaker than it should be. As well, the current Panamanian government has been increasingly harsh on labour unions and workers in recent years.

Why am I not surprised that the Conservative government pays too little heed to the normal, average working person in Canada and attacks their rights? Why would we expect the government to enshrine or protect workers' rights in developing countries like Panama? The government has gone out of its way to attack unionized workers and the working people here and it sells our jobs out of Canada. Why would it stand up for the workers in Panama or to keep the jobs here in Canada?

The government is turning a blind eye while, as I speak, thousands of jobs are leaving this country. I do not trust the government to protect the interests of everyday Canadians because it only protects the interests of corporations and big money.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not normally engage in questions and comments, but the false indignities of the left-wingers can drive one nuts and drive ordinary Canadians nuts.

Here is someone who is expounding on behalf of a party how much its members care about Canada and how much they stand up for Canadians, yet people go to Washington trying to kill Canadian jobs. Anytime a budget comes forward trying to help veterans, those members vote against it.

If you are so indignant and so caring about Canadian jobs, why would you turn down a Canadian company and hire a foreign company to take care of your leadership convention which just took place? Canadians were turned down for a foreign firm.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I would like to remind all MPs to direct their comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Newton--North Delta.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, throwing out deflections that have very little to do with the debate at hand will do very little to convince Canadians. The Conservative government is sending jobs out of the country. We just have to look at what has happened in Ontario, in Montreal and other parts of Quebec, in B.C. and across the country. The government cannot be trusted to protect Canadian jobs and Canadian interests. The Conservative government has one interest, and that is to give billions of tax breaks to rich oil companies and big banks and then sit back and let the working people in the country struggle to make ends meet.

The Conservatives have the opportunity to take care of Canadians. I hope they do so in the budget today.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I would like to remind members to wait until they have been recognized to make comments. Otherwise, they will wait for a very long time to be recognized if they continue to heckle from different sides of the House.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, while I do not agree with a lot that the government is doing, I do believe the Canada-Panama trade agreement is a good agreement.

Where I differ substantially from the NDP and the member who just spoke is I think trade can be utilized to improve human rights and improve economic conditions.

I cannot understand where the member is coming from when she said that the trade agreement would worsen tax havens. How could that be? Once we build a trading relationship we have more authority. Just closing the door and leaving them out there is not going to solve anything. Opening up the door gives us the opportunity to improve those relationships and demand that the tax havens be closed and demand that workers' rights be respected.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is exactly the point. Our greatest opportunity to try to ensure some positive changes are put in place is before we sign on the dotted line of a bilateral agreement.

The very best chance to ensure some protection for workers' rights and ensure action is taken so that Panama is not a tax haven for ill-gotten money, as well as legal money, is before Canada signs that agreement. The government could use this opportunity, but it is not going to because it has no interest in protecting workers here in Canada or anywhere else.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, there are two ways it could go and quite clearly, this is a race to the bottom.

When we enter into a trade deal with a country even though we recognize it has certain characteristics, we are saying that it is okay. What are we saying to our own people? We are saying that it is okay to seek out tax havens, to launder money, to do all those things. What we are seeing here is a race to the bottom. Is that not the case?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made a very thoughtful comment.

Absolutely, this is about a race to the bottom. This is not about what is good for Canada or what is good for the people of Panama right now. This is about what is good for big international corporations. This is about what is good for the very wealthy, who do not need more doors opened for them.

The Conservative government is missing a prime opportunity to ensure that the rights of workers are enshrined.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this House today to offer my comments on 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.

I will start by talking generally about the perspective I bring to this House from Vancouver, Vancouver Kingsway in particular, and the good folks there. I think this is a broad consensus of their views on trade policy. The principles I am about to talk about fairly express those points of view.

Trade is very important to Canada. It is recognized by all Canadians who care to think about this issue that trade is essential to our economy. British Columbia is a coastal province and a trading province. There is a very strong commitment to the concept of trade being very important not only to the development of the economy of Canada but also the economy of British Columbia.

There are many businesses and enterprises in British Columbia, as there are across the country, that engage either directly or indirectly in the import or export of goods and services around the world. This is particularly the case with Asia with which British Columbia and businesses in British Columbia have a particularly strong tie.

Trade allows goods and services that are within the productive capacity or local expertise or resources of one country to be exchanged with those of another. That is why I can say certainly on behalf of the New Democrats that we believe trade is good. We believe it is desirable. We believe it is critical to our economy.

The question that should be raised with respect to any trade deal is the terms on which that trade ought to be conducted. Are there any principles, policies or rules that should be applied when Canadians consider the exchange of goods and services out of our country and the entrance of goods and services into our country?

There is a vast spectrum in the political world. We have heard some views expressed in this House during the debate. At the far end of the spectrum, there are those who assert that trade ought to be totally free, that the market should be free to act on its own, and that goods and services should be allowed to enter untrammelled to whatever market those goods and services can penetrate, and that government should stay out of the way. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who have the view that trade should be highly regulated, that there should be high tariffs, that countries should be closed and highly protectionist.

On the one hand there are the proponents of total free trade, who think that goods should be able to enter a country regardless of the other country's labour standards, environmental standards, and regardless of the human rights situation in that country. On the other hand there are those with a very closed approach to trade who think it should be very difficult for goods and services to enter the economy.

Speaking on behalf of the people of Vancouver Kingsway, and British Columbia and, I think, on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada, we believe that we should have a policy that pursues well-managed trade, not free trade, not a closed approach to trade, but fair trade. That is the approach to trade this party has taken every since the free trade debates opened up in this country some decades ago.

Why do we take this position? We believe that Canadians do not want goods and services that use child labour to enter Canada. We do not want goods and services that are the product of destructive environmental practices to enter this country. Canadians do not want goods coming to this country from countries that have very poor human rights records. Canadians do not want goods and services to enter this country when those goods and services come from an economy that is so fundamentally different from ours, with such lower standards that it actually hurts Canadian employers' ability to compete.

I will give one example. One of the reasons the NDP led such a spirited campaign with the Liberal Party in the 1980s, who opposed the free trade agreement with the United States at the time, was that we would be opening our borders to the U.S. economy which had 10 times the power of ours. In some of the southern states there were no labour standards, there was economy of scale, and employers were paying so little in wages that it would hurt Canadian employers. That was a major concern.

At that time, there was a burgeoning textile industry in this country, particularly in Quebec, but in other provinces as well. Employers were paying good wages. They were paying for health and welfare plans and pension plans. Workers were paid wages on which they could raise their families. Employers were paying workers' compensation benefits to the government to compensate workers if they were injured on the job. The employers were paying EI premiums in case workers became unemployed. These were the kinds of jobs that were being developed in this country. As soon as the free trade agreement was signed, textiles were allowed to flood in from the southern United States, where there were no unionized jobs, wages were half the rate that Canadian employers were paying, employers were not paying into social programs and there was no public health insurance. The result was that Quebec's textile industry was decimated. Canada lost tens of thousands of jobs, hundreds of thousands if we include jobs in other industries. These were good, middle-class, well-paying jobs.

There is a lot of rhetoric around trade in the House. The facts are that over the last 30 years, since the neo-liberal or neo-conservative, depending on one's point of view, concept of pursuing untrammelled free trade agreements, a significant change has occurred in the living standards of workers in this country. By any measure, according to many groups, Canadian workers today make less money in real terms than workers did 30 years ago. The middle class has been squeezed and the inequality of wealth distribution in this country has risen dramatically over the last 30 years. That is not rhetoric; that is a fact.

Part of the reason that happened is the trade policy that has been pursued not only by the Conservative government but by the Liberal government before it. At one time, I think it was in 1993, the Liberals campaigned on removing Canada from NAFTA. Of course, it is not uncommon for the Liberals to change their minds once they get into power, and they never did remove Canada from NAFTA. It is important to understand that Canadians and New Democrats want a trade policy based on encouraging trade and making sure that the sound principles I referred to are respected.

Regarding the bill that is before us today, New Democrats are concerned about it and do not believe it is a sound piece of legislation.

When the committee considered this bill, compelling testimony was heard from witnesses regarding the tax situation in the Republic of Panama, as well as its poor record of human rights. I do not hear anybody on either side of the House disputing the human rights record in Panama, but it is a concern.

Despite requests from the Canadian government, Panama has refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. This is very troubling, considering the large amount of money that is documented to be laundered in Panama, including money from drug trafficking. Some years ago there was a study done, I believe at Harvard University, which listed Panama as one of the top three countries for money laundering from drug cartels in South America. Panama's complete lack of taxation transparency has led the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to label the nation as a tax haven. It is not the New Democrats calling it a tax haven, it is the OECD.

Recently Panama was removed from the so-called OECD grey list, after substantially implementing the standard for exchange of information when it signed a tax information exchange agreement with France. That brings Panama's total agreements to the critical 12, the international standard. However, French President Sarkozy, in a speech at the end of the G20 conference in November last year in Switzerland, named Panama as a country that nevertheless remains a tax haven.

I believe that all people of Canada and members of this House should be concentrating on pursuing free trade agreements with countries that raise environmental standards, respect human rights, protect Canadian employers and make—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Burlington.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his well thought out speech. I do not agree with most of it, but it was well presented.

My question is simple. On this side of the House we are in favour of free trade agreements. We have signed a number of them over the years since we have come to office. The New Democratic Party has been opposed to every one except for one. I believe the NDP supported the agreement with Jordan.

I like to talk about specifics. Could the hon. member highlight the actual differences between what we have signed with Jordan, which the NDP members agreed with, and what we have signed with Panama?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a fair question from the hon. member.

Before I get to his specific question, the hon. member said he disagreed with most of what was in my speech. I spoke about building trade agreements between Canada and the rest of the world that are based on principles that respect human rights and make sure goods are not produced in countries that are destroying the environment.

I spoke about signing agreements with countries where they do not use child labour to produce goods, and where the economic conditions are comparable to Canada. This way, Canadian employers do not have to compete against countries where people are paid $1 an hour, and where there is no workers' compensation, employment insurance or standards. I heard an hon. member say that is not Panama.

Panama is not known to have high environmental, human rights and labour standards. I would say that we on this side of the House continue to pursue trade agreements with countries that respect those standards.

I do not really know why the hon. member would oppose anything I said, unless he is in favour of environmental degradation, disrespect for human rights and lower labour standards. However, I do not think he would agree with that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it does seem that the New Democratic Party might be on a paradigm shift here. Its members might be looking at the possibility of favouring free trade agreements.

My question to the hon. member is this. The hon. member qualified what was important for New Democrats to support a free trade agreement. Could he give us any clear indication as to other countries with which the government or the House should be looking at entering into more formal free trade agreements? Could he cite any countries as examples?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, certainly I can list countries that I think Canada should be pursuing agreements with. These would be countries that are world leaders with respect to the environment, labour standards and human rights. Countries like Sweden, Norway or Denmark would be a good start. However, I notice that the government is not engaging in discussions with those countries.

I think we should be carefully examining each country that we propose to trade with, and making sure that trade with those countries is beneficial to the Canadian economy and employers. Moreover, it is not necessarily the identity of the country all the time, but it is the terms on which that trade is going to be conducted. We should not be signing agreements with countries that do not squarely put labour standards, human rights and environmental standards in the text of the agreement. The government has taken an approach to relegate those important concepts to side deals that are not part of the text of the formal agreement, leading many to believe those concepts have secondary importance.

We on this side of the House are going to continue to make environmental, human rights, labour and employment standards central planks in any trade agreement we have with any country. If those countries agree to respect those standards, then an agreement could be good for their economy and the Canadian economy. We will support those agreements.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-24, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Panama. I enjoyed the comments of my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway. However, when he says that Canada should enter into an agreement with Norway, for example, he ought to remember that there was an agreement that was to come in the last few years with the EFTA countries, which included Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. The NDP voted against that, as I recall.

I appreciated my hon. colleague's point that trade is essential to our economy. It is important that members recognize that and understand what arises from that.

I come from a trade-dependent province, Nova Scotia. I recognize how important these kinds of agreements are to our economy, to job creation and to our families. My hon. colleague talked about the Canada–U.S. free trade agreement. In the early 1980s, the Canadian government of Mr. Trudeau was very concerned about arising sentiments of protectionism in the U.S. A variety of tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers arising in the U.S. were of great concern, causing issues for Canadian businesses trying to sell to the U.S. The process was begun under that government of discussing the possibility of an agreement with the U.S.

My biggest concern with the way the Mulroney government approached the negotiations with the U.S. was that its approach was to say that its whole economic policy was going to be dependent on getting a trade agreement with the U.S. It said to the U.S., “let us sit down and negotiate”. What kind of position are government members in if they make it clear publicly to the counterpart in negotiation that they are not going to leave the table, that they have to have an agreement as they have told their country that it is vital to their future to have this agreement? That does not put them in a very strong bargaining position. Surely it would have been better to have entered that negotiation differently.

My difficulty with the NDP point of view is that it can never find an agreement that it can support. Members are convinced that they could have negotiated a better agreement that was far more in Canada's favour. That is nice to say. Maybe there are things that could have been done differently. However, it is a bit unrealistic to say they could have negotiated a far better agreement and gotten everything they think is important. That is not what negotiation is like. It is a two-way street. That is why my friends in the NDP have never been in favour of any trade deal with any other country, as far as I can recall, no matter how many jobs it created for Canadians or Nova Scotians or how much, for example, it helped our regional economy in the Atlantic.

If we look at the record, Canada did very well. If we look at the economic performance of Canada and the U.S. during the 1990s and the decade between 2000 and 2010, the results for Canada's economy were very strong. My difficulty with the NDP approach is that opposing these agreements is preferring protectionism. Protectionism provides temporary relief. Two hundred years ago, or a little less than that, my great-grandfather was a shipwright in Dartmouth working on sailing ships. When they started to fade away and metal and steamships took over, we could have said we were going to prevent those from coming in, that we would support with protectionism and tariffs our wooden shipbuilding industry. That might have provided some relief for a little while, but sooner or later it would have had negative impacts on the economy. The standard of living for people in this country would have gone down.

I think that is the result when we have the kinds of protectionist barriers that my NDP colleagues favour. The alternative to the U.S. trade agreement, perfect though it may have been, would have been more barriers to our products.

If we look back to 1988-90, of course the trade agreement was negotiated in about 1987, we were 90% dependent for our trade on the U.S. Ninety per cent of our exports went to the U.S. That was an enormous proportion of our economy. So, to say that we did not need to have that or that it was not good enough simply is not a good enough answer. I think we have to come up with a better argument than that.

Speaking of the impacts on Atlantic Canada, I encourage colleagues to read the recent report of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, which was produced in connection with its outlook 2012 conference. It is cleverly entitled “Let's Get Out of Here”. It presents an interesting study on how Atlantic Canadian firms are taking on the world. They are not saying, “Let's get out of here and move to Fort McMurray”. They are saying, “Let's get out of here as Atlantic Canadian businesses, move around the world and sell our products to create jobs here at home”. That is the idea that they are promoting.

Atlantic Canada has been successful in building innovation-based businesses that have been focused on niche markets, while also capitalizing on our key resource sectors. However, those key resource sectors are struggling these days. If we look at what is happening in forestry, when people in the U.S. and around the world are reading fewer newspapers, when there are as not many houses being built in the U.S., that has a huge impact on the pulp and paper industry and on the lumber industry. So, we need to have other kinds of businesses, in the new economy especially, that are creating jobs.

One constant in our success in Atlantic Canada has been a reliance on trade. Before Confederation, the Maritime provinces and now the Atlantic provinces, were very strong traders. They were known as very successful traders with the U.S. and Europe. Yet, whether we are talking about Europe, the Middle East, China or America, Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada, has enjoyed success in all major markets in the world. Not enough success, in my view, but considerable success.

The fact that our reliance on exports to the U.S. has gone from 90% to 80% over the past couple of decades is a positive thing. Although we are not quite as reliant on exports to the U.S., we are still heavily reliant. I think we can expect that, for the foreseeable future, the U.S. will continue to be our most important market.

While we support this particular trade agreement, Canadian families, Canadian workers and the Canadian economy have been very poorly served by the government, which is failing in terms of its overall trade agenda around the world. While the Prime Minister and his ministers rack up a lot of frequent flyer points, jetting around the globe, they have basically ignored our key market: the U.S. We do not see much effort there.

More than $1.4 billion is traded between Canada and the U.S. on a daily basis as part of the largest commercial relationship between any two countries in the world. Yet the Conservatives have sat on their hands and watched as the border has thickened. We do not see the kind of effort there that we ought to see.

Canada's geographic, economic and cultural advantages in a North American market of nearly 500 million people will remain a major strategic asset in a rapidly evolving world, but not if we continue on the path the government has put us on.

As some of the speakers before me have noted, this trade agreement with Panama is yet another example of the current government pursuing new arrangements, at the expense of established agreements. The consequences, I think, are clear to anyone who has seen the recent trade statistics, which show declining exports and a trade deficit.

The one thing we can say about the Conservative government is it seems to be enamoured with deficits. Certainly, we know that it put the country in deficit after inheriting a $13 billion surplus. It put us in deficit by April of 2008, six months before the recession began. The government's mismanagement of Canada's trading relationship has resulted in trade deficits for the first time in 30 years. That is very worrisome. I am sure we will hear some fictions about the government's fiscal record and, we hope, about its record fiscal deficit this afternoon and the consequences for seniors, fishermen, the unemployed and just about everyone else who will pay for the Conservatives' incompetence.

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, I just want to express my appreciation of the measured speech and tone from my friend, the member for Halifax West on the subject of free trade.

I would certainly rebut what he had to say with regard to our government's engagement with the United States. He knows that since the May 2 election campaign, our government has extended the softwood lumber agreement, the lumber agreement that the Liberals had lapse on their watch without actually engaging in renewed negotiations. We renewed it and now we have extended it by two years.

We have gone beyond that with our beyond borders program that the Prime Minister announced with President Obama prior to the Christmas break, the most deepening steps we have taken to further liberalize our trade agreement with the United States, from FTA, NAFTA and now the beyond borders agreement.

Our border infrastructure program has put more money into border crossings than ever before in this country's history. We are also now expanding, as the hon. member knows, the second span across from Windsor to Detroit.

Our government has invested heavily, because we recognize and we believe in creating Canadian jobs through world sales. We understand that the important relationship with the United States, the most successful trading relationship in the history of the world, is something to covet, to cherish and to build upon responsibly for the interests of Canadians.

We are doing that with all these agreements, all these investments and the approach we are taking, so I would certainly hope he would agree with me that we have taken seriously our responsibility to have a healthy relationship with the United States, and further, that he would agree that the constant antagonism to the United States by the official opposition is entirely unhealthy to the Canadian economy.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I can agree with the last point that it is important that we have good relations with our southern neighbours. I think it is also important that we state our point of view at times.

When George W. Bush was the president, there were things he did we agreed with and others we certainly did not. One of the things on which we clearly disagreed, and very strongly, and one of the things for which Mr. Chrétien deserves great credit, is his decision not to follow the U.S. in going to war in Iraq.

That was the right decision. It was a tough decision, because there was certainly lots of pressure at that time from the U.S. and from the Conservative Party. The current Prime Minister was most anxious and most critical of Mr. Chrétien and his government for not going to war in Iraq. That is a fine example.

Overall, on the question of the thickening of the border, we assume, with the perimeter deal, that they did not insist on getting better access to the U.S. market.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the Liberals opposed the free trade agreement with the United States, campaigned on it in the 1980s and said in the 1990s that they would withdraw Canada from NAFTA.

I am just wondering if he could inform the House what the Liberal position on trade is now. Are the Liberals still opposed to the free trade agreement with the United States, as they said they were in the 1980s, or are they in favour of it now?

I would also like my hon. friend's comments on the question of whether or not he thinks that the situation of workers in this country, 25 years later, is better as a result of those trade agreements or worse.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I hope I will have time to answer both questions from my hon. colleague from Vancouver Kingsway.

I think he is engaging in a bit of revisionist history. In fact I encourage him to look at the Liberal red book, its platform from the 1993 election. He will find that the government of the day said it would try to negotiate agreement on labour and environment with the U.S., and that is exactly what happened.

There were side agreements that were negotiated on those issues, similar to the agreements that have been made on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

The fact of the matter is that the long history of the Liberal Party has been in favour of trade, going back to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. We are still in favour of trade. We have supported many trade agreements.

We do think there is room for improvement, and as I said before, entering into the negotiations with the U.S. toward that agreement on the basis of saying that our whole economy policy is dependent on this was not a basis for strong negotiation.

If we look at the impact on the economies of Canada and the U.S. and the benefits to workers across this country, of the growth that happened in the 1990s and between 2000 and 2010, I am not sure how my hon. colleague could say Canada did not benefit during that period and that Canadian workers did not benefit.

Yes, there were changes, and yes, there was a process and a time of transition for many workers, as there constantly is, but especially in a time of new technologies and global growth. I think we have to work hard to help workers adjust to those times, and part of that is training.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, over the last two Parliaments, I think this is my third or fourth time speaking to the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

I have to say that this is an agreement that has not improved with age, nor has the debate on this issue, frankly. I continue to be struck by the inability of both the Conservatives and the Liberals to differentiate between free trade and fair trade. We in the NDP are not against trade. We recognize the important role trade plays in our economy, but it is not good enough to just keep bringing forward a series of bilateral trade agreements as if such agreements will somehow magically give us a coherent and smart industrial and economic strategy.

On the contrary, there has been no economic strategy, no real focused trade strategy, and the result has been that most Canadians are worse off now than they were before.

The government simply cannot keep doing these ribbon cuttings for free trade agreements and expect that the job is done. This is no small issue. When we look at the last 20 years since the implementation of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, we see that the real income of most Canadian families has gone down, not up. The real incomes of the two-thirds of Canadian families who constitute the middle class and those of the poorest Canadians have gone down, right across the country.

The only people who have actually profited and seen an increase in their real income over the past 20 years since the first of these agreements was implemented have been the wealthiest of Canadians. The wealthiest 10% have seen their income skyrocket. One-fifth of Canadians, the wealthiest 20%, now take home most of the real income in this country.

For the Conservatives, that is entirely fine. In fact they are completely unapologetic for having espoused the principles of the robber barons of the 19th century. Listening to their speeches, I am surprised they have not quoted John D. Rockefeller, who said, “The disparity in income between the rich and the poor is merely the survival of the fittest. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God”.

It is certainly a sentiment that is deeply imbedded in the Conservatives' free trade agenda and in that of the Liberals before them. However, Canadians deserve better. They deserve fair trade instead of free trade. Fair trade puts an end to the race to the bottom by delivering on the promises of sustainable livelihoods and opportunities for people in the poorest countries in the world.

Poverty and hardship limit people's choices, while market forces tend to further marginalize and exclude them. This makes them vulnerable to exploitation, whether as farmers and artisans or as hired workers with larger businesses. That two billion of our fellow citizens survive on less than $2 per day despite working extremely hard makes it painfully clear that there is indeed a problem.

I want to put this into context by quoting extensively from an article from October 2010 called, “Back to the 'Good' Old Days”. It was published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Although it is focused on Asia, its observations and conclusions directly relate to the issues in Latin America. It begins with the legacy of the robber barons that I alluded to earlier. It then goes on to state that the first 60 years of the 20th century were focused on curbing the worst excesses of unfettered free enterprise through government regulations, minimum wage increases and the growth of the labour movement.

It says:

Strong unions and relatively progressive governments combined to have wealth distributed less inequitably. Social safety nets were woven to help those in need.

Corporate owners, executives, and major shareholders resisted all these moderate reforms. Their operations had to be forcibly humanized. They always resented having even a small part of their profits diverted into wages and taxes, but until the mid-1970s and '80s they couldn’t prevent it. Now they can.

Thanks to international trade agreements and the global mobility of capital, they can overcome all political and labour constraints. They are free once more, as they were in the 1800s, to maximize profits and exploit workers, to control or coerce national governments, to re-establish the survival of the fittest as the social norm.

This global resurgence of corporate power threatens to wipe out a century of social progress. We are in danger of reverting to the kind of mass poverty and deprivation that marked the Victorian era. Indeed, this kind of corporate-imposed barbarism and inequality is already rampant in many developing countries.

It is worth pausing here to reflect on the submission made by Dr. Teresa Healy, senior researcher for social and economic policy at the Canadian Labour Congress, during the Standing Committee on International Trade deliberations on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

She pointed out that 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. Forty per cent of the population is poor and 27% is extremely poor, and the rate of extreme poverty is particularly acute in indigenous populations. Although the country has endured extensive structural adjustment, liberalization and privatization in recent years, this has not translated into economic benefits for the population.

This should give all Canadians pause to think. It was not that long ago that our forebears were mistreated in workplaces, and the prospect of a reversion to Victorian social conditions should alarm all of us. The CCPA article I was citing earlier reminds us what the conditions were like in Canadian workplaces in the 1800s. Conditions in the mines were especially bad, with most of the miners dying from accidents or black lung disease before they reached the age of 35. Hundreds of thousands of children, some as young as six, were forced to work 12 hours a day, often being whipped or beaten.

A Canadian royal commission on child labour in the late 1800s reported that the employment of children was extensive and on the increase. Boys under 12 worked all night in glassworks in Montreal. In the coal mines of Nova Scotia, it was common for 10-year-old boys to work a 60-hour week down in the pits. This royal commission found not only that were children fined for tardiness and breakages but also that in many factories they were beaten with birch rods. Many thousands of them lost fingers, hands and even entire limbs when caught in unguarded gears or pulleys. Many hundreds were killed. Their average life expectancy was 33.

As late as 1910 in Canada, more than 300,000 children under 12 were still being subjected to these brutal working conditions. It was not until the 1920s, in fact, that child labour in this country was completely stamped out.

Yes, we finally did the right thing in Canada, but somehow the government wants us to believe it is okay to simply ignore the fact that such practices are still rampant in the countries with which we are signing trade agreements. The Conservative government has completely abandoned any notion of corporate social responsibility, and through its trade agenda it is giving state sanction to the continued abuse of labour, human and environmental rights in countries such as Panama. It is completely outrageous.

Make no mistake. Already in most of the developing nations, they have brought back child labour. Conditions in most factories operated by or for the transnational corporations in Asia and parts of Latin America are not much better today than they were in North America and Europe in the 1800s. Thousands of boys and girls are being compelled to work 12 hours a day in dirty, unsafe workshops for 40¢ or 50¢ an hour.

The article went on to say that in the United States another robber baron, Frederick Townsend Martin, boasted:

We are the rich. We own this country. And we intend to keep it by throwing all the tremendous weight of our support, our influence, our money, our purchased politicians, our public-speaking demagogues, into the fight against any legislation, any political party or platform or campaign that threatens our vested interests.

If nothing else, I guess we have to appreciate his honesty. At least he was upfront about the corporate agenda in his day.

It was David Rockefeller who restated the operating principle of the corporate agenda in modern times. In 1990 he said:

We who run the transnational corporations are now in the driver’s seat of the global economic engine. We are setting government policies instead of watching from the sidelines.

That is the sentiment that guides the corporate interests who are pushing our government to enter into the bilateral free trade agreements with willing partners around the world. It is a sentiment that has been blindly accepted and adopted by successive Liberal and Conservative governments that have been only too happy to oblige in the implementation of this corporate agenda.

Surely we do not all need to submit to the notion that might is right. There is an alternative vision of our economic future that believes that no one should be left behind. That is the kind of future my NDP colleagues and I have been championing in this House. It is a future that is based on fair trade, not free trade.

If we do not amend our trade agreements to incorporate the principles of sustainable development and recognition of human and labour rights, then the trade agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. In truth, we should be hanging our heads in shame.

If Canadians were aware that we are condoning practices by our trading partners that we would never condone at home, then I am certain they would call on us to abandon such trade relations. That is why I will be voting against the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question regarding her comments on labour issues. The front page of the bill states:

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.

Furthermore, if one goes to the agreement on labour, it talks about such things as:

a. improve working conditions and living standards in each Party's territory;

b. promote their commitment to the internationally recognized labour principles and rights;

c. promote compliance with and effective enforcement by each Party of its labour law;

d. promote social dialogue on labour matters among workers and employers, and their respective organizations, and governments;

e. pursue cooperative labour-related activities for the Parties' mutual benefit;

f. strengthen the capacity of each Party's competent authorities to administer and enforce labour law in its territory; and

g. foster full and open exchange of information between these competent authorities regarding labour law and its application in each Party's territory.

I know that my colleague has talked about some of the labour policies that have taken place in many other countries around the world and we do not want to see those things happening either. I choose my products. Does she not think that we have the opportunity—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I must give the hon. member time to respond. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I note there was not really a question at the end of that speech. However, I would remind my colleague that I, too, have looked very closely at the Canada-Panama free trade agreement and she will note that the section she was reading from with respect to labour rights is, in fact, nowhere near the main text of the free trade agreement. What she is quoting from is a side agreement. Why would a government relegate fundamental labour rights to a side agreement in the larger context of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement?

I will also ask her, because I know she will want to respond, why the Conservatives voted against two amendments that my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, moved in committee with respect to labour rights the last time we debated this issue. There were two in particular that I want to bring to her attention. The first would have protected trade union workers in Panama by offering the right to collective bargaining. The second would have required the Minister of International Trade, as the principal representative of Canada on the joint Panama-Canada commission, to consult on a regular basis with representatives of Canadian labour and trade unions. Why did the government vote against those amendments if it is so adamant about being in support of labour rights?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's candour and boldness in proclaiming that she will not be voting in favour of this particular free trade agreement. I would be interested if she would tell us how she will be voting on the free trade agreement with Jordan. I know there was some concern. I understand that New Democrats voted to send it to committee. Does that mean they support the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement? I am not sure about that.

Furthermore, given her beliefs, to what degree does she think that Canada as a nation should punish countries that we trade with but who have human rights issues? An example of a country of that nature might be China, which the NDP and others have expressed concern about in regard to its human rights practices. Would she try to limit trade with that country in any way?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really do appreciate the question with respect to the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement. Of course, that bill was debated in the House and we have already voted on it, so I am a bit surprised that the member would not know what the NDP position has been on that.

With respect to his second question, I believe that any trade agreement must put human rights, environmental rights and labour rights front and centre in the negotiations. That clearly has not happened in the trade agreement before us today and that is why I have been absolutely clear that I will not be supporting this trade agreement when it comes time to vote on it in this House.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak about Bill C-24, as many of my colleagues have done before me. First, I would like to thank the hon. members for Burnaby—New Westminster and Windsor West, who worked so hard on this file.

I would like to clarify the position of the government, which seems to believe that everything is black or white. From the outset, I think it is very important to point out that, often, what we hear in debate is that the NDP is against all trade and against any measure that would help our Canadian industries to grow. That is not entirely true, and these comments need some clarification. The NDP is in favour of trade, but not at any price or for any reason. As the hon. member who just spoke pointed out so eloquently, we must be sure to consider certain important factors, such as workers' rights and sustainable development, when signing free trade agreements.

I think that the best way to say it is that we want free trade agreements that are equitable and fair and that truly take into account social justice and the other factors that I just mentioned.

To this end, there is one more thing we need to consider when examining the bill before us to implement a free trade agreement between Canada and Panama. The people of Chambly—Borduas have often shared with me their fears and worries about Canada's standing and reputation. The way our native country is perceived and the way we work with other countries in the world politically or economically may not seem important when we are talking about travelling to another country. And yet it is very important because we have a responsibility as a privileged and developed country to share these values.

When we sign free trade or other agreements with different countries, it is our responsibility to share those values and to behave in a way that will lead to economic growth and enhance rights in general, workers' rights and sustainable development. This must be done not only in Canada but throughout the world. The government often neglects this responsibility, particularly when it comes to bilateral free trade agreements, which are inadequate.

I listened with interest to an earlier question put to the member for Hamilton Mountain, who was speaking about the fact that the bill and the free trade agreement could support workers' rights. However, I am finding it very difficult to understand, as she pointed out, why the Conservatives voted against the well-reasoned amendments suggested by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster in committee if this is a truly an important issue to them. If the government were truly concerned, it would have taken the time to consider the very reasonable amendments moved.

It is important to also highlight another one of our international responsibilities. Panama is considered a tax haven. And this is an economic free trade agreement. Thus, I find it very difficult to consider that we will be dealing with a country that allows money laundering and tax evasion.

As I said, my colleague has worked very hard on this, and I would like to commend him. In fact, the NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster moved an amendment that would resolve the issue of fiscal transparency. We could implement measures that would require Panama to exchange tax information with Canada. This would lessen the risk of illegal money laundering activities and so forth. I have already talked about these measures.

Once again, both the Conservatives and the Liberals rejected this amendment because they believe that Panama has a satisfactory double taxation agreement. I would like to point out that this is not a very good argument because the double taxation agreement pertains to fiscal transparency for legal revenue such as taxes, and we already know the source of such revenue. This measure does not at all deal with illegal revenue, but it could if the Panama agreement included my colleague's amendment, which seeks to bring about complete fiscal transparency.

The other aspect I would like to discuss is key to our argument. Several of my colleagues and I mentioned it earlier. I am referring to the rights of workers in the manufacturing sector. These rights are at the heart of a free trade agreement such as this one.

I can already hear the counter-argument that the NDP bows down to the unions. That argument is totally ridiculous in this case, because we are talking about developing countries that are still in the process of adapting their regulations and creating a culture of labour rights and human rights, which are fundamental rights. It is important to note that, while very competent people at the Canadian Labour Congress—Ms. Healy, as my colleague mentioned—have done research, we are not talking about a simple union matter here, or the will of a union. We are truly talking about important issues regarding labour rights. It is not complicated. We are talking about the people who will be making the products that are subject to this trade agreement. Human resources are at the core of this trade agreement. They are the foundation of the transactions that will take place. The jobs are more important than the profits that will be made.

The government likes to talk a lot about the jobs that these free trade agreements will help create. If we are going to talk about job growth, let us also talk about the quality of those jobs, here in Canada and in Panama. The government should focus on creating high-quality jobs for the people of Canada and of Panama. The government says that Canadians want economic growth, but as I was saying earlier, that growth should not come at all costs. I think our constituents, the people we represent, would agree. Here and around the world, we have built a reputation, a culture of defending labour rights and creating high-quality jobs. I think we would want the same thing for another country, Panama in this case.

That is a problem that comes up quite often, not just in this free trade agreement, but in a number of others. The government blindly applies the same negotiation strategies and the same conditions as the ones used for the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1980s and 1990s. That was another time, but the government is trying to apply the same conditions today. Not only are we dealing with a country where the situation is very different from that of our neighbours to the south—the United States and Mexico—but the times are different as well. This is 2012, and the reality for workers has changed. For example, in the manufacturing sector, the tools available for workers are different. Accordingly, working conditions have changed. I think that we have to adapt to that vision going forward.

I will conclude by reiterating that the NDP opposes this bill not because we are against trade, industry and economic growth, but because we are against trade at all costs at the expense of justice and fairness. We want fair trade that is consistent with our fundamental values as they relate to human rights. Those rights are essential when we talk about trade in economic terms, because that also involves cultural exchanges with another country. We must be faithful to our reputation and our values in any agreement we sign, especially at the international level.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Madam Speaker, I would refer my colleague to the front page of the bill on the agreement with Panama. It includes an agreement on labour co-operation between Canada and the Republic of Panama. I will not read it all, but I suggest he take a look at article 18.03, which refers to the obligations between Canada and Panama and our encouragement for Panama to develop good labour laws.

The NDP members have indicated they will support the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement. Many people have argued that this agreement is a lesser agreement than the Canada-Panama agreement. Could the member comment on why the NDP members refuse to support this agreement, which would give people in Panama the opportunity for hope and a better life?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. I will refrain from commenting on what she seems to be saying—that a bill relating to the agreement between Canada and Jordan is of less value. As has been said, we have to explain and clarify. I hear what she is saying and it is entirely correct: the bill contains some measures, but they do not go far enough; it is not complicated. We have very serious concerns about workers’ rights. This is indeed a start, but it is not enough.

I will ask my question again: why did they oppose the amendments proposed by my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster if they really have a clear, precise, strong position on standing up for workers’ rights? Why do they not work with the opposition to propose measures that will strengthen what is already in the bill, as she said, but that will help in tangible ways? What is provided in the bill as it stands is not sufficient and does not go far enough. There have to be much stronger and more serious commitments to improving existing working conditions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, could the hon. member expand upon this? If one applies certain principles that he spoke about in regard to free trade agreements, would one apply those very same principles to trade in general?

For example, if his concern about worker exploitation is the reason why he would not support the free trade agreement with Panama, would he not apply those same principles when he deals with trade in general with all nations in the world? Would he abandon those principles and stick strictly with free trade agreements?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I find it hard to see why I would abandon my principles, regardless of the situation. We are talking about trade, here. I will reiterate: we are not against trade, but that always has to be qualified. We will always be prepared, in whatever case it may be, to work to ensure that the measures for implementing a bill are appropriate and meet Canadians’ expectations.

We do this not for ourselves. As I said, the people also share our concerns. We have to meet people’s expectations in our transactions. Trade is essentially a matter of making deals. When we make deals with someone, we have to make sure that both parties to the deal understand its principles and terms. I am certainly not afraid to qualify every deal we make. We are entirely prepared to examine any issue and assess it case by case. We will not abandon our principles. We do an assessment and we come back with the comments that arise on an issue. That is what we are trying to say in this debate.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-24 to implement the free trade agreement signed between Canada and the Republic of Panama on May 14, 2010.

Although I am in favour of free trade and I support this bill, I refuse to do so at any cost, because I think we need to take a step back and reflect on the relevance and the impact of this agreement. Unlike the NDP, which systematically opposes free trade, the Liberal Party of Canada has always believed that trade agreements can have a positive effect on our economy. As we all know, our economy is based on exports, so eliminating trade barriers is highly desirable. Personally, I do not think the agreement with Panama, per se, is problematic; rather I think the problem lies with abandoning our traditional markets.

Our current economic situation is proof of how negligent the Conservatives have been. Although we had a positive trade balance for a very long time, we now have a trade deficit, and I highly doubt that a free trade agreement with Panama will change that fact. In 2009, Canada's exports to Panama totalled only about $90 million, while our trade with the U.S. exceeds $1.4 billion every day. Approximately 75% of the goods we export go to the United States.

Even so, our trade balance with our neighbour is in deficit. Protectionist measures in the U.S. are contributing to this unfair situation, despite NAFTA. I therefore have to wonder why a new free trade agreement with another country is so urgent, when our largest trading partner refuses to honour its commitments when difficult economic times come along.

Perhaps the Canadian government should do more to defend our economic interests in Washington, rather than in Panama. We are seeing this government making more and more concessions to the Americans rather than defending Canadian interests, and our economy is paying the price.

I firmly believe that it would be in our best interest to focus our efforts on revitalizing our trade relationship with our neighbours to the south and our other major trading partners rather than spreading our resources out. Instead of doing whatever the Americans want, which is what the government did on the copyright issue, the Conservatives should work harder to protect Canadian interests.

The Conservatives have been too nonchalant. For example, even though President Obama mentioned the buy American policy several times in his speech, the Conservatives were taken completely by surprise when they found out that the U.S. government intended to go ahead with a measure that violates our free trade agreement.

Why bother signing so many other free trade agreements when the most important one is not even enforced? I think that we should find ways to make the United States respect our agreements before we sign new ones that will likely have very little impact. It is an inescapable fact that, because of our geography, our economy is heavily dependent on the United States. The government should focus its efforts on that market rather than divide its resources among less critical files.

We also have a number of other major trading partners, including South Korea, China and the United Kingdom. The government should make it a priority to recapture those markets. Despite its strong economic growth, Panama will never be more than a relatively small market for us. The impact of this agreement will therefore be small, as I have said several times already.

Of course, diversifying our trading partners is a good thing and makes us less vulnerable to the ups and downs of certain markets. Despite its relatively small economy, Panama is important. It has been experiencing significant economic growth and is one of Canada's major trading partners in Latin America.

The country has also been making significant progress in matters of governance and democracy. In a way, a free trade agreement would recognize that progress. It is also worth noting that the new Panama Canal will be of critical importance to global trade. The region will probably continue to experience strong economic growth and will become an even larger commercial hub once the new canal opens. Strengthening our relationship with Panama is no doubt a good move.

However, we cannot ignore the issues of tax evasion and money laundering. Canada loses millions of dollars every year because of such illegal activities. With a free trade agreement in place, we will be entitled to ask for greater fiscal transparency to combat tax fraud.

In addition, certain environmental and humanitarian issues need to be raised with the Panamanian government. The working conditions in Panama do not even come close to those of our workers. Salaries are extremely low and working conditions are far from good for everyone. This free trade agreement will open our market to Panamanian companies. We are within our rights to ask Panama to improve its working conditions. Clearly, a company that underpays its employees and makes them work 12 or even 16 hours a day does not deserve to be able to sell its products in Canada and compete with equivalent products that, of course, cost more to produce here.

The government must also require certain environmental guarantees. But, of course, I am not holding my breath in that regard. This government is not doing anything for Canada's environment and so I doubt it will do anything for Panama's. Coming from this government, such demands would have no credibility.

In closing, I would like to reiterate my support for free trade with Panama. However, I believe that we should sign a tax information exchange agreement with this country. This would help us to increase transparency and would give us more tools to combat tax evasion and money laundering in Panama.

Nevertheless, we should first put all our energy into recapturing our core markets. Canada must speak up. Canadians expect this government to protect their economic interests on the international stage. The Conservatives should focus more on our economic relationship with the United States and try to make it honour the free trade agreement because, as I mentioned in my speech, our economy depends heavily on the United States. Panama has only a very small influence on our economic health.

I am therefore asking the Conservatives to focus all their energy on the relationships with our largest trading partners. Given the fragility of the current economic situation, we simply do not have the luxury of ignoring our core markets, nor do we have the flexibility to do so.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that negotiating free trade agreements country by country shows a lack of ambition because there is no broad, regional vision. I have a question for my colleague about that.

If we examine European agreements, we see that the discourse in the European Union is such that free trade agreements establish winning conditions for long-term co-operation in order to achieve respectful and successful trade relations.

Do you believe that Canada relies simply on an economic criterion when developing its free trade agreements and that we do not have a regional vision for the Americas?

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has the floor, but I would once again remind all members to address their questions to the Speaker.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the new member for the question. Her riding is next to mine.

If I have understood her question, free trade agreements should be bilateral and multilateral at the regional level. I believe she mentioned Europe. Trade agreements with just the United Kingdom or a single country are no longer acceptable today. We must sign free trade agreements with all of Europe.

In principle, we should do the same thing with South America. I believe that this government is trying to sign agreements with Asia. However, Asia is not just one country. Some countries have problems with democracy. I believe we should move slowly and ensure that Canadian interests are protected in any free trade agreement that we sign.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in reference to the U.S., my colleague made a valid point. Hundreds of thousands of jobs across Canada are very dependent on what is happening in the United States. There is an agreement between Canada and the United States. It is important for the government to put more of a priority on that agreement and try to protect Canadian jobs by ensuring that we have access to the American market. That should be the priority. It is not necessarily to take away from other free trade agreements. Rather, the government should recognize an important priority to all Canadians is to ensure that we have that secure market with our neighbour to the south, the United States.

I would ask my colleague to comment on the importance to Canadians across the country that the Government of Canada advocate for those healthy jobs that are here today because we export so much to the United States.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals always ask the toughest questions. I will try to answer that one.

I did not focus on the U.S. aspect in the sense of the problems we have had in the past. Since the Conservative government has come to power, it has been able to mess up the free trade agreement by giving up on the softwood lumber issue and paying all kinds of money. The lumber and pulp and paper industries in the U.S. have become much stronger by using our money. The Conservative government failed to negotiate with the Americans' on their buy American policy. We could not contribute there.

With any free trade agreement there is good faith and both countries expect to benefit from it. Both countries should benefit from it because there is economic activity that was not there before. The way to benefit is through trade, the exchange of goods and services. The services would include labour, which means that people in both countries would work. If we are unable to have the Americans uphold our free trade agreement with the U.S., I am not sure how successful we would be with respect to other trade opportunities.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama economic growth and prosperity act.

Others in this House might not have been thinking throughout this debate of the famous palindrome: “A man, a plan, a canal--Panama”. As members know, a palindrome is something that reads the same forward and backward. Unfortunately, I cannot read this trade deal as anything but backward. When the “man” is the Prime Minister and the plan is this free trade agreement, we do not get anything very progressive. We do not get “a cana”l; we get a ditch.

We have a very small level of trade with Panama. While we see the Conservatives trying their best to gather up as many small trade agreements as possible, such as the one we passed with Jordan and this one with Panama, it is worth bearing in mind the level of trade that is currently at stake.

In 2010, there was just under $214 million in trade in goods between Canada and Panama. We do not expect this to go up very much even with a free trade agreement. If we look at previous free trade agreements with countries like Costa Rica and other small bilateral free trade agreements, we find that in a number of cases our trade has declined after signing the agreements.

We have a global trading framework already which includes the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and under the Uruguay round the creation of the World Trade Organization. We are not labouring any longer as a global society of nations under high tariffs and protectionist measures. They have been mostly slashed.

What would one want in trading and approving a trade agreement with Panama?

We have heard much in this House of the need to improve labour rights within Panama. We have heard that Panama continues to be a nation that traffics heavily in narcotics and drugs, and the rest of the world would like to stem their flow. We also know that Panama is a country that has extensive money laundering problems. This agreement does nothing to address these issues.

When we look at the ways in which Panama has operated as a tax haven, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Panama is one of 26 jurisdictions in the world that have not yet fulfilled their promise as of 2002 to provide tax sharing information. That would provide a greater understanding of when a country is operating unfairly and illegally to harbour revenue and wealth so that the country of origin cannot tax it properly.

The trade agreement with Panama unfortunately does not deal with any of these issues. It does not deal with narcotics trading. It does not deal with the tax haven problem. It does not deal with money laundering. It does have a side agreement to deal with labour, but we can already measure from previous efforts with such side agreements that they have no real effect on improving labour conditions in a country.

Through the 1990s there was a great increase in trade agreements and a great wave of globalization. Its triumphalism was the creation of the World Trade Organization, but things have slightly stalled since Doha and there is a little less triumphalism. Some people feel that trade, trade liberalization and greater economic activity, particularly greater strength and power to corporations, will raise all boats. Gus Speth, the former head of the United Nations Development Programme, famously said, “This kind of trade raises all yachts”, but it does not do much for the poor. It certainly does nothing to improve labour conditions. If we negotiate a trade agreement while turning a blind eye to the things about our trading partner that worry us, things like drug trafficking, money laundering, human rights abuses, tax havens and places to shelter income that should be taxed under public revenue elsewhere, it is unlikely we would be able to fix them later.

Turning to the text of the agreement, in article 1.06 there are some carve outs so that the agreement would not unfairly target multilateral environmental agreements. I wish the trade negotiators for Canada had listed all the agreements that are important. They certainly have carved out the ones that were listed in NAFTA, such as CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the Montreal protocol on the ozone layer, the Basel convention on the transport of hazardous materials, the Rotterdam convention on trade in hazardous goods, and the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants.

A startling omission, since both Panama and Canada are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is that the framework convention on climate change is not listed as an agreement that would be protected against any incidental accidental implications from this trade agreement to climate policies. As we speak, both Canada and Panama remain parties to the Kyoto protocol, although we know that Canada has signalled its intention, quite shamefully I may add, to withdraw from its legal commitments there. I would not expect to see the Kyoto protocol in this agreement, but I certainly expected to see the framework convention on climate change, to which both countries are currently committed.

More concerning are the sections that appear in chapter 9 of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Chapter 9 deals with the quite devastating investor-state provisions.

It sounds like the most boring of topics, an investor-state provision. What could it be and why do we care? I want all Canadians to care. This provision is our innovation. We were the first anywhere on the planet to create this provision. It was done in NAFTA. In NAFTA, it is chapter 11. In the Canada-Panama agreement it is chapter 9, but it has the same effect.

There was an effort to make this kind of provision global. Some may remember the efforts were negotiated within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It started within the World Trade Organization, but it stalled there. At the WTO they were called multilateral investor agreements. They regrouped and went to the OECD and called them the multilateral agreement on investment, the MAI instead of the MIA. It stalled and failed there. Thank goodness. It was the result of widespread grassroots opposition.

It is the first truly global campaign I have ever seen where grassroots groups using the Internet reached out to each other. I remember one parliamentarian saying to me at the time, “I can't imagine that any Canadian citizen is really worried about something called the multilateral agreement on investment”. He came back to me a few days later, after he had been on an MPs' study tour and said that while he was paying for gas at a station in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, he saw on a clipboard a petition to stop the MAI. It contained several pages of signatures.

Why do Canadians at the grassroots and people globally not want more investor-state provisions? I should say that once it failed at the OECD, largely thanks to France, but other countries ran to catch up, once it failed there, they abandoned it. By they I am referring to the corporate entities that are pursuing the notion that corporations should have powers superior to those of elected legislatures. The essence of an investor-state provision is that multilateral corporations should be able to trump decisions made by democratically elected parliaments and legislatures around the world and they should be able to sue a country if that country passes legislation that a corporation does not like. That is the essence of it. It is not in any traditional way an expropriation.

They have taken it from global to doing it BIT by BIT, literally the acronym BIT, bilateral investment treaty, such as this one. They are collecting up by BITs to replace what they could not do directly, a global agreement that allows corporations to sue governments when governments take action, even when that action is not in any way designed to inhibit trade. It is as such when Canada banned a toxic gasoline additive, or when Canada took steps to ban the export of PCB contaminated waste pursuant to the Basel convention I mentioned earlier, or in the very sad and tragic case of Metalclad, a U.S. corporation. Metalclad wanted to put a toxic waste site next to a little community in Mexico called San Luis Potosi. The people of San Luis Potosi said no, that it was too close to their water source and they would not let that giant U.S. corporation, Metalclad, put its toxic waste disposal facility there. Under chapter 11 of NAFTA, Metalclad sued the federal state of Mexico.

This agreement means that any corporation with a mailbox in Panama can claim to be an investor and sue Canada at the municipal, provincial or federal levels for any decision it does not like, that it feels impedes its expectation of profits.

In the case of poor little San Luis Potosi, Mexico ended up owing Metalclad just under $17 million.

I fear that my time to speak to this agreement may be coming to a close. I want to conclude by saying firmly and clearly that we must learn from what has gone wrong with chapter 11 of NAFTA and stop including investor-state provisions as an automatic, unthinking addition to every single trade agreement we negotiate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague.

One of the issues I have is that history has proven that as countries become more prosperous, average family income goes up, life expectancy goes up, as does the amount of freedom in a country. If my colleague went online to a YouTube video called “200 Countries, 200 Years”, she would find those facts recorded there.

Why would the member be against a free trade agreement with Panama that is going to increase not only those people's place in life as far their family income is concerned, but also their life expectancy and freedoms in their country? Would the member not support the agreement just on those grounds?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I tried to be very specific in my response to this proposed treaty, specifically the investor-state provisions.

It is true that when a country is not prevented from selling its goods by tariff barriers, there is a trend toward improved incomes. I will not deny that for one minute, but the member should to ask the people of San Luis Potosi whether they feel that the NAFTA agreement advantaged them.

There are consequences to these trade deals that we should now be able to examine forensically. We should now be able to ask where our good intentions went wrong and how can we improve on the model. Trade agreements in other regions have not included investor-state provisions, and I mentioned the European Union as one example, and the trade bloc in Latin America is another. Investor-state provisions are not a necessary ingredient to improving one's trade relationships. In fact, they are a poison pill.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, as is often the case, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has done her homework exhaustively and remembers most of it without a note. She has provided us with quite the shopping list of incredible reasons why this is flawed legislation and a bad idea.

My question for the hon. member is whether or not she believes this bill is hopeless given the huge list of flaws she has identified. Is there some hope that with amendments she could actually be in favour of this bill? If so, what are the key elements that would cause her to consider changing her mind?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think any piece of legislation before this House is hopeless. With sufficient amendments, even the worst bill can be remedied. Sometimes that may mean deleting most of it and starting over.

However, in this case, I think there are some very specific areas. As I mentioned, if we included the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in chapter 1 of the trade deal at annex 1.06, it would certainly improve the bill.

I would strip out all of chapter 9. I do not think there is anything that could be saved in chapter 9. The whole notion of investor-state provisions is unworkable.

For the rest of it, if we were to replace chapter 9, we could replace it with firm commitments from Panama to provide full banking information so that its banks could no longer function as tax havens, and further firm commitments to work with Canada and other countries to eliminate its narcotics traffic.

There are other elements to protect labour and environmental rights that could be inserted, but I imagine my time to answer this question has expired.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie for a very quick question.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation.

With respect to this bill, does my colleague have any recommendations concerning the environment?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie for the question.

A completely different approach is needed. The European Union has regulations that compel member countries to use the highest standards to protect the environment in their trade transactions.

If we did the same thing here, we would say that Panama must improve its environmental standards to be at least equal to Canada's, and that Canada will provide trade assistance to make sure it is able to do that.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-24 to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama—and there is something else after that title.

At present, we have time to discuss and debate. I would like to point out that the NDP supports free trade agreements. We agree that Canada must trade with other countries. We realize that the Canadian economy relies on trade. So we have no problem with that. However, in this case, we believe that the government is not showing any leadership. Yes, it negotiated this agreement with another country, but why did it take such a narrow-minded approach? Why not look at more countries, in order to really establish better criteria?

I am not sure if any of my Conservative colleagues have read it, but I highly recommend the book Fair Trade for All by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in economics. The book looks at sustainable development—which we are trying to promote—and global fair trade. It also talks about strengthening ties in order to fight poverty and the problems of inequity. I would like to give my colleagues across the floor a little wake-up call: Canada and many other countries have a huge problem with inequity.

According to the OECD and the Conference Board, there is a huge and ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor. And it is growing faster in Canada than it is in the United States. The OECD can prove it. So we have some problems in that regard.

I would now like to discuss more specifically this bill dealing with the free trade agreement with Panama, which poses two problems. First of all, Panama is a known tax haven. That presents a problem when it comes to doing business and negotiating with a country. Certain clauses must be taken into account, especially regarding tax evasion. The Quebec branch of the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and for Citizens' Action recently prepared a submission on Panama and concluded that such an agreement would be tantamount to legitimizing a tax haven.

I invite my colleagues to read a December 2010 article from Le Devoir that says that “Panama is a tax haven, and not just any tax haven: it is one of the most active, one of the least co-operative and of the most integrated with organized crime”. Those comments were made by people from the outside. If we are going to conclude an agreement with Panama, then there needs to be more leadership with regard to tax evasion.

As the national revenue critic for the official opposition, I find that the government has not done enough. We will see in today's budget, which we are anxiously awaiting. A motion was moved at the Standing Committee on Finance to continue the work done in the previous parliamentary session, but, unfortunately, the motion has been set aside. I hope that the members opposite will accept the motion, which will be debated on Tuesday. The motion proposes that we use all necessary means to address tax evasion and tax havens. I think that my colleagues can agree on that. We are talking about revenue that Canada is losing through fraudulent means. I cannot see why we would not address these problems. I should mention that the Liberals did not do much about this either.

To come back to the agreement, one of the major problems is that Panama has refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. That is very disturbing considering that Panama is known for its money laundering activities, including money from drug trafficking.

When the committee considered the bill during the 40th Parliament, Todd Tucker, from Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, provided a very interesting testimony.

He made a compelling case that Panama is one of the world's worst tax havens and that the Panamanian government has deliberately allowed the country to become a tax haven.

In his statement, he said:

...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.

...for decades, the Panamanian government has pursued an intentional 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.

We believe that signing a free trade agreement that does not include a tax information exchange agreement with a country known for its lack of transparency and for being a tax haven is tantamount to promoting tax evasion. The government has to do something about that problem.

Proposals were made in committee. My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, the finance critic for the official opposition, worked very hard and proposed amendments that would have made it possible to support this bill. And then there are the component on workers' rights and the problems from an environmental standpoint, which I will come back to if I have time.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster had proposed delaying the application or even the implementation of this agreement until Canada and Panama signed an agreement for the exchange of taxation information. Unfortunately, the Conservatives and Liberals defeated the motion, since both parties claimed to be satisfied with the double taxation component.

As we know, this does not address the issue of transparency or the fact that Panama is still considered a tax haven, nor does it fix the problem of information exchange.

I do not understand why the Conservatives and Liberals do not want to deal with tax havens and go after these funds.

Canadians are currently being asked to tighten their belts. The government is going to table an austerity budget. Yet, it is possible to generate revenue without necessarily cutting spending and jobs. It is possible to generate revenue from criminals—let us call a spade a spade—who exploit tax havens. Some do so legally, others illegally. Why not deal with that?

I was very disappointed that the Standing Committee on Finance refused to conduct this study. I hope that next time, on Tuesday, in the Standing Committee on Finance, the government will agree to undertake a more in-depth study of this.

Moreover, today and tomorrow, there is a conference on tax havens. I would invite my colleagues opposite to attend it.

This issue is very important. It is pathetic that such an incredible amount of money is being lost.

The Canada Revenue Agency has been called upon to address this issue, as has the Minister of National Revenue. We hope that certain problems will be addressed, otherwise we will be faced with a fiscal crisis, especially given the government's decision to cut corporate taxes and allow tax havens to exist unchecked. There are a lot of problems. We are realizing this, and are losing money. Unfortunately, the government is not doing anything about it.

Then there are workers' rights, another very important subject: when free trade agreements are unfair, workers—and, therefore, the public—lose money. It is a violation of their rights, including the right to bargain. It is an attack on the rights of the middle class, which supports the economy and the whole country. It only increases the gap between the rich and the poor.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which was very interesting, particularly his explanation of the flaws in this free trade bill.

He mentioned a writer, Joseph Stiglitz, who said that we can sign free trade agreements that are fairer and more just.

I would like him to elaborate a little on the recommendations made that well-known writer's book.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

The author is indeed Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in economics who wrote a book specifically about how to ensure that trade is fairer and more just.

His analysis was based on the agreements that have been signed. One of the things that has to be considered is fighting poverty. The time to do that is during negotiations, and that is where we are at present.

Earlier, we heard the Liberals saying it was better to sign right away and fix the problem later. I think that would mean missing a good opportunity. When you are negotiating, you really have to think about sustainable development, the environment, and some kind of balance when it comes to social justice. That can be done. We are living in a period of globalization and trade is on the rise. Canada is part of that world, and so trade is important. In negotiations, we must consider not only the interests of the multinationals, as is the problem now, but also sustainable development and making everything fairer.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to have another Speaker here because I can start reading from the agreement. The last Speaker was a little disturbed that I was maybe reading a little too much.

I have read Joseph Stiglitz, and he does promote some interesting ideas.

The bill we are discussing today would implement the free trade agreement, an agreement that is rather lengthy and has quite a number of things set out in it that we would work on together. I refer him to article 20.06 which talks about co-operation to promote increased transparency. Under that, it has a number of definitions and anti-corruption measures.

Could he tell me if he has read those and why does he oppose them?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her questions.

Yes, I have read them and I am aware of them. These amendments clearly propose that we sign a genuine free trade agreement. We are now talking about co-operation. We want action; we want something concrete. Unfortunately, the problem is that the government still has a very narrow vision.

Has an agreement to exchange tax information been signed? No. That is what we are saying.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the question I would like to ask my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie relates to the process associated with trade agreements and free trade agreements.

All negotiations with other countries are over before the bills get here. The Prime Minister is making announcements about a free trade agreement with China, and another one with Japan.

What does he think the role of members is when free trade agreements are signed before they can be debated here?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the Green Party for her question.

I agree with her that this government is not entirely transparent and often presents us with a fait accompli. We see this in virtually every regard.

When we want to debate, it gags us, and when we want to talk about something as fundamental as a free trade agreement, it presents us with a fait accompli. And when we propose amendments, it rejects them. There has been no real public debate about this. None of the groups that work to protect the environment or to protect workers’ rights have been heard.

The real role of the government and the House is to discuss and debate all the issues from various angles. Unfortunately, this government is very much lacking in transparency.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill C–24, a bill to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, signed in May 2010, and the related agreements on labour co-operation and the environment.

I remind members that the predecessor to this bill, Bill C–46, died on the order paper when the 40th Parliament was dissolved, because the Conservative minority government was unable to get the bill passed by a parliamentary majority. Today, emboldened by its parliamentary majority, the government is trying to foist this bill on Canadians despite the fact that 60% of Canadians voted against this government.

Allow me to briefly remind members why this agreement is at the root of so much controversy.

To begin with, there is the issue of tax evasion. Panama is known as a tax haven because it offers taxation advantages to non-resident investors. It provides foreign banks and companies with extraterritorial licenses that allow them to conduct business in Panama. Not only are these companies not taxed, they are subject to very few, if any, obligations.

The local authority's soft line on taxation, banking and legal matters has enabled this country of three million inhabitants to become the financial centre of Central America, with the second largest naval fleet in the world due to ships flying flags of convenience. Shipowners choose this flag because of how unrestrictive it is in terms of taxation, safety and crew labour rights.

As everybody knows, the Republic of Panama has refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement with Canada. That is very worrying given the high volume of money laundering activities in Panama, especially money from drug trafficking. There is no fiscal transparency in Panama, which in the past has led to the OECD and G20 labelling Panama a tax haven.

In the opinion of Alain Deneault and Claude Vaillancourt, from Attac-Québec—a group that combats tax havens and fights in favour of taxing financial transactions—Panama is certainly one of the tax havens that is the most active, the least co-operative, and the most closely tied to organized crime. I quote:

Panama's bad reputation is certainly well-deserved. This country's main economic activity is to provide financial services to drug traffickers and multinationals.

Moreover, Patrice Meysonnier of France's judicial police has no hesitation calling Panama a narco-state that is responsible for laundering a large share of the planet's dirty money.

Closer to home, we know that certain Hells Angels leaders in Quebec, who have been on a wanted list since the beginning of Opération SharQc, have taken refuge in Panama. They moved to Panama because they have been able to launder large sums of money there and they hope that the local authorities will not unduly harass them.

On one hand, I find it particularly ironic that this government, which calls itself tough on crime, would enter into a free trade agreement with a country that has become a shelter for criminals and their money without at least first obtaining a fiscal and banking co-operation agreement.

On the other hand, while this government prepares to table an austerity budget this afternoon, and is calling on Canadian families to tighten their belts, how can the government facilitate the erosion of the Canadian tax base by signing such an accommodating treaty?

While members of the G20 have stressed the importance of dealing with the problems caused by tax havens, once again the Conservative government is reneging on its word and doing the exact opposite by opening up a new front to facilitate tax leakage. Honestly, what a farce.

Another problem with this bill is that the Canada–Panama trade agreement has no mechanism to protect the rights of workers that have so often been flouted in the past. Allow me to provide a couple of examples from last year, 2011.

Thirty-three employees of Panama Gaming & Services were laid off for trying to start a union. The Panamanian government did nothing to help them. These layoffs constitute a blatant violation of workers' rights and, more specifically, a violation of the International Labour Organization's Convention 87, which pertains to freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize, a convention that Panama has ratified.

Here is another example.

On July 8, 2011, security forces used violence to end a union demonstration, leaving at least six dead and 700 injured. Several hundred people were also arrested. The freedom to demonstrate was clearly violated.

The government regularly uses intimidation tactics on union leaders. For example, in the summer of 2011, the under secretary general of a large construction union was arbitrarily arrested and detained for a week. And that is not to mention all the anti-union laws passed by the country's current government.

It is important to remember that the right to strike is prohibited in the Canal Zone and that the government recently passed legislation to undermine the rights and freedoms of public servants. In the public sector, the minimum number of workers required to form a union was increased to 50 in order to make it more difficult to do so.

By signing a free trade agreement with Panama without requiring the country to take concrete action to protect the right of association and the right to strike, Canada is condoning the Panamanian government's actions.

I suppose that we cannot expect any better from this Conservative government, which, even here at home, has taken action that violates workers' rights. We need only think about the special bill that the government recently passed to suspend the right to strike of 3,000 pilots and 8,600 mechanics, baggage handlers and cargo agents who work for Air Canada. Bill C-33 was a fundamental attack on the right to freely negotiate a collective agreement.

One of the most worrisome aspects of the agreement is found in the chapter on investment. In fact, chapter 9 is modelled on chapter 11 of NAFTA, which allows a corporation to sue a government for creating barriers to trade by implementing a regulation.

According to Todd Tucker of Public Citizen, who appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade on November 17, 2010.

....hundreds of thousands of U.S., Chinese, Cayman, and even Canadian corporations that can attack Canadian regulations by using aggressive nationality planning through their Panamanian subsidiaries.

I am very concerned that major foreign multinationals will be able to have trade tribunals challenge and perhaps even invalidate a decision made by a democratically elected government or parliament in order to protect public health or the environment, for example.

In the previous Parliament, the NDP presented a series of amendments in an attempt to address these shortcomings. Our colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster suggested adding provisions on sustainable investment, a requirement for fiscal transparency and provisions to incorporate workers' rights, especially the right to collective bargaining, into the bill. All these amendments were voted down by the Conservatives, with the support of the Liberals. This time we hope that the government will look more favourably on our amendments. I would like to recognize the work of my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster in this matter.

Unlike the Conservative government, which has its sights set only on trade and profits, the NDP is proposing a trade policy that is fair and based on social justice and sustainable development. We want everyone, and not just big corporations, to benefit from economic development.

We believe that Canada's trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade, trade that builds partnerships with other countries that support the principles of social justice and human rights without ignoring the need to develop trade opportunities.

I know that I have just one minute remaining and I will close by speaking of the five pillars of the NDP's fair trade strategy.

First, we are proposing that an impact analysis of all international trade agreements be carried out in order to determine whether or not trade agreements negotiated by Canada benefit Canadian families, workers and industries.

Second, we are proposing that there be a guarantee that trade agreements negotiated by Canada strengthen Canada's sovereignty and its freedom to establish its own policy.

Third is the fundamental principle that all trade agreements must protect and promote human rights, which Canadians deem essential.

All trade agreements should also respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems. Last, any time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to proceed with enabling legislation must be voted on in the House of Commons.

I will take questions now.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, the analysis that has been done on every free trade agreement that Canada has signed has made it better for Canadian families. We know it creates jobs and opportunities.

I know people in Newmarket—Aurora who are anxious to see a free trade agreement with Panama because, coming from communities in Panama, they have expertise in the language and culture. They would be very happy if we were to open the doors and allow them to do business with Panama.

I will read chapter 18 of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement with respect to labour. It states:

The Parties affirm their obligations as members of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and their commitments to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (1998) and its follow-up as well as their continuing respect for each other's Constitution and laws.

Given that the free trade agreement states what labour agreements would be in place and given that chapter 17 talks about agreements on the environment, why does the member not see that this would open doors and opportunities for the people of Panama?

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

Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly honest, my constituents do not trust the government when it comes to workers' rights. The government violates workers' rights here at home and could not care less about the rights of workers in other countries.

I would like to remind the House that the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster proposed two amendments to protect workers' rights, one giving them the right to collective bargaining and the other requiring the Minister of International Trade, Canada's lead delegate to the Joint Commission on the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement, to consult regularly with Canadian workers and unions.

Why does the government not support these amendments?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is perfect timing for me to address the House on this budget day concerning the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

Clearly, Canada is becoming a leader in primary resource exports, and it seems to have found its niche: exporting jobs that belong to Canadian workers.

The day before yesterday, I met with the Aveos workers who demonstrated on Parliament Hill to express their indignation at the unilateral closure without warning of the company's three facilities in Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver. The Montreal region lost 1,800 jobs, and the only thing that the Government of Canada is doing about it is asking the Standing Committee on Transport to study the issue. The Conservatives are in no hurry to protect workers and prevent companies from exporting jobs to the United States, Mexico, El Salvador or, in the future, Panama.

One thing is clear: on May 2 of last year, Canadians elected a strong and united NDP opposition to keep Canadian jobs in Canada.

People in the riding of LaSalle—Émard know that the Canada-Panama free trade agreement will lead to the loss of more jobs like the ones hemorrhaging from the aerospace, manufacturing and pharmaceutical research sectors in the greater Montreal area.

In the south east, plant closures have meant the loss of many precious jobs in Montreal. At this time, the people of LaSalle—Émard are once again feeling the threat of impending plant closures and further job losses. I have been assuring them that my NDP colleagues and I will do everything we can to stop that from happening.

As of February, Quebec had lost 70,000 jobs in the previous three months, including 8,000 in the manufacturing sector, according to The Gazette. That sort of hemorrhaging of jobs has not been seen since the 1981 recession. The overwhelming losses in Montreal speak volumes about this government's innovation strategy.

The new year was not a happy one for workers at the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical research centre. On January 10, they learned that the research centre on Notre-Dame Street in Montreal was closing, causing the loss of 36 permanent and 90 contract jobs. The next day, Sanofi announced that about 100 jobs would be lost.

Once again, the Conservatives' failure to act cost us good research jobs in Montreal.

The hemorrhaging continued in February, when 150 jobs were lost at Pfizer.

Next, British pharmaceutical group AstraZeneca announced that it was closing its research and development centre in Montreal after reorganizing its operations. The Montreal region lost 132 full-time jobs when that research centre in Saint-Laurent closed. At the same time, AstraZeneca announced a 23% increase in earnings for the fiscal year.

Next came the closure of appliance manufacturer Mabe, in eastern Montreal. Some 700 workers were laid off. Nonetheless, all the pieces were already in place in 2005, when the Mexican multinational bought Canada's Camco, which was the largest Canadian manufacturer in that sector.

In the final months of the 2010-11 fiscal year, the pharmaceutical company Merck Frosst announced its restructuring plans. It closed its centre for therapeutic research in Kirkland, on Montreal's West Island. Almost all of the employees were laid off. The media reported worries of a brain drain in Montreal.

Let us not forget the 1,300 Electrolux jobs that will be lost in L'Assomption, in the Lanaudière region, when the Swedish appliance manufacturer moves its operations to Memphis in 2013. Another 600 jobs were lost when White Birch Paper in Quebec City closed.

My fellow citizens in the rest of Canada have not been spared by the hollowing out of our economy. The Electro-Motive plant in London is a well-known case where 450 workers were laid off, which affected their families. They will not forget and neither will the NDP.

I also want to remind the House that Caterpillar recorded $4.9 billion profits the previous year and profits were up by a whopping 83%.

In Hamilton, 1,500 workers at Nanticoke were no luckier than their Ontario and Quebec counterparts in 2009 when Stelco closed its shops in 2009.

I would like to share a thought with the members of the House on this day when we are debating the bill on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement and when the government is bringing down its first budget as a majority government.

In a very lucid article titled “The myth of Tory economic performance” in February, the Globe and Mail commentator rightly hammered home what all Canadians know: the Conservatives have, time and time again, painted a rosy picture of their management of the economy. The article states:

To talk of the Tory economic record, we might first address the reddened state of our treasury that’s occasioning the cuts in the coming budget. A pertinent question is whether our deficit is the result of natural economic factors or whether it owes itself to vote-getting political expediency.

In this context, let’s recall a few things. Let’s recall the two-point GST cut that tore a giant hole in the revenue base, accounting for a good deal of the deficit. Let’s recall the prerecession spending – having inherited a $13-billion surplus, the [Conservative] team spent so excessively that we were close to a deficit by the time the recession began. Let’s recall the slashing of corporate tax rates and the government’s easing of mortgage rules and backing of risky loans that further bled the treasury.

Put it all together and what it shows is that, with more prudent fiscal management from the same guy who lectured other countries on debt in Davos, we could have coped with the recession without driving our treasury into a large deficit hole.

As the commentator says, the reality of the Conservatives' economic management is that jobs are being lost and factories are moving abroad. What the Canada-Panama free trade agreement and the Conservative majority government's budget have in store are painful cuts to our research and manufacturing sectors, which is why I am opposed to Bill C-24.

The NDP strongly believes in an alternative and a better form of trading relationship that can be established with Panama and any other country.

We have to have a fair trade policy that puts the pursuit of social justice, strong private-sector social programs and the elimination of poverty at the heart of an effective trade strategy.

Canada’s trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade, which builds trading partnerships with other countries that support the principles of social justice and human rights while also expanding business opportunity.

We must ensure that the trade agreements Canada negotiates support Canada’s sovereignty and freedom to chart its own policy.

We must adopt a fundamental principle whereby all trade agreements must respect fundamental international labour standards and human rights, and whereby policies are drafted to respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems.

Moreover, any time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to proceed with enabling legislation should be subject to a binding vote on whether or not to accept the terms of the agreement.

In closing, I would like to express my gratitude, on behalf of the people of LaSalle—Émard, for this opportunity to speak in the House.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, there was a great deal in my colleague's speech that had nothing to do with the Canada-Panama free trade agreement but she did talk about being fair to the people of Panama.

We know that Canada faced a global recession that was not of our making. It came from outside our borders. Canada weathered the storm far better than any other country in the world. We have created over 610,000 net new jobs in this country and we are seeing growth and prosperity. There is much more to do and we know, from other research that has been done, that free trade agreements raise all boats. Here is an opportunity for a free trade agreement that would give the people of Panama opportunity.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on why it is the NDP wants to disallow the Panamanian people from having jobs and opportunities.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question. I would like to mention that we are in favour of increasing our potential number of trading partners. However, we are in the process of negotiating piecemeal agreements that have no global vision and do not contain the necessary parameters to help Panamanians and Canadians. That is why I am opposed to this bill.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate her on her excellent speech. This bill deals with a free trade agreement with Panama. Rather than simply oppose everything, we have proposed changes with respect to workers' rights. We believe that these rights need to be taken into account if we are to help the people of Panama and of Canada.

Why, in my colleague’s opinion, should we protect the rights of workers in a free trade agreement with Panama?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to know that free trade agreements are being entered into almost exclusively for economic reasons. In my opinion, the economy is a means and must not come at the expense of people. When the Conservatives negotiate free trade agreements, they do so solely with economic motives in mind and they do not take into account the rights of workers and the inequalities and gaps, which are increasingly large in our modern society.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's history lesson. There is a lot to be learned from it such as what can go right or wrong and what we should reconsider for the future.

I would like to hear her comments about what we can learn from these NAFTA-style agreements, which were intended to be between two nations of relatively equal bargaining power, countries from “industrialized” nations that would work together on these trade deals. However, this is a trade deal where we put Panama, a developing nation, in place and it sets up a relationship of exploitation. These trade deals should not be about that.

Does she have comments about that?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with my colleague. Indeed, this free trade treaty is being entered into by two partners that do not have the same power or population size. What trade do we have with Panama? What will the agreements be? Why not have, as we proposed, agreements that encompass bigger regions, so that we can negotiate as equals?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-24. Back on February 7, 2011, I spoke to the bill when it was Bill C-46. Sadly, the concerns I raised then have not been addressed.

I also want to acknowledge the very good work that has been done by the member for Windsor West and the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. Back in those days, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster proposed a number of amendments to the free trade agreement, including amendments that would deal with some of the issues around sustainable development and investment. The government did not see fit to incorporate these amendments.

As well, that bill had gone to committee, had some extensive review and had a number of concerns raised around labour, human rights and the investment climate. Again, none of those concerns were taken into consideration when the bill was resubmitted to the House.

Members can probably gather by the tenor of my introduction that the NDP is opposed to this bill for a number of reasons. One of those concerns is the poor record of labour rights in the country. I did mention the fundamental flaws that were addressed by amendments proposed by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

The government talked about taking on tax havens. However, one of the most glaring flaws in the agreement is that tax disclosure issues have yet to be meaningfully addressed, despite protestations to the contrary by the Panamanian government.

Often in the House we will hear members opposite talk about the NDP never seeing a trade agreement that it liked, and it is for a very good reason. In fact, we have actually supported a trade agreement. However, what comes up consistently is the fact that the government continues to negotiate trade agreements that do not take into consideration the social and economic justice that we think is fundamental to what should be included in them.

The government also does not negotiate these agreements in an open and transparent way. We only have to look at what is happening currently with the CETA agreement. I know that I and many members of the House get numerous emails about the fact that this agreement has been negotiated behind closed doors, that we do not know what the impact will be on our agricultural communities, on pharmaceuticals, on access to natural health products and that our municipalities may be hampered in their procurement processes.

This is just an example of an agreement that could have a very far-reaching impact, and yet Canadians have no input. They have no ability to get at the very meat of what the agreement is about.

When we talk about how we should negotiate these agreements, Panama would have been a great start to having a fair trade agreement versus a free trade agreement. One of the fundamental principles is fair trade. I want to talk about some of those principles and what is absent in the Panamanian agreement.

This is an older article, but I thought it did a very good job of outlining the principles of fair trade. It is from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Richard Tarnoff, in October 2004. In this article he says:

While the principles of “fair trade” have been around for a long time, and are primarily based on ideas of human rights and economic justice, the fair trade movement is a relatively recent development. To a large degree, it is a response to the rapid growth in the global economy, in which more and more of what we consume is being produced in Third World countries, where labour and environmental standards are low or non-existent.

He talks about both the principles of fair trade and the fair trade movement. Many of us are very familiar with the fair trade movement. Many of us, when we go to buy our coffee, look to see if it is fair trade certified. There are also principles that apply to fair trade when negotiating these kinds of international agreements.

Tarnoff goes on to say:

One response to this situation has been the effort by labour, environmental and human rights organizations to have minimum standards included in trade agreements. Sometimes described as the demand for “fair trade rules,” these efforts have been vigorously opposed by the multinational corporations for the obvious reason that this is what makes production in Third World countries so profitable.

When he talks about profitable, he talks about how, in these countries, people are paid grim wages, not remotely close to living wages, often in desperate working conditions. Canadians benefit from those kinds of working conditions. We would not want to see any of our neighbours, our children, our brothers or sisters working in those kinds of conditions. Yet because we continue to negotiate the kinds of trade agreements that are before us today, we continue to profit from somebody else's misery.

I will not go over all the principles of fair trade that he outlined, but I want to touch on a couple. I can imagine Canadians listening to this would say that this makes absolute sense, that a trade principle should be that there would be no forced labour and exploitive child labour. It makes sense. We would not want to see young children working 10, 12 hours a day in hot, overcrowded conditions with no lunch breaks, no adequate remuneration. Never mind remuneration, why would we exploit them in the first place children? Most Canadians would agree that makes sense.

What about encouraging sustainable production techniques? It would make sense that when we import agricultural products from countries, we would want to ensure that they would be sustainable, that they would not use the kinds of pesticides not accepted in Canada, that their workers would be protected from access and that they would have all the safety standards and safety equipment needed so when they handled pesticides and herbicides, they would not become ill. The life expectancy of many farm workers in developing countries is so low it is embarrassing.

Another principle is that working conditions be healthy and safe. That just makes sense. Too many of us have heard the horror stories about children who have been trapped in factories as they have burned down because there are no exit doors. They have long days with no breaks, working seven days a week and not having adequate living conditions when they leave those factories. Working conditions that are healthy and safe just make sense.

Another principle is that equal employment opportunities be provided. This means women have access to good paying jobs, that they are not disadvantaged, that they have access to management jobs in some of these factories and that all aspects of trade and productions are open to public accountability.

Recently we saw the backlash against Apple when it turned out that some of the factories producing some of its component parts were not open and public and that the public was demanding the kind of a accountability to ensure workers were not being taken advantage of.

This is a bit of an aside, but it does link to the trade agreements. Tarnoff goes on to say:

It is not only Third World farmers who have become victims to the economics of globalization. Many small farmers in Canada and the U.S. have found themselves struggling to survive in markets dominated by giant corporations. One solution has been the development of a type of “fair trade” called Community Shared Agriculture, in which urban customers enter into agreements to have a local grower supply them with all their produce for the year. So far, over 1,000 farms in North America have made this arrangement.

When we talk about sustainability, ensuring that there is not exploitive practices, Canadians can support our local farmers, get to know them and buy their produce. Community shared agriculture is a way to ensure that farmers stay in business, especially the smaller farmers.

My riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan has a number of CSA farmers, and I am proud to be one of their supporters. We also have a fisherman who has taken the initiative to have a community supported fishery, so he does the same thing as the agriculture sector. He sells shares in advance so he can ensure he has a livelihood to support himself and his family. That is the kind of community supported agriculture we should encourage both in Canada and in countries with which we develop trade practices.

He goes on in this article, and there has been criticisms from the multinationals about any concept of fair trade, to talk about some typical criticism that have come from some of the mainstream economists. He mentions Professor John Ikerd, professor emeritus of Agricultural Economics. He said it was interesting that when economics laws and theories about fair trade being ethically right and being social justice, how suddenly the multinationals and their friends talked about how harmful it would be for the economy.

We need to do a much better job of incorporating principles in trade that are not just about the bottom line. There has to be a social justice component of it so that workers and their families have access to adequate wages and income, that the environment is not damaged and that there is a reasonable and fair distribution of wealth.

I encourage all members of the House to vote against this legislation and send the government back to the drawing board so it can come back with a fair trade agreement, not a free trade agreement.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am always very impressed when my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, speaks, not just because of her background and knowledge, but also because of the passion with which she speaks. I certainly appreciate that.

One of the passions we have on this side of the House is protecting jobs, ensuring that resources are protected and that secondary manufacturing takes place whenever possible. In this case, we are not just talking about Canada, we are talking about Panama and their point of view.

We have an expression in northern Ontario that Conservatives are always very happy to give away the trees and buy back the furniture. One of the things we have to do is ensure we protect jobs. We also have to ensure that Panamanian jobs are protected.

Would my colleague care to comment on that?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Thunder Bay--Rainy River and I share something in common from very different parts of the country. Nanaimo--Cowichan, where I live, is very rich in forestry resources, yet we see logging truck after logging truck going south, taking our jobs with them. In fact, in Nanaimo--Cowichan our sawmills are closing down and our pulp mills are in danger because they do not have access to chips.

When the member talks about protecting Canadian jobs, he is absolutely right. These trade agreements need to do two things. They need to protect Canadian jobs. They also need to make sure that we are not taking advantage of workers in developing countries through exploitive labour practices when they work in unsafe conditions, get paid dirt wages and die before an average life expectancy.

If we want to have a reasonable approach, and as a rich country we are supposed to be upholding human rights, what are we doing negotiating trade agreements that are not protecting the rights of workers in Panama, Colombia and other countries?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her contribution to this debate. She outlined some of the principles that are fundamental to what we would call a fair trade agreement. She spoke of the economic piece, of course, but she also mentioned that the social and environmental elements are critical. She talked about human rights, labour conditions and environmental practices. Essentially, she talked about the inequity that would exist if this trade deal went through in its current form, notwithstanding some of the attempts we have made to make amendments.

If there were really true political will to address some of these issues would this side of the House, and would my hon. colleague, be supportive of this kind of trade deal that included these elements?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster--Coquitlam has been a tireless advocate on the environmental front, whether it is fish habitat, or as many Canadians know, when he swam the Fraser River a couple of times to highlight the kind of environmental destruction that was happening on the Fraser River. That is a very important piece of what New Democrats stand for.

New Democrats have made proposals for better trade agreements. We have talked about the fact that we need to look at the environmental, social and economic aspects. We cannot look at these in isolation, just pick one part and say it is good for the economy. What we have not had in this country is a really good and thorough review of whether these trade agreements have been good for Canadians, for our economy, for our environment and for jobs in our country. I would suggest that would be a good starting place, to look at the real impacts of those agreements on Canadian workers and then decide how to proceed with the trade agreement.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel all fired up after hearing the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. She gave a great summary of how the NDP feels about the bill and why we are opposed to it. I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-24, the free trade agreement between Canada and Panama.

This is not the first time that we have dealt with the bill and not the first time that we have fought the bill. It came to the House in the last Parliament. It was passed at second reading. It went to committee and many witnesses were called. It started to go through a clause-by-clause review. It was finally concluded in December 2010, but then died on the order paper at the dissolution of the 40th Parliament.

The legislation was reintroduced in November 2011. We do get to have another kick at the can, so to speak.

I just want to outline why we on the NDP side feel so strongly opposed to this bill and other trade agreements that we feel are exploitative, narrow and, as the previous member said, do not take a comprehensive approach.

I want to thank the labour movement, the Canadian Labour Congress. Individual unions have paid enormous attention to some of these bills. I remember the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, which we opposed vigorously in this House for several years, as did the labour movement. We really feel that these trade agreements lay down a regime. They continue the NAFTA-style agreement that does not respect the integrity of human rights, that does not respect or even understand what needs to be addressed in the signing country and what Canada's role is in these agreements.

I think sometimes the Conservative government thinks that nobody is watching these innocuous bills, that these trade agreements are boring and technical, and that they will just slip through.

The fact is many groups pay attention to these particular trade agreements, whether it is the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Labour Congress or individual unions. I know the steelworkers did an incredible amount of work on the Canada-Colombia trade agreement because of their concern about labour rights and human rights in Colombia.

In my own community in east Vancouver, there is a whole movement of what is called fair trade. Commercial Drive is the first community in Canada that has a fair trade retail district. Stores are encouraged to purchase for their own use and to sell retail to customers products that have been obtained through fair trade practices, that are certified, transparent and healthy.

It is a consumer movement. It is partly in reaction to these massive trade agreements that are now being sent through this House, not just by Canada, but also by other governments. I do think it is important to know that there is an incredible amount of interest in the whole notion of fair trade that respects the rights, the environment and social justice in the country that we are trading with and also respects the need for jobs here in Canada.

This is a pretty large issue. If the government thinks it is just sort of sliding it through with no one watching, I think that is clearly not the case.

I want to highlight a couple of the things that we tried to do because, as the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan said, in the NDP we are not just opposing, we are actually proposing. We are being very proactive, putting forward amendments and trying to suggest what would improve a trade agreement.

When it went to the committee last year, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster was our trade critic at the time. He did an incredible job of providing awareness about this trade agreement and the Canada-Colombia agreement. He moved numerous motions to try to address some of the grievous aspects of the bill, and he focused on the fact that the bill would do nothing with respect to the tax haven environment in Panama.

I was not at the committee, but I know from the member that there were many witnesses who spoke about their concerns with the tax haven environment in Panama and its poor record on labour rights. The member valiantly tried to put forward amendments to address this. It is very distressing to know that both the Conservative and Liberal members of that committee shot down these amendments. Therefore, there were attempts made at committee to make this agreement a better agreement. It seems to me that is our job as legislators.

I think it is important to note for the record that the Canadian government has requested greater tax information and transparency from Panama. It is very concerning that Panama has refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. In fact, this has led the OECD to label the nation a tax haven. Is this the kind of place we should be trading with?

We expect transparency in our country. Although it is a struggle, we are always working to ensure it happens. If we are to introduce a new agreement and develop a new trading relationship with a country, surely these are the kinds of provisions that should be front and centre in that agreement. It is very unfortunate that Panama refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. That should sound a warning bell that there is a problem here.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster moved a motion which would have stopped the implementation of the trade agreement until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement. However, that too was defeated.

He also moved amendments that would have required the Minister of International Trade to consult with labour and trade unions as well as work with human rights experts and organizations in order to create impact assessments for the trade agreement. To me, this is very important.

We recognize that there is a serious problem. There needs to be ongoing evaluation, assessment and monitoring. Surely our minister responsible for these areas should be able to consult with labour and trade unions as well as human rights organizations who work in this area to know what is happening on the ground. We are not talking about theoretical situations. We are talking about serious human rights violations. We are talking about serious labour violations where workers do not have the right to collective agreements or the right to strike. Their ability to organize as a union is sometimes threatened in a collective and personal sense. That is a very serious situation.

Therefore, it seemed to us to be a very reasonable suggestion to put forward as an amendment that the minister would want to know what was going on. He would want to consult with the organizations that are aware of these situations to be able to have impact assessments as part of the agreement. One would think that would have been supported, but no, that was defeated too.

The member also put forward amendments that 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 principle representative of Canada to consult on a regular basis with organizations in our country. That was defeated too.

The bill has a sorry history and it is back before us again. We will do our utmost to defeat the bill. It should go back to the drawing board. There should be a reverse in favour of an agreement that is based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade which builds trading relationships and partnerships with other countries, that supports the principles of social justice and human rights, while also expanding economic opportunities. That is what fair trade is about. That is what we should be doing in this agreement.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for laying out some of the NDP's sincere and legitimate concerns about this bill and the points we have been trying to make. We have been urging the government to take into consideration and accommodate some of the reasonable concerns we have had about this.

I would like to focus on one comment my colleague made. Essentially the hon. member for Vancouver East was making the point that a free trade agreement with Canada is not a right; it is more a privilege.

In fact, if one wants to become a member of the community of free trading nations, one should be agreeing to a set of standards and rules that in fact stipulate that the standards of wages and living conditions in one's home country be elevated, complementing those high standards of wages and living conditions in the trading partner, in this case Canada. In other words, we should be raising up the conditions of these countries to our level and not allowing our standards to be pulled down to their level. It seems like a very straightforward notion, to my mind.

Is that in fact the basis of her objections to this agreement as it stands?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for his very thoughtful comments.

Where is the freedom in this whole notion of free trade? Really, it is the freedom to move capital wherever one wants, without any rules and restrictions, in disregard for labour standards, jobs, human rights, the environment and social questions.

I think the hon. member is entirely correct when he says that the fundamental principles should be about upholding those rights as we know them in Canada. However, let us remember that those rights are also based on international standards as laid out by the International Labour Organization, such as the right to collective bargaining, the right to speech, the right to strike. There are a number of conventions that, regrettably, even Canada is not a signatory to. However, there are conventions that lay out these very important foundational principles.

I entirely agree that trade agreements have to be negotiated within the context of those and not in isolation and removed from them.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks about the government's vision regarding free trade agreements.

Do we find, in these agreements, the sincere ambition of a government to contribute to enhancing the quality of life of our economic partners? Do we find, in these agreements, Canada's undertaking to support these countries to improve social conditions, while honouring individual and collective rights, labour standards, and environmental and other standards?

In other words, is the government trying to capitalize on the weaknesses of certain countries in these areas?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the objections we have had is that this particular agreement is seeking to continue what we call the NAFTA model. Of course, NAFTA was the first big agreement that happened.

There was the failure of the free trade area of the Americas agreement, the FTAA. I know many of us were in Quebec City a number of years ago, protesting against that. It was shot down. Since its failure, now we see the Canadian government seeking to have bilateral agreements, but these are still based on the NAFTA model.

Therefore, I entirely agree with the hon. member's correct assessment of that model. It is a very narrow corporate model based on the flow of capital. It does not take into consideration labour rights, social rights, human rights, the environment and other social questions. That is why it must be rejected.

We are always told that we are against trade. Who could be against trade? We are not against trade; we are in favour of fair trade that is based on important international principles. Then we could advance good agreements that would actually benefit both countries and their workers.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, Panama is an important partner to us in this hemisphere. Having visited this country a few years ago and having worked with Panamanian counterparts in various contexts, I believe that it is truly a country with which we should have closer ties. However, these ties must be based on sustainable and fair principles that benefit both countries. Yet the free trade agreement that is before us today really does not meet these criteria. In fact, this agreement is problematic in a number of ways. I will not hide the fact that many of these problems are common to a number of our free trade agreements. Despite this, I would like to revisit some of these problems, as some of my colleagues have done.

To begin with, it should be noted that there are problems when it comes to environmental protection. I will not elaborate on these problems today, because many of my colleagues have described them at length and, in any case, my time is short. There are also problems as far as protecting workers is concerned. For example, under the system we will end up with, investors will have the right to request compulsory arbitration that they can conduct independently, however a union can only file a complaint and it will be up to governments to seek and obtain remedies. Why this double standard? This is once again a whittling away of workers’ rights. This is not good for Panamanian or Canadian workers. When you start chipping away at the rights of workers in another country, what happens? We have seen this in the past. Companies relocate jobs to these countries and we lose manufacturing jobs left, right and centre, as we have seen in recent years. In short, that creates a system where nobody benefits.

There is also a somewhat more specific problem in this case, and that is the absence of a tax information exchange agreement. This is a major problem. We know that, at best, Panama is in a grey area when it comes to its tax haven status. We believe that Canada must help Panama and encourage it to be more fiscally transparent. The negotiation of a free trade agreement is an opportunity to do just that. We want to work with Panama to help stop the money laundering that is, unfortunately, happening in the country, and to help stop the funding of drug trafficking. This is a problem that affects the entire hemisphere and that has tragic consequences for Panama, the hemisphere and Canada.

I think that we should really require Panama to sign a tax information exchange agreement. Some say that the double taxation agreement will be enough. If double taxation agreements were enough, tax information exchange agreements would never have been invented. Double taxation agreements apply to legitimate and official earnings, but the problem is all the other revenue.

We are being told that the double taxation agreement covers some ground, but my fundamental question is this: why not have a tax information exchange agreement? Why not?

Who stands to lose if such an agreement were signed? It would certainly not be Canada, and I do not imagine that Panama would either. In fact, such an agreement would help put Panama in a position to better meet international standards, for example, its obligations under the OECD.

What we proposed was very simple: suspend the free trade agreement until a system is in place for exchanging tax information. The Conservatives rejected this proposal. Why did they reject it? What is the rush? Are they going to tell us that our national economy is at risk, as they did with the Air Canada situation?

Bilateral trade between Canada and Panama represents less than 1% of our trade. There is no rush. We can wait. We can use our tools and energy to help Panama meet international standards. This would help Panama. It would help the entire hemisphere, and clearly, it would also help Canada.

Meanwhile, the free trade agreement does not include the exchange of tax information. What would be the impact of signing such an agreement? According to Mr. Tucker, the research director for Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, this would make things worse for Panama. I would like to read some of what he said, because it is really very interesting and it gets to the heart of the matter.

The Canada-Panama trade deal would worsen the tax haven problem. As the OECD has noted, having a trade agreement without first tackling Panama's financial secrecy practices could incentivize even more offshore tax dodging. But there's a reason to believe that the trade deal will not only increase tax haven abuses but will also make fighting them that much harder.

Chapter 9 of the Panama agreement expands the investor-state system under NAFTA, under which Canada has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees and compensation to U.S. investors. Canada's defensive interests are many in the case of the Panama pact, because there are hundreds of thousands of U.S., Chinese, Cayman, and even Canadian corporations that can attack Canadian regulations by using aggressive nationality planning through their Panamanian subsidiaries.

In short, the free trade agreement as written, without a tax information exchange agreement, will hurt Panama because it will worsen the situation there, increasing abuses and making fighting them even harder. It will also hurt Canada.

I will repeat my questions: why not wait, and why not include a tax information exchange agreement?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the foreign affairs critic for the NDP. We benefit greatly from her views. Having been a diplomat in the Canadian foreign service, she has first-hand knowledge and experience of some of these matters of which she speaks.

I ask the member this. How did we arrive at this position? It begs the question, were the people around table negotiating on behalf of Canada involved in some treachery? Were they merely incompetent? What was their bargaining position?

Where I come from, one tries to bargain from a position of strength. As the dominant party in this trade agreement, in the overwhelming elephant-to-mouse relationship in this agreement, surely we would be dictating the terms and conditions of any ultimate agreement we come to. Therefore, were they incompetent or did they deliberately sign an agreement that is not in the best interests of Canada for some other unknown motivation?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I have to confess that when I was looking at that, I was wondering exactly the same thing. We asked that there be such an accord and we understand that Panamanian authorities said no. The story leads us to believe that we walked away and said if Panama did not want one, then we would not have one. I do not understand that. It is a crucial element in that situation. It should have been there. The treaty should not have been signed until it was there. As my hon. colleague says, we do not want to over-exploit our situation of strength with other smaller economies, but in a case like that, in the long term, it is not helping anybody. It is a bit mind-boggling.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. The NDP has noted that it supported only one free trade agreement in the House relatively recently and that was the Canada-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. If the member looked at the free trade agreement with Jordan and the one with Panama, could she say where the differences are? New Democrats supported the agreement with Jordan. I do not understand why they are not supporting the one with Panama.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that shows the problem with the way the government approaches issues like free trade. Despite what some of our colleagues say, New Democrats have never said we are against all free trade agreements. The government seems to say all free trade agreements are good.

With respect to Jordan, another country I have visited, by the way, we face a very different situation both in terms of human rights and workers' rights. To my knowledge, Jordan has never been on the OECD black list of tax evasion havens. They are two different situations. In each situation what would be ideal is that we negotiate more multilaterally, but if we are intent on negotiating bilaterally, we have to look at each situation and its specific circumstances, and Panama is not Jordan.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have made it clear that we oppose this bill for a number of very good reasons.

When the committee looked at the previous bill on free trade with Panama, Bill C-46, we heard convincing testimony about the fact that the Republic of Panama was a tax haven and about its poor record on workers' rights. We proposed motions and amendments that would have corrected the worst parts of the agreement, but the Conservatives and the Liberals both rejected our proposals. We are disappointed that the new bill, despite its inspiring new short title, has not fixed the fundamental shortcomings of its predecessor or introduced tax disclosure provisions.

The government will no doubt say that we oppose this bill because the NDP opposes all trade, but I am here to say that that is not true. The difference between the Conservatives and the NDP is that we believe that the economy should serve the people, not the other way around.

Their faith is in capitalism; our faith is in man. That is what truly separates us. With this principle in mind, free trade is not a good in and of itself but a means to an end, one that serves the interests of the majority of human beings and not a minority of wealthy people. As one of our old slogans goes, put humanity first.

However, I am personally willing to concede that trade is part of the march of history. I would even go so far as to say that trade makes the world smaller and can help bring humanity closer together, which is always a good thing. Man has too long suffered from tribalism, and what unites us is far more fundamental than what separates us. If I may use a metaphor, it is about time we undo the loss of family caused by the arrogance of the Tower of Babel.

However, history has proven that free trade does not automatically mean greater prosperity for the majority or greater rights. Free trade can also tear us apart. Must I remind my colleagues across the aisle that we are still living with the terrible ramifications of 19th century colonialism, that colonialism did not bring us closer together but rather has created deep cleavages and violence, which we are still trying to repair today, and that the major justification of colonialism was freer trade?

However, as progressives we cannot get in the way of the march of history. Having said that, these economic forces are not deterministic and there has always been a subjective element to them. Man has made decisions to engage in trade in particular ways, and better decisions must be made. These economic forces should not be viewed as the Titans of Greek myth, terrible chaotic forces that cannot be controlled. On the contrary, they are forces we must harness to make the world a better place. Olympus must prevail after all.

Therefore, free trade must also be fair trade and must help solve the deep-rooted inequalities between the developed and underdeveloped world, the rich and the poor, the northern and southern hemispheres. We simply cannot allow free trade to exacerbate existing divisions or, worse, create new ones between peoples. We cannot be so naive as to believe that Canadian companies, like companies all over the world whose raison d'être is profit, do not see a particular pecuniary advantage in doing business in countries whose labour standards are lower. I am convinced that if we ask most Canadians whether their government should sign trade deals with another country because some influential companies would like to have access to cheaper labour, where fellow human beings are not paid a decent wage and where dirty money can be laundered, they would say that is simply not fair.

The reality is that there are many Canadian companies behaving badly all around the world, in Africa, Jordan and Latin America, and it is misplaced patriotism to defend them. However, what if we create a situation where free trade and fair trade can work together; where free trade can assure social progress is maintained and enhanced with those countries we trade with; where more prosperity and not more exploitation is the result; where the gap between rich and poor is rendered smaller; where the environment is respected? Is this not the ideal of trade?

The problem is that the bill does not do enough to secure everyone's prosperity and protect their fundamental rights. For instance, it should have protected unionized workers in Panama by giving them the right to collective bargaining and requiring the Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, as the principal representative of Canada on the joint Panama-Canada commission, to consult on a regular basis with representatives of Canadian and Panamanian labour and trade unions. Unfortunately, the fact is that a free trade zone would do nothing to protect workers' rights, and this is already a serious problem in Panama.

As for sustainable development, a clause needs to be added that meets the needs of a free trade agreement in the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, as set out in the Brundtland report published by the World Commission on Environment and Development. The problem is that protecting the environment is difficult in Panama.

In order to be considered responsible, an investment must maximize social good as well as financial return, specifically in the areas of the environment, social justice and corporate governance, in accordance with the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. A responsible investment should help to put an end to tax havens that allow money from illegal drug trafficking to be laundered.

Unfortunately, this bill does very little to correct these problems. It is simply not enough. Canada's trade policy should be based on the principles of reciprocal, sustainable and equitable trade, trade that builds partnerships with other countries that uphold human rights principles, while recognizing the need to expand market opportunities. The federal government should stop focusing exclusively on the NAFTA model and remain open to other possible solutions.

Panama is not like the United States or Europe. The government should explore other means of expanding trade by coming up with a vigorous trade promotion strategy that will set the standard for a fairer society for the rest of the world. Fair and equitable trade should be the overarching principle, and not just an afterthought, in all trade negotiations between the Canadian government and other countries.

The NDP strongly believes in an alternative and a better form of trading relationship that can be established with Panama and any other country. Such a trade agreement would involve a comprehensive trade strategy whereby the fundamental principle of negotiation would be the defence and protection of human rights. It would prohibit the import, export or sale in Canada of any product that is deemed to have been manufactured under sweatshop conditions, using forced child labour, or under other conditions that are inconsistent with fundamental international labour standards and human rights.

In the NDP's vision, all trade agreements should respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems. That is a fundamental principle. This positive and decent vision puts humanity at the centre of our concerns. Let us build a better future for everyone in our trade relations with other countries.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his presentation this afternoon. I enjoy working with that member on my committee, government operations and estimates. He does an excellent job there on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

I know he is probably as surprised as I was that he supported the free trade agreement with Jordan, but I would just like to know if the member could tell us which clauses in this bill, on the Panama agreement, are different from the clauses in the bill on the Jordan agreement? Why are they different, and why is that a problem and the reason for not supporting the Canada-Panama agreement?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my hon. colleague from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates for his question. I would also like to say that he does excellent work on that committee.

As it happens, I just came from a meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade, which is currently studying the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement. The hon. member should not jump to any conclusions about the level of support from a party.

We are currently studying the problem. For example, we just heard some very disturbing testimony on the working conditions in Jordan, specifically for foreign workers. There are some extreme cases of abuse. At this time, the hon. NDP members who sit on that committee are studying the agreement in order to ensure that it is a good agreement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member might be confusing other people inside the chamber in regard to what the NDP position is on Jordan. When I asked the question of one of his colleagues earlier, she made it very clear that the NDP would be supporting the Jordan free trade agreement.

Now, the member indicates, because it is still in committee, that he wants to approach it with an open mind. I think the NDP members should be a little clearer. I know they are nervous about this being the first ever free trade agreement they might contemplate supporting and so they are treading carefully, but they should be a little consistent on this.

The NDP voted to see it to go into committee. However, is the NDP supporting the free trade agreement with Jordan? We know its position on this particular bill but what is its position on the Jordan bill?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is the one who is confused. It is quite normal to vote at second reading stage to refer a bill to committee in order to learn more about the bill. I am not going to apologize for our open-mindedness, because that is one of our party's strong suits.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention on this issue. He is doing a great job on the international trade committee and thinks very thoughtfully about these issues.

I wonder if he would talk about why it is so important for this country to be entering these trade negotiations with some thought about the kinds of conditions and the kind of message of the way we want to work and walk on this earth. How do we want to be perceived by other countries? What kind of good can we do if we understand those things when we begin to negotiate a trade deal?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a commercial exchange is just like any other human exchange. It should be done with respect and with consideration for the conditions in which the citizens of the other country find themselves.

I would like to add something. The United States and Jordan signed a free trade agreement that was supported by the vast majority of unions in the United States. There were clauses in the agreement that protected workers' rights and, in that case, the Government of Jordan did not comply with those clauses.

In this situation, we must ensure that there is a solid commitment from both governments, because through this relationship, which is not always equitable, we must protect human rights.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to 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.

However, before I do that I will take a moment to share with the House my meeting yesterday evening with the participants in the Forum for Young Canadians. I met with a number of young people from across this country and I can tell this House that our country has a bright future. These young people were very much tuned into the issues that we are discussing in this House and issues that matter to Canadians. We talked about the budget, the economy, health care, crime prevention and many more subjects. These young people were very well-informed about the issues that we discuss in this House.

I want to acknowledge those young people who I met last night. I met with Liane Hewith, a grade 12 student from Vancouver Quadra; Bronwyn Vaisey, a grade 9 student from Port Moody Gleneagle Secondary School; and Faythe Lou, a grade 11 student from Kwantlen Park Senior Secondary from my riding of Surrey North.

Indeed, Canada does have a bright future.

Today, because of the meeting last night, I am more committed as a parliamentarian to work harder to create opportunities for young people, such as the ones I met last night.

I will now move on to speak to the free trade agreement and talk about some of the basic principles of this trade deal, in other words, what should be a framework for Canada when we start these trade negotiations with other countries.

First, we should pursue a multilateral approach based on a fair and sustainable trade model. In fact, bilateral trade deals amount to protectionist trade deals since they give preferential treatment to a few partners and exclude others. This puts countries with smaller economies in a position of inferiority vis-à-vis larger partners. A multilateral fair trade deal model avoids these issues, while protecting human rights and the environment.

The Canadian government needs to have a vision for a fair trade policy that puts the pursuit of social justice, strong public sector social programs and the elimination of poverty at the heart of an effective trade strategy. Canada's trade policy should be based on principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade that builds trading partnerships with other countries that support principles of social justice and human rights, while also expanding business opportunities.

In free trade agreements involving countries, such as Panama, we have the opportunity to better the human rights situation within that country. When will the Conservatives start putting the concerns of everyday people before those of big businesses? Fair trade should be the overarching principle, not just an afterthought, of trade negotiations.

The NDP on this side of the House strongly believes in an alternative and a better form of trading relationship that can be established with Panama and any other country, one that includes, within an overall fair trade strategy, the following points: first, providing a comprehensive, common-sense impact assessment on all international agreements that demonstrates that the trade deals Canada negotiates are beneficial to Canadian families, workers and industries. The government does not sign any trade agreements that would lead to net job losses for Canadian families.

Second, ensuring that the trade agreements Canada negotiates support Canada's sovereignty and freedom to chart its own policy, support our ability to be a competitive force on the world stage and support the principles of a multilateral fair trade system.

The third point is the fundamental principle that all trade agreements must promote and protect human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any product that is deemed to have been created under sweatshop conditions, forced labour or other conditions that are not in accordance with fundamental international labour standards and human rights.

The fourth point is the fundamental principle that all trade agreements should respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems.

The fifth point is that any time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to proceed with enabling legislation be subject to a binding vote on whether to accept the terms of the agreement. The current system, which consists of tabling FTAs in the House for a period of 21 sitting days prior to ratification is neither mandatory nor does it bind the government to a decision of the House.

The points that I have just highlighted should be the guiding principles for negotiations for any free trade agreements.

In this agreement, I did not see the Conservative government use any of those principles. Rather, it appears to be once again resorting to making up facts to suit its interests rather than looking out for the interests of Canadians.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is another marginally improved copy of the George Bush style approach to trade. It still puts businesses and big corporations ahead of everyday working-class people, it has no effective enforcement of human rights and it pays lip service to environmental protection without any real tough measures or dispute resolution mechanisms.

It is another one of those NAFTA copycat agreements that were initially negotiated and designated for trade between highly industrialized countries. However, Panama is not a highly industrialized country. This trade deal would not help Panama grow substantially nor would it increase the standard of living for its citizens. Instead, it would increase the role and incentive for exploitation by multinational corporations and inequality at a far greater pace and scale than in the case of NAFTA.

Another factor is that Panama is not a major trading partner of Canada. Two-way merchandise trade between the two countries reached only $149 million in 2008, which is less than 1%.

According to the United States department of justice and other entities, Panama is a major financial conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers' money laundering activities. That is a major concern that has been raised by the opposition in the House and in committee. The issue of tax havens also needs to be considered when we enter into these sorts of agreements. The government needs to consider more than the dollar value of the contract that it is entering into.

This is yet another trade deal negotiated in record time, without any consultation with trade unions, environmental groups, civil society or any citizen of the country. A fair and sustainable deal would not just address the needs of business but also the needs of working families and the environment.

The trade agreement does not provide investors and labour with a level playing field. While, under chapter 11, investors have the right to seek binding arbitration that they can pursue independently, a trade union in Panama does not get to pursue a case to arbitration. It can file a complaint that would lead to an investigation or report but it is up to the government to seek remedies and damages.

Empirical evidence strongly suggests that the minister of the day will not pursue the matter. The trade agreement includes enforceable protections of patents, trademarks and copyrights but no meaningful protection of workers and no meaningful protection of the environment.

Rather than imposing a one size fits all model, convenient to the U.S. finance system, and helping transnational corporations and repressive governments play off workers in different countries, we must recognize that different countries choose different development strategies and must be allowed to pursue fair and sustainable trade.

I want to urge my colleagues in the Conservative government to put the interests of Canadian families first before the interests of big corporations and their friends when it comes to signing free trade agreements around the world.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the amount of business that Canada does now with Panama. As the member knows, the trade minister flies around the world a lot and the Conservatives actually believe that when they enter into a discussion it is as if they have a deal. However, when it comes to results, the results of the trade deals are just illusions in the minister's mind.

What does the member see here? We have solid agreements. We have solid trade in Korea, which is a billion dollar market for the pork and beef industry, and the minister keeps ignoring that market while trying to find new ones. The United States has imposed buy American on us and we are falling back in that particular market. Would it not be more important that the minister find some balance and concentrate on the markets that we already have and hold them, as well as finding these new ones, because they are not all that the minister tries to add them up to be?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in the NDP's mind that we need to negotiate trade agreements around the world. Trade is an essential part of today's economies, but trade must be fair and equitable. Human rights and the environment must be taken into consideration.

I would have to agree with the Liberal member that the Conservatives do not seem to have a strategy in place as to how they will negotiate trade. On the one hand, he is absolutely right that the Minister of International Trade is on a mission flying around the world to negotiate these trade agreements in a hurry, but he is not taking into consideration some of the fundamental values Canadians would like to have included as part of those agreements, such as protection of the environment and the rights of workers. Canada can take a leadership role around the world with respect to the environment, human rights and the rights of workers.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague ended his speech by talking about Canadian families. I would like to ask him about the outcome. We are already familiar with the negative impact of these agreements: plant closures in Montreal and throughout Canada, employees threatened with having their jobs moved elsewhere, violation of legal agreements, and so forth. Has anything positive come out of these agreements?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, trade agreements are a reality and we need to negotiate them with other countries.

What I find really troubling is that we have seen from the Conservatives over and over that when the facts do not fit their strategy or where they want to go, they create their own facts.

Canada could be a world leader in negotiating trade agreements and influencing some fundamental issues, such as human rights, workers' rights, and the environment. We have a chance to take a leadership role in those areas, yet the Conservatives seem not to want to do that. They do not have a clear policy on how they want to negotiate trade deals and with which countries. It seems to be done piecemeal, a little at a time. There is no clear strategy on their part to negotiate these trade deals.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that I rise to speak about international trade, because it is not really my area of expertise. I will apologize in advance to those who consider themselves to be better informed than I.

I have some concerns about the sudden proliferation of free trade talks initiated by the Conservative government, and I would like to tell the House about them.

The government has decided to enter into no fewer than 16 free trade agreements with various countries. I did say 16. It is an unprecedented and rather worrisome development. I would like to quickly list them.

First of all, there is Asia, with Japan and Korea, followed by Thailand and Singapore. These are the so-called Asian tigers, the solid, dynamic, creative and open economies, supported by reliable, democratic governments.

Then we have India, with its gigantic market and its emerging and promising strength. India is a democratic and talented country, with a future as rich as its fascinating multimillennial past. In addition, it has been a dear friend of Canada for a very long time, a partner on which we can always rely and, in the coming years, it will be an ally of choice.

I will continue with my list.

Next comes the now-famous treaty with the European Union, which comes with agreements with two countries whose economies are increasingly connected with the EU: Turkey and Morocco.

Europe represents an enormous, practically bottomless market. As well, the stabilizing force of the European Union on all aspects of society heralds lasting prospects of prosperity and fruitful trade.

Turkey, too, is a remarkably vigorous country and it is probably desirable to have closer ties with it.

I note in passing that until very recently, Ukraine also fell into that category. Unfortunately, this free trade agreement has been significantly compromised as a result of the anti-democratic actions of the Yanukovich administration, and negotiations may now never produce results.

Then we come to a very small Arab country, the Kingdom of Jordan, the only Middle Eastern country on the list. With the Arab Spring in full bloom, Jordan is still the most stable nation in the region. However, there are still serious reservations about the workers’ rights situation in that country, and the interest the government is taking in it seems to stem from a magnificent exploitive egoism. But that is a discussion for another time.

I would remind this House that two hours from the Jordanian border, in Syria, people are being killed as we speak, simply for trying to exercise their rights. Short-sightedness can be corrected, and geography can be learned.

Then comes a string of small countries in Central America and the Caribbean with weak economies and governments that may or may not be exemplary. This is the Caribbean common market—CARICOM—and it covers the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and, lastly, Panama. The only country missing from the list is Costa Rica, the most stable and most advanced country in the region, with which we already have a free trade agreement in effect.

That completes the list. It is no small number. Frankly, it is unbelievable. What conclusions are we to draw from that list?

First, that wherever the Minister of Foreign Affairs goes, a free trade agreement is never far behind. He hands them out like the Catholic church used to hand out absolutions. If he happened to go through East Timor next week and noticed the least sign of a middle class, we should expect a press briefing.

What is particularly blatant is that Canada is trying to establish specific zones of influence where its commercial activities will be facilitated: the rapidly growing Asia Pacific, Europe and its close allies, and our own backyard, Central America.

And again, Jordan is more or less the odd one out on that list. To the north there is the revolt in Syria, to the west there is complete collapse in Iraq, and to the south there is the most impenetrable country in the world, Saudi Arabia. I find it hard to see what our interest is, but fine, let us move on.

The treaty with the European Union and its satellites has been roundly criticized by nearly everyone. The European Union is much more dynamic and competitive than Canada, and the agreement will jeopardize a number of sectors of our economy and throw open all the doors of all levels of government to the Europeans. The adjustment is going to be brutal, and people are not going to like it.

As well, the tenor and wording of the agreement are secret. Even the European national governments do not know what is being hatched. So the biggest decision about international trade will be announced to us in the grand biblical style of divine revelations, and we will have to live with it because it will be law.

We may as well turn all the lights out while we are at it.

Today we are concerned primarily with Panama. This is a specific case, although the country is located in a targeted geographic group that is much larger. What is unique about this case? We already know. Harsh words have been spoken about it in the House, and I will say it again today. Panama is a tax haven and a narco-state that refuses to comply with international transparency laws. When other countries call it out, it makes some completely symbolic gestures and shirks all its responsibilities.

I am not here to put the Panamanian government on trial, and I do not want to tarnish the reputation of this small country that has a very difficult history, and with good reason. Panama was created by force and has been dominated by the United States throughout its history. It was basically exploited and constantly threatened and, when the time came for Panama to get out from under the United States' thumb, the Americans gave Panama an unbelievable and humiliating thrashing. It is a country that was colonized, insulted and betrayed. I would like to recognize Panama's difficult history. The fact that it was able to recover as it did is a miracle in itself.

However, the methods the Panamanian government used to recover were misguided. Panama is a tax haven where the government closes its eyes to the laundering of money from drug trafficking. I am sticking to this description so as not to hurt the wonderful people who live in Panama and who are innocent of this skulduggery.

This bill is an excellent opportunity to clearly state where the NDP stands on international trade. The NDP is of the opinion that agreements must be fair, equitable, humane, sustainable and responsible. Of course, the government will say that this is certainly the case and that Canada wants to help the economies of the Americas in a fair and sustainable way. The government will tell us again that, if there is a responsible country in the world, it is the great and beautiful country of Canada. That is false.

The only motivation here is a ridiculous love of profit. It is clear to anyone who is not obsessed with the sacred word “profit” that this agreement is motivated by an old colonial reflex to try to become just a little bit richer, despite already being rich. What we have here is a very small agreement with a very small country that will be forgotten next week and that will quickly make a few bigwigs a few million dollars richer. That is the plan. Period.

The NDP believes that this agreement will not benefit the people of Panama in any way. It will serve only to benefit the Panamanian government and our own government. This is completely unfair. The next time the government tells us that it wants to combat tax evasion, we will bring up Panama. The Conservatives have such a superiority complex that they are only too eager to go off and play the white man somewhere.

I have bad news. Since an austerity budget is about to be announced, today seems like the perfect opportunity to say what I think is the primary motivation behind these agreements with Central America. The Conservatives have been telling us non-stop that they created 600,000 jobs since the height of the recession. However, that is impossible for one very simple reason: Canada is experiencing Dutch disease.

What is Dutch disease? It is succumbing to the temptation to develop precious natural resources as quickly as possible with absolutely no regard for anything else. This boosts our currency and everyone thinks, my God, we sure are weathering this crisis well, and it must be because our banking system is better than everyone else's and our bankers are more upstanding, but that is not the case. It is because natural resources development is happening faster, and we are exporting our resources as fast as we can. The immediate impact of that activity is that the industrial sector, which has no connection to the development of the magical resource, is quietly collapsing and disappearing. We bolster our confidence by saying that in a global context, those businesses were not viable anyway. We shrug our shoulders and continue to dig resources out of the ground.

Then the disease spreads to the highest levels of the economy. Jobs in the service sector disappear. Aveos moves to El Salvador, research gets cut, and development is hobbled. Eventually, inflation goes up. That is the scenario. What is the government doing? It is doing whatever it can to sell the country's resources and pump more money into the machine to keep it going.

What about the imaginary 600,000 jobs that the Conservatives like to talk about? Maybe they were created in China, which is great for our relations with China, but we live here. The government needs to plan for Canada's long-term future in a global context. It has to steer clear of easy solutions, sit down and think about things. Unfortunately, thinking is not something this administration tends to do. Why waste time thinking when the government can sign free trade agreements with all comers to pump more fodder into the system? We do not like it.

To sum up, until there is something in place to ensure true sustainable development with Panama, until the workers in that country can count on better protection for their rights, we cannot support this kind of agreement.

The House resumed from March 29 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 the question be now put.

Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today on 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.

This trade agreement is one of a series of agreements that the government has gotten into very hastily. This is another one that was negotiated in record time, without proper consultation, and our party has opposed it.

I do not want anyone to think that our party is opposed to trade. I know it is a common mantra for those opposite that New Democrats are opposed to trade; we are not opposed to trade. However, we are opposed to this trade deal.

I only have 10 minutes, so I will try my very best to be succinct in stating why we are opposed to this particular trade deal.

As I mentioned, it was done hastily and without consultation with relevant stakeholders, as well as without consultation with trade unions and environmental groups in Panama. It was done without consultation with civil society or citizens in Canada and Panama who have an interest in these agreements. It was done without respect for labour standards and collective bargaining, despite the addition of a labour agreement.

There is no protection against money laundering and tax cheating in a country that has been decried a tax haven.

There is no commitment in the agreement to sustainable development and sustainable investment, which should be an important part of any free trade deal.

When we talk about trade in this country, we should not just be talking about the movement of goods. We need to be talking about a partnership, but what we have seen is the government making hasty trade deals that do not respect what Canada wants and needs.

If trade was all about free trade deals, Canada's trade would be increasing and improving, not getting worse. The government members talk about how they are very interested in trade and carrying on with these trade deals, but where are the results? When we look at the difference between signing free trade deals and actually increasing trade, Canada's trade has actually deteriorated. The quantity of goods and services shipped abroad from Canada is actually 7% lower than when the government took office. It is lower than it was back in the year 2000. What we do see in trade is an ever-increasing proportion of raw materials and raw resources, especially oil, making up that trade.

At one time, we had a very impressive trade surplus with other countries. That has now gone into a deficit. Even though we have increasing petroleum sales, 3% of GDP per year is in fact a decrease in sales.

This is from a report by Jim Stanford, an economist with the Canadian Auto Workers, that was published in The Globe and Mail on May 21. He is obviously very concerned about issues, particularly in the manufacturing trade. He has done a study of our longest-standing free trade pacts, which are with the United States, Mexico, Israel, Chile and Costa Rica. What is interesting is that our exports to those countries have in fact grown more slowly than our exports to non-free trade partners, while our imports from these countries have surged much faster than with the rest of the world.

Therefore, if our goal—which is a sensible one, according to Mr. Stanford—is to boost exports and to strengthen the trade balance, then signing free trade deals, as we have done, is exactly the wrong thing to do.

What is very interesting is that the five biggest trade deals we have had have resulted in more imports to us from these country, which is good for them, but fewer exports to them. We have not increased our trade nor boosted our proper partnerships.

The problem is pretty difficult, particularly for some aspects of our economy. We are seeing an endorsement by the government of an over-valued currency. We have heard our leader talk about that. I know many people in this country do not want to talk about that. The members opposite do not like to talk about the fact that our currency is over-valued and is trading at some 25% above its purchasing power parity with other countries,. However, it does hurt Canada's exports and skews our trade with other countries, particularly the kind of trade that takes place when we are exporting unprocessed materials, including crude oil, bitumen in particular, without refining it. If we are not refining the stuff here and we are not making mining machinery here, our capacity to produce higher-end products will further diminish.

We do have a significant problem with trade and we have a problem that is not being fixed by these free trade deals.

What does the NDP support? We support trade, but we support fair trade. We want to ensure that the trade agreements we sign with other countries are fair and reasonable for both parties, partnerships that build positive relationships and not just open doors.

For example, in Panama we have situation where the government of Panama has refused various Canadian requests to sign an agreement to share tax information. It is extremely important in terms of transparency to have a tax information exchange agreement. The Government of Panama has refused, but Canada goes along with it anyway.

What is it we want as New Democrats? What do we want to have in trade agreements? First, in order to have a totally fair trade strategy, we want to have a comprehensive, common sense impact assessment for each agreement that we enter into that demonstrates that trade deals with Canada are beneficial for Canadian families, workers and industries, and that we do not have a trade agreement that will lead to a net job loss.

Second, we want to ensure that any agreement we negotiate supports our own sovereignty, our freedom to chart our own policy in the future and our ability to be competitive on the world stage, and that it supports the principle of a multilateral fair trade system.

Third, it is fundamentally important that all trade agreements promote and protect human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of products that are deemed to have been created under sweat shop conditions, forced labour or conditions that are not in accordance with fundamental labour standards and human rights.

Fourth, we also want to ensure that all trade agreements respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems.

Fifth, we want to be clear that before we go ahead with any enabling legislation, it be subject to a binding vote on whether we accept the terms of the agreement. The current system of tabling agreements in the House for a period of 21 days prior to ratification is neither mandatory nor binding.

In the case of the Panama trade deal, we see a repetition of the failures of previous trade deals to be fair, to be reasonable, to respect human rights, to provide the kind of protections that Canadians need and actually lead to increased trade from Canada to these countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have three quick questions for the member.

The member says that the NDP is not opposed to free trade agreements. I wonder if he could share with the House a free trade agreement that the NDP has supported.

I also wonder if he can tell us how the NDP feels about the regional free trade agreement and NAFTA.

Finally, could the member share with the House, if the NDP were ever to form government, whether it would take Canada out of these free trade agreements with which it disagrees?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the minister thinks that those are quick questions. I do not know if I can answer them as quickly as he asked them. They are three very important questions.

Since the government has come into office, it has not produced an agreement that meets the criteria that I just laid out. It has not produced an agreement that has led to increased trade from Canada except by importing more goods. We have mentioned the five most important ones that were studied by an economist. When an agreement is put forward that meets the criteria that I just laid out, and I set out five conditions, then we would be very happy to support it. We are in favour of fair trade. We are not in favour of signing trade deals that do not improve Canada's situation.

When we form government, and I know the minister says “if” with some trepidation, but I will answer “when” with some confidence, we would seek to improve any agreements that exist in order to ensure that Canada is engaged as a fair trade partner for the improvement of Canada and the countries that we deal with.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the last point the member made in terms of the possibility of enhancing agreements.

In terms of the free trade issue, it is great to give attention to countries like Panama and so forth, but to what degree has the government over the last number of years looked at our exports and agreements with our greatest trading partner, the U.S.? Would he attribute that to being the reason we are maybe not doing as well in the manufacturing sector as we could be here in Canada?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we seek to improve whatever agreements we have. In terms of an analysis of the NAFTA in particular and the government's action, we have not seen the kind of sectoral support that we would like to see in Canada.

I do have to challenge the member's party as well in terms of this agreement. When our trade critic sought, through a motion in the international trade committee, to delay the implementation of the agreement until Panama agreed to tie into the tax information exchange agreement, which would stop the money laundering and tax cheating, the motion was defeated by both the Conservatives and the Liberals in committee.

I hear the member, but he wants me to point the finger opposite. If we are into pointing fingers about the problem with trade deals, I think we would need to look as well to the Liberal Party that did the add-ons with the NAFTA after claiming that it would do something entirely different.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member for St. John's East pointed out that New Democrats support fair trade.

In the process of examining the bill at committee, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster made a number of proposals that would have made this trade agreement acceptable to New Democrats. One in particular that I want to touch on is the definition of sustainable development. It reads:

“sustainable development” means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, as set out in the Brundtland Report published by the World Commission on Environment and Development.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that New Democrats actually have proposals to make trade agreements fair.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, obviously sustainable development is important. The report by the Brundtland Commission in the late 1980s was championed by Prime Minister Mulroney. I remember that because I was here. He championed that report, but we do not see the results of sustainable development being adopted by the current government either within trade agreements or even within our own country, which is a shame.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from St. John's East, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-24 at second reading. This bill deals with the implementation of 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.

It is certainly clear that we feel proud every time we see agreements. We feel that other countries want to trade and do business with us. All this seems really nice on paper. On the other hand, sometimes there are little surprises in the fine print. While I cannot claim that I am a specialist in international trade, there are some basic things that we, as a free and democratic country, should insist on when we do business with other countries. This is one of the reasons why our party is opposed to this bill. It is not because we are against international agreements, free trade agreements or attempts to try to remove trade barriers between countries. In fact, if we believe in certain values, I think we must make sure that the countries with whom we do business are not rogue countries or countries that mistreat their people in order to acquire, create, build, produce or manufacture articles that will be freely traded with our country.

I think that when we have principles, we must express them all the way. If not, we should stop going around the world saying that we defend rights and freedoms, and we should just go ahead and do whatever we want.

For those who do not know much about Bill C-24, it is a bill that was previously introduced, if memory serves, on August 11, 2009. The Conservative government had entered into negotiations on a comprehensive agreement with the Republic of Panama. The same day it signed that agreement, the Conservative government presented the agreements in the House of Commons as part of Bill C-46. This was back in 2010. The bill was passed at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade for clause-by-clause consideration.

If you followed the speech by my colleague from St. John's East, you know that international trade is one of his passions. I would like to take this opportunity to commend him. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster also worked extremely hard on this issue and his advice was always very wise. He showed us the importance of conducting what is called reasonable and fair trade when these kinds of agreements are negotiated with other countries. Responsibility for this file was passed on to the member for Windsor West, who has also done excellent work.

I think it is important to listen, instead of simply playing cheap politics, as is frequently the case in this House. On the government side, they reduce the speeches made on this side of the House to one-liners, as if the NDP were anti-international trade or anti-free trade just because we ask questions and we ask that the countries with whom we do business do not, for instance, use child labour or exploit children as cheap labour, because we ask questions about specific environmental rules or because we ask that these countries not be obvious tax havens.

I was absolutely shocked when I read about the circumstances surrounding Bill C-24 in a little more depth and when I noted that Panama—which is, by the way, a very beautiful country—is what some people call a tax haven. On both sides of the House, there are people who rise frequently to say that we must try to put an end to anything that is called a tax haven. The problems with tax havens do not just occur away down there; their impact reaches into our country. Considerable amounts of money are taken and sent somewhere else to be hidden because certain countries have rules that are a little too lax. They allow any kinds of company throughout the world to go to their country and hide money from the government in the company's own home country.

Even the OECD has called Panama a tax haven. The United States considers Panama to be a tax haven. The OECD even specified that Panama was on the grey list. I learned there is a white list, a fray list and a black list. I have learned about a great number of things in this House. I also like it when we have the time to express our views on all these bills that often have, unbeknownst to us, an impact on all our constituents, in every one of our ridings.

We have a tendency to believe that when we talk about international trade, we are talking primarily about major trading centres within a country. However, when we do business with certain countries and give them certain privileges with regard to our goods and our services, it has an impact on all our population. Sometimes we have to look at the ramifications of this type of bill.

It is really worrying that a country like Panama still refuses to send information about its tax measures and about various issues and fields, and I am surprised. Although sometimes I am not surprised when we know that we are dealing with a government that is so lacking in transparency. The government may be happy to deal with a country that also has little fiscal transparency, but on this side of the House, we are not.

We definitely do not want to see that country become a place where some of our companies doing business there shelter money from taxation. All MPs should be concerned about that. We are debating a back-to-work bill because the government wants to force people to accept a collective agreement or poorer working conditions, but at the same time, it wants to carry on international trade with a country that allows big companies that make millions or billions in profits to diversify some of their income in order to avoid paying taxes, taxes that enable the government to provide services to Canadians.

I think it is inappropriate and simplistic for MPs on the other side of the House to ask whether the NDP has ever supported a free trade agreement. Bilateral agreements have taken the place of broad territorial agreements. Still, talks are under way between my province, Quebec, and the European Union. Every nation is trying to open its borders to ensure that its goods and services can circulate and be purchased. Once again though, we have to remember how that money is made, and I am proud to be a member of a party that is concerned about making money without having a negative effect on trade. There are ways to do that.

If these people are truly interested in doing business with us, then it is up to them to follow the rules of human decency. For example, I am extremely concerned about the whole section of the agreement concerning labour. When certain people see the number of times this government has resorted to back-to-work legislation, they could simply say that we are in no position to preach. What bothers me is that we are doing business with countries who do not pay much attention to the rights of workers and of those who, by the sweat of their brow, make things that we all take a great deal of pleasure in using.

To conclude, I am happy to have had the opportunity to comment on this bill. I am in favour of international trade, but not at any price.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this member the same question that I asked the previous speaker. Is there any free trade deal that Canada is currently involved in that the member and her party are happy with? If so, I would like to know about it. If not, what would the NDP do if it had the opportunity?

Finally, are there countries that the NDP would not have a free trade deal with that are democracies?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if possible, I would prefer to begin by answering the third question.

In theory, I have no problem doing business with any democratic country. But then that is not what we are talking about.

Had the member listened carefully to what I said, he would have understood that the problem does not lie with the signing of agreements; rather, it lies in the content of these agreements.

That being said, he is asking whether I can name one agreement that we are happy with. An agreement that I will definitely be happy with will be the first agreement that will be proposed by the NDP when it forms the government in 2015. I am convinced that we will not stop conducting free trade with other countries under an NDP government. People should get that idea out of their heads.

The difference is that the NDP will make sure that these agreements are respectful. Even President Obama, during his last the election campaign, mentioned re-opening some parts of the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. Sometimes we realize along the way—and there is nothing the matter with this—that some aspects of the agreement are not working or not working very well.

I believe that the priority of every government is the people who live within its boundaries. I personally do not represent the people of Panama, but rather the people of Gatineau. I want to ensure that, when we make agreements, we do so in accordance with the values of the people who elected me to represent them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the previous question was no, there is no free trade agreement or freer trade agreement which the NDP has a record of supporting, nor is it going to be supporting any free trade agreements under any other government, unless it happens to be the party in government. That is in essence what the member said. Can she just confirm that is the case?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I read my own blues, I am pretty sure that conforms to what I said.

I strongly support the agreement with the United States and Mexico. I do not see a major problem there. This could lead to a lengthy discussion. I would like to have the time to say what I think about certain aspects of many of these agreements, because sometimes they need to be revisited. The reason the three countries hold so many summit meetings is to try to improve or alter the agreement. Just because a treaty is signed, does not mean that it immediately becomes immutable and untouchable.

I would like to repeat that the government has never obtained the guarantees that Canadians are entitled to receive before signing this type of agreement. I am convinced that I would have no trouble rising to vote in favour of any agreement proposed by the New Democratic Party government that I hope will be in power within three years.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad state when members of the official opposition make statements in which they clearly indicate that they do not support freer trade or free trade agreements in principle because it is not their political party that has brought them into place.

It reminds me of the leader of the official opposition's position, very much an anti-western divide and conquer mentality. He says, in essence, that he has no problem taking shots at the industries out in western Canada. I must say that westerners, including myself as a member of Parliament from the Prairies, took great exception to his divide and conquer mentality. Other members on the front bench feed into this anti-trade sentiment. I do not say this lightly.

Let us talk about a specific issue. Let us talk about the Panama agreement.

Manitoba has a huge potato industry. I like to think it is only a question of time before we could be first place in Canada. Now, some of my colleagues in Atlantic Canada might have something to say on that point, but I do believe that there is an opportunity for Manitoba to be number one in Canada. Ultimately, if we approach the industry in an aggressive way, we could surprise a lot of people throughout the world. We have three processing plants in Manitoba that take that raw material and generate roughly 1,000 jobs for the province of Manitoba. That is a lot of good-quality jobs.

Those potatoes and processed potatoes are being sent to countries like the United States, the Philippines and Panama. Many Manitobans, when they see the agreement that we are looking at today, ask if it could be better. Sure, it could be better. There is no doubt it could be better. If only the government would see the wisdom in some potential amendments, maybe we could make some significant headway.

There are many stakeholders in Manitoba and, because I do not want to be selfish, many individuals across Canada who would see the benefits and would question why not, if the argument is strictly a human rights issue or an environmental law issue. I remember having a debate with one of our NDP colleagues earlier about China and how much we import from China. The New Democratic Party is not talking about stopping those exports in order to protect human rights issues.

I think all political parties are concerned, and I can guarantee the Liberal Party is concerned, about human rights. We are concerned about labour laws. We are concerned about environmental laws. We are going to do what we can to try to influence so that we have a better world. Canada has a leadership role to play.

However, we in the Liberal Party believe in freer trade. In fact, one of the best, most significant free trade agreements ever achieved in our country was through Lester Pearson. It was the Auto Pact. That created tens of thousands of jobs yesterday, and is still creating jobs today--

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

You don't know your history, Kevin.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, we do know the history. That was back in 1965, roughly. Lester Pearson signed off on that agreement. Now, that is a formal agreement. There are other ways in which we can get around and encourage and improve.

I was a provincial legislator when Team Canada was being talked about. Team Canada was going to go to Asia and beyond.

It was actually former prime minister Jean Chrétien who said we should get stakeholders, some of the business and union groups, elected provincial officials and a wide spectrum of different stakeholders, who believe Canada would be a better country if we could reach out around the world and try to get contracts that would not only improve the quality of life for Canadians living here, which is our first priority, but also contribute to the economic and social development of other countries.

That was through an informal agreement in which the prime minister at the time said that, as a group, collectively we could have a huge impact if we brought the stakeholders together to visit some of these countries.

Some provinces have piggybacked on that idea. This is not to say that Prime Minister Chrétien's government was the first to do it. There might have been provincial governments that had taken such initiatives on a smaller scale, but that particular prime minister actually set the stage for taking stakeholders outside of Canada to try to secure the types of agreements that could make a difference.

Sure, as I have pointed out, we have legitimate concerns with regard to issues related to Panama. Yes, we could have legislation that would make it better, but we are not going to close our eyes, as a political entity, and say the legislation is so bad it is not worth pursuing.

I like to think we take a more open-minded approach to trade than my colleagues to the left, the New Democratic Party.

We believe, ideally, it would be wonderful if it were a Liberal government, and we have demonstrated in the past how aggressive we can be in generating and creating jobs here in Canada by looking abroad and enhancing our trading relations. We have had very successful missions in the past. We have made very successful amendments to trade agreements. We have had very successful agreements signed by prime ministers and ministers, and it is because we have seen the value and how Canada has benefited.

Having said that, we also recognize that we happen not to be in government at this point in time, but if the government does enter into agreements in principle that we can support, there is nothing wrong with doing that. If the government does have an idea or is progressing in certain areas, we are prepared to look at the possibility of supporting that.

On the last Friday on which we were sitting I posed a question about the idea of freer trade with Ukraine and how freer trade with Ukraine could potentially be used as a way to ensure there is a healthier democracy in that wonderful, beautiful country that we all know as Ukraine. If the government continues to move forward, hopefully it will listen to some of the ideas that are coming from the Liberal Party, as a political entity of the House, with which we believe we could improve upon those relations.

For example, the member for Wascana was in Ukraine just the other week and no doubt was concerned about that issue. One of the reasons I asked the question was that he had raised the issue with me a week ago last Friday.

What I like about this type of legislation is it allows us to enter into discussion on the importance of world trade because if it is managed properly, and I do believe the government has dropped the ball with regard to the U.S., we in Canada can have a very healthy manufacturing industry and other types of industries that make up our economy.

We are concerned about our manufacturing industry, but I do not believe closing the borders and building walls, as the NDP would seem to support, is the best way of doing that, nor is dividing the country when irresponsible statements are being made about western Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg. We are both Winnipeggers. I was struck by his initial comments about his surprise that the NDP rejects all the free trade agreements Canada has ever signed purely because the NDP did not design the free trade agreement. That seems very counter-productive.

Could the member expand on why he thinks the NDP position on free trade is so backward?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to understand why the New Democratic Party would be convinced to such a degree that the only type of trade deal that would be viable would be one that originated from a national New Democratic government.

I cited my example in regard to Panama and the potato industry. Members can research that by looking at the Manitoba website on industry and trade; I believe that is where they will likely find it. They will find that, at the lower level, the provincial NDP appears to be somewhat supportive; at least I hope it would be a bit more supportive. I believe we have a national New Democratic Party that does not quite get it when it comes to the importance of trade and the impact it has on real people and real jobs. The best example I could give of that is the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition toward western Canada and the valuable commodities we have there.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an interesting expedition to listen to my hon. colleague twist himself into a pretzel explaining how at one point in the Liberal Party's history it was for free trade and then at another point it was against free trade, although the member forgot to mention that in his typically long-winded speech.

However, I wanted to ask my friend in the corner if he agrees with and supports a free trade agreement that does not protect the rights of workers to open collective bargaining, that does not protect human rights and does not provide measures for the proper stewardship of the environment. These are all amendments that we put forward and that both the Conservatives and the Liberals voted against. Can the member explain how it is that he and his party do not agree with those basic elements of labour rights, human rights and environmental protection?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the principles of trade. If we were to apply the New Democratic Party's principles on the issue of trade, those being of human rights and the environment and labour legislation, and apply that equally, one could actually say the NDP would be erecting walls around our entire country in terms of whom we would be able to trade with.

There are many nations around the world, the single greatest one likely being China, from which we import a phenomenal amount of consumer products every day, billions of dollars' worth annually from China. I know that logic can defy a lot of people, but at the end of the day if we follow through on NDP logic on the issue, we would think that the NDP would shut down the borders or raise a wall to trade between China and Canada.

Otherwise, I would challenge the member to explain to me why he believes there are absolutely no human rights issues in China or environmental concerns or labour laws that this member would be concerned about because he has no—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I stand in the House on another so-called free trade treaty with a small developing country, the sense of déjà vu is interesting, the sense of repeating our history and repeating the gross errors we have made so many times in the past with these types of trade agreements. Those errors are not just errors that compound the economic problems this country has; they compound the problems in the country with which we are making these so-called free trade deals.

I think of when I spoke against the NAFTA agreement, in particular when I pointed out that in the first year after NAFTA came into effect in Mexico, the average wage went down by 20%. The cost of corn to the producers was reduced by almost 50%, the value of their corn product. Farmers were forced off the land and into the ghettos and barrios of a number of the major cities in Mexico. That is the kind of impact these deals have.

There are some good parts to these deals, if one is wealthy in the existing country, if one is a multinational corporation in the existing country, or if one is an authoritarian government that wants to maintain control of its population. Each one of those sectors of those countries benefits from these deals.

However, the average citizens do not. In a lot of cases, their conditions actually deteriorate. We can see that, consistently. I think there is a seminar being put on one day this week by a number of countries that are neighbours to Panama on the conditions that are going on there with regard to child labour, violence against women, violence against the aboriginal populations and the list goes on. There are great human rights abuses that a trade deal will do absolutely nothing to better. In fact, as I said earlier, in many cases it will actually make them worse.

I want to address one particular problem with this agreement, as I have very little time in 10 minutes to get all the points out. Panama is a major tax haven. In spite of attempts by the international community, in spite of demands from Canada, it has done very little at a legal level to correct the money laundering that occurs in huge numbers of dollars in that country.

There are 400,000 corporations registered in Panama, a country many times smaller than us. We do not have anywhere near that many corporations registered in Canada. We have about a quarter of that many, if that. They are there for one purpose only, and that is to launder money in the vast majority of cases. Very few of them are legitimate operations.

There is a huge number of dollars coming in from the Colombian drug trade. There is a huge number of dollars coming in from the Mexican drug trade. It is being laundered and being passed back so that it can be used legally in other countries.

We are signing on to that operation. Our banks and our financial institutions are going to be able to take part in that. They are going to be used by the operations down there to move that illicit money back into Canada and into the international markets through our banking system.

When we demanded of Panama that it begin to clean up, it paid lip service to it, but at the practical level it is growing. Money laundering is in fact growing in Panama and has been for at least the last decade.

We sit here and we hear the Conservative government and its Liberal affiliates supporting this deal.

For this reason alone, the Minister of Foreign Affairs wants to support it. He knows better than most members sitting on that side of the room just how bad the situation is in Panama, but he will pay lip service to its ideology and support this deal. It will continue on down there, and in fact the money laundering process will grow. We will be aiding and abetting it by signing this deal.

Not one member in the House should stand and vote for it when the vote comes, as eventually it will at third reading. Members should vote against it. We should do it right now when it finally gets to a vote at second reading.

The billions of dollars that flow through that country is not just drug money. It is organized crime members using the money that they take from human trafficking and all of their other abuses, such as the gun trade, and it just goes on and on. That is what we are signing onto with that country.

Panama could clean it up. We as a country should tell it that we will not deal with it, that we not will we enter into a trade agreement with it until it does that. However, that is not what we are saying. We are looking the other way.

There are three lists of countries that the international community creates: the white, grey and black lists. Nobody is that bad to be on the black list, which makes us wonder how valid it is. The white list is made up of countries like Canada that have meaningful controls over their financial institutions and that combat money laundering and tax havens on a systematic and reasonably effective basis.

Panama is on the grey list and has been for a long time. I do not know why it is not on the black list. However, there is nobody on the black list, so I guess that explains that. A country gets onto the grey list when it makes noises about doing something like cleaning up its financial institutions, banking systems and its economic structure that allows for the tax havens and the money laundering.

Like the other countries that are on that list, once they get on it they stay on it indefinitely. Hardly anybody ever comes off of it and goes onto the white list. Nobody goes onto the white list. They just do not do anything except talk about it. We have done this at the international financial level, but it is meaningless. I would suggest there is no reason to believe that Panama will ever come off the grey list when we have countries like Canada with its current government, along with its Liberal affiliates, that will support that process by entering into these deals.

The other reason we should not enter into this trade deal is that in spite of the provisions in the agreement dealing with labour standards, practically that will not occur. Panama does not have the governmental infrastructure to enforce human rights and environmental and labour standards.

When asked what kind of a deal we would support, it is one wherein we would say to those countries that we want trade, but we will not do it if it is to the exclusive advantage of multinational corporations and the very wealthy in those countries. If it benefits Canada as well as their people, then we are interested and we will negotiate. However, until such time as we enter into those kinds of agreements, this party will continue to oppose them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments, and he has raised many serious issues. There is a school of thought that engaging countries with human rights standards that may not be as we would want them to be as Canadians and helping them grow their economies through free trade and increasing ties will allow these countries to rise above many of the terrible things that the member has outlined.

I was born in Brazil. I have seen that country do a lot of probably not very good things, but it is now blossoming, as is Latin America, though it had a troubled history.

Would member not agree that a growing economy helps everyone?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is too simplistic to say that a growing economy helps everyone. It does not. Growing economies sometimes only benefit the very wealthy in the country.

Let us go to Brazil and look at the leadership role it has provided in South America. It does not want to sign an agreement of a free trade nature with Canada. It has been building its own trading arrangements, with the Mercosur arrangement, with other countries from Central America.

Brazil looked at the NAFTA agreement with Mexico and saw the way it damaged that economy so badly. It is not interested in talking to us if we are talking about that kind of agreement. What it has done there is in fact much as the European Union did. It entered into agreements with other smaller countries that actually provided a transfer of wealth, outright dollars to it that would assist the country in building some of that infrastructure so human rights, environmental standards and labour standards were protected.

Brazil has been the leading country in South America doing that. It is the kind of country we should be following as a model, not countries like Panama or Colombia.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that members of the other parties are attacking us more and more. That proves that our opinions are gaining currency.

I would like to thank my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh for his presentation on the situation. He raised some very important points.

Unfortunately, when we enter into free trade agreements with other countries, we tend to overlook the fact that the entire world is watching the important step being taken. That is part of the reality of international relations. Any important step taken is observed and interpreted. Unfortunately, Canada has taken steps, especially regarding the Kyoto protocol, that have tarnished its reputation in certain parts of the world.

Some countries believe that by signing a free trade agreement with Panama, we will be condoning certain practices that really should be condemned, such as money laundering.

I would like my colleague to talk a bit more about the message that Canada is sending to the rest of the world.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

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

He is right. If we enter into these types of agreements with Panama, we are indicating to that country and to the rest of the world that Panama's practices are acceptable. We are saying that Panama can keep on doing what it is doing, that it can put its children to work because we know that it cannot change without help. We are giving permission, not just to Panama, but to other countries, to continue with such practices and to violate human rights. We are allowing it to believe that this is acceptable and permitted by Canada.

For us, the NDP, it is not acceptable.

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.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Davenport.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this afternoon to speak to the bill, which our party is opposing, Bill C-24, a free trade agreement with Panama.

Many people on the other side of the aisle have been asking us today what kind of deals we support. We stand very clearly in support of fair trade.

This agreement is a marginally improved copy of the George Bush era style. It puts big business before people. There is no effective enforcement of human rights. There is lip service to environmental protections without any real tough measures or dispute mechanisms. It is a NAFTA copycat. These agreements have been in the past designed for trade between two industrialized countries. We have ourselves and Panama which is currently a developing nation.

This is a deal that was negotiated, like others, in record time, without consultation with trade unions, environmental groups, civil society or citizens.

A fair, sustainable trade deal would not only address the needs of business, but it would also address the needs of workers and the concerns over the environment. We have global environmental issues. We have global issues around workers' wages and workers' rights. These need to be reflected in any deal that Canada signs internationally because what we sign internationally speaks to who we are as a country.

According to, not just us, but the U.S. department of justice and other entities, Panama is a major conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers and their money laundering activities.

The OECD has noted that having a trade agreement without first tackling Panama's financial secrecy practices could incentivize even more offshore tax dodging. There is a reason to believe that the trade deal would not only increase tax haven abuses but would also make fighting them that much harder.

It is one of the many ironies that we experience in this House daily. We have a government that pretends to trumpet this belief in law and order domestically but will play footsie internationally with regimes that do not have proper transparency or accountability when we are talking about organized crime, drug cartels, when it is clear that Panama has not tightened up its measures around tax.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster put forth several moderate amendments that dealt with some of the fundamental issues that Canada stands for: fairness, treating workers fairly, allowing for collective bargaining and protecting workers and the environment. We on our side do not believe that economic development, economic activity and stewardship of our environment are mutually exclusive terms. We believe they can work together. In fact, we believe that is the key to future prosperity, not just for Canada but for countries like Panama.

The NDP has consistently opposed NAFTA-style trade templates that focus on the interests of multinational corporations and ignore these other basic important elements of any free, democratic civil society, and that is workers' rights and the environment.

This trade model ultimately rejects fair and sustainable trade which, in turn, generates discontent and protectionism. The NAFTA model has shown unparalleled efficiency in driving and entrenching the political and economic domination of large transnational corporations and is currently at the heart of the ongoing drive for bilateral FTAs.

In our country and in my riding, there are many immigrants and new Canadians who are desperate for work. They are sometimes working three jobs at minimum wage just to make ends meet. We do not need one more instrument in the race to the bottom for wages, not just in Canada but internationally. We need to create good jobs, protect workers' wages and allow workers to bargain collectively not just here but in countries that we deal with. In fact, trade agreements are economic agreements and partnerships between us and other countries but, as I have already said, they also speak to who we are as a country. Are we a country that is willing to toss aside, throw overboard, throw under the bus, whatever metaphor one wants to use, those things which our forefathers and foremothers fought for?

I go back to workers' rights. This deal echoes the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I know the party in the corner seemingly had no problem with the ways in which workers' rights were not protected in that agreement. It is willing to throw workers under the bus in this instance, too. We expect that from the government and we are getting used to it from the Liberals, but we on our side will not do that.

What do we stand for? What does fair trade look like to us? We believe in an alternative and better form of trading. As an aside, which is not a minor aside, there are other countries that aggressively promote their businesses internationally and locally. There are countries that spend hundreds of times more than we do promoting, for example, their wine industries abroad and we are not doing that here. In other words, we have many ways in which to promote trade with other countries, celebrate and promote the innovation, technology and things we produce here in Canada and we are missing out on those opportunities. We are missing out on them in the ever-expanding arts and culture sector. I can say that from first-hand experience.

The New Democrats believe in an alternative, in a better form of trading, in providing a comprehensive and commonsense impact assessment on all international agreements that demonstrate that the trade deals Canada negotiates are beneficial to Canadian families, workers and industries, and that the government does not sign any trade agreement that would lead to a net job loss. What could be controversial in an amendment like that? That seems like due diligence to us. It seems like a no-brainer. We want to ensure that the deal we sign will not create net job losses. There should be a means test of assessing whether this agreement is good for the Canadian economy, not just a few large multinational corporations that get backdoor access to government ministers.

Those are some of the ways in which we believe that international trade agreements should be negotiated. We also know that many Canadian workers, families and businesses support this direction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's speech, and there was so much misinformation that I just do not know where to start.

One of the things we should all agree on is that what the Leader of the Opposition calls jobs is a disease. He said that quite clearly. The NDP policies actually makes sense in a kind of twisted way. It needs to inoculate Canadians and people around the world against jobs and shut down any trade agreement that might actually improve trade and create jobs between the countries.

Is my colleague aware that Canada and Panama have committed to ensuring that their laws respect the International Labour Organization, one that he supports, of course, the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, which covered the elimination of child labour, forced labour and discrimination, the respect of freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively? Is he aware of that, or is this something that the NDP researchers do not let their members know? The NDP has the idea that anything that creates jobs is a disease, like open and free trade, and that is a bad thing to do.

He still has not answered the question as to whether there has ever been a free trade agreement that the NDP has supported. We would like to know that on this side of the House.

[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, 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.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that my colleague has had a chance to speak on the subject of this bill, which once again shows just how unbelievably see-no-evil the Conservatives and Liberals are when it comes to trade and international relations.

One hon. member spoke on the subject of China and tried to ensnare us with some pretty fallacious reasoning. Briefly, in reference to China, it owes its economic success to what is essentially dumping, with massive state intervention, and to making loans that end up being gifts to companies, using the banking system.

Since it is that see-no-evil approach that has devastated our industrial fabric and ultimately trapped people in undesirable, low-wage jobs, all so that we can have very low-priced goods—really, cheap goods, I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about the approach taken by the government and the third party in the House.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is asking specifically about China. Of course, our neighbours to the south are now paying the price for that whole China approach. They decided they would do as much of their manufacturing as they possibly could over in China at a fraction of the cost of doing it in the United States. That worked really well for the first few years, until finally so many jobs were gone—and we are not immune from this at all—that they have no more manufacturing sector. Now, when the Americans are trying to rebuild their economy, where is the basis for it?

In terms of the government and what it is willing to do, let us remember that this is a government that is still prepared to send asbestos from Canada to India and other countries. I guarantee members that not one of my constituents would stand by that policy and say it is okay. They would say that it is not okay to poison people around the world in the interest of the almighty dollar. That is not the Canadian way.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to 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.

I would like to make something clear at the outset. We oppose this bill. In the NDP, we do not want a free trade zone where workers’ rights are sold at discount prices; that is already a serious problem in Panama. Nor do we want a bill without a clear definition of sustainable development and responsible investment.

I would like to remind the House that when the committee considered the predecessor to Bill C-24, Bill C-46, it heard persuasive testimony that the Republic of Panama is a tax haven and that its record on human rights is debatable, to say the least. The situation has not changed since then.

Bill C-24 has a new title but does nothing to address the fundamental shortcomings of its predecessor. It does not incorporate the amendments moved by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, which would have addressed the most contentious aspects of the agreement. During the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-46, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster proposed 11 amendments that would have made progressive changes to the bill.

The changes proposed by our member concerned the addition of the crucial concepts of sustainable development and responsible investment, the obligation of fiscal transparency and some provisions that would have integrated into the bill the protection of workers' rights, especially the right to collective bargaining. Other amendments proposed by my colleague would have required the Minister of International Trade to consult workers and unions, and to work with experts and human rights organizations in order to conduct analyses of the impact of the trade agreement. All these amendments were rejected by the Conservatives with the support of the Liberals.

There are many reasons why we cannot vote in favour of Bill C-24. First of all, the Canada-Panama agreement, which follows the NAFTA model, puts large corporations before people. That is unacceptable. Agreements like NAFTA were initially designed for trade between highly industrialized, developed countries, but Panama is a developing country. This trade agreement will not help Panama to grow sustainably or improve the living conditions of its people. Instead, the agreement will increase the influence of multinational firms and increase inequalities, and this will happen much faster and more definitively than it did in the case of NAFTA.

Furthermore, this trade agreement does not create a level playing field for investors and workers. Under chapter 11, investors have the right to request compulsory arbitration that they can conduct independently, however a union in Panama would not be allowed to take a case to arbitration. It can file a complaint, which would lead to an investigation followed by a report, but it would be up to the government to seek and obtain remedies.

In addition, the Canada-Panama agreement does not ensure respect for human rights. Also, while Bill C-24 appears to protect the environment on the surface, it does not implement any real measures or mechanisms to resolve disputes. We also have to wonder about the degree of Panama's fiscal transparency. It is important to bear in mind that, despite the Canadian government's requests, Panama refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement.

We believe that Canada's trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade that builds partnerships with other countries that support the principles of social justice and human rights, without ignoring the need to broaden trade opportunities.

The federal government needs to stop focusing exclusively on NAFTA-type free trade agreements at the expense of other options, and it should explore other ways of increasing trade, in particular by adopting a vigorous trade promotion strategy, one that would spread Canada's brand abroad the way Australia has succeeded in doing.

The NDP firmly believes that there is another, better model of trade relations that could be established with Panama or any other country, a model that would include the following in a global fair trade strategy.

First, it should include a comprehensive and rational impact analysis for all international agreements, to determine whether the trade agreements being negotiated by Canada are advantageous to Canadian families, Canadian workers and Canadian industries. The government should not sign any trade agreement that is likely to lead to a net loss of jobs. Once again, that is unacceptable.

Second, there should be a guarantee that the trade agreements Canada negotiates will strengthen Canada's sovereignty and its freedom to establish its own policies, that they will help make us a force to be reckoned with on the world stage and that they support the principles of a fair multilateral trade system.

Third, there is the fundamental principle according to which all trade agreements must protect and promote human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any products considered to have been manufactured in sweatshops, by forced labour, or under any other conditions that do not meet basic international standards for labour or human rights.

Fourth, the model includes the fundamental principle according to which all trade agreements should be consistent with sustainable development, as well as the integrity of all ecosystems.

Fifth, every time the government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to adopt the enabling legislation must be submitted to a mandatory vote on whether or not the terms of the agreement are acceptable.

The current system, which consists of tabling a free trade agreement in the House for a period of 21 sitting days prior to ratification, is not mandatory and does not bind the government to accept a decision of the House.

I am now ready to answer questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that Panama is no longer on the grey list of tax havens as determined by the OECD. It is unfortunate that the NDP keeps repeating the suggestion that Panama has not improved itself in this regard. Panama was removed from the grey list by the OECD in July 2011 after having substantially implemented global tax standards for exchange of information. I wonder if the member would reflect on that.

We on this side of the House still have not heard if the NDP supports any free trade agreement in the history of humankind.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question, but I remind him that all countries and all organizations are saying that Panama is still a tax haven and also a country where human rights are not respected and where working conditions are extreme.

When Canada signs a free trade agreement with another country, it should establish requirements to ensure that our rights are not violated and that people working in that country, in this case Panama, do so in decent conditions. That is what we want, and that is something that can be done. It is possible to make demands and to have free trade agreements in which all the parties will be respected.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon the member's colleague made it very clear that the only free trade agreement the NDP would ever support would be a free trade agreement put in by an NDP administration. Otherwise, it does not support free trade agreements.

Having said that, the member made reference to other options. One of the successful demonstrations of how free trade or expanding borders can really help was when former prime minister Jean Chrétien had a team Canada approach, in which he took stakeholders from industries outside the country in an attempt to sign up a wide variety of different types of contracts and so forth, thereby increasing trade. I am wondering if the member would support that sort of initiative that former prime minister Jean Chrétien took.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that, in my presentation, I mentioned the amendments that we proposed. However, they were rejected by the Conservatives and the Liberals. Those amendments would have helped us secure free trade agreements with other countries.

The NDP is not opposed to free trade, but it supports basic human rights. It is perfectly natural to make that request.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer for clearly defining the conditions under which the New Democratic Party might consider supporting a free trade agreement with one or several countries.

I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on the wrong message that Canada might send about labour rights, among other things, if we were to accept a free trade agreement with Panama under the current conditions.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

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

The message we would be sending is simply that we agree with the fact that another country allows its workers to have much less favourable conditions than workers in Canada.

We would also be agreeing that these people, these workers, will not get a decent salary. We would be agreeing with the fact that products are made and sold clandestinely, while hoping they were not made by children.

That is what we agree to when we sign a free trade agreement that goes against human rights and against the Canadian principles relating to free collective bargaining, even though we know that, right now, there is talk of legislating workers back to work here. We do not agree with that, but the message being sent abroad is that we are prepared to accept any conditions.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to say a little bit about Bill C-24 on the implementation of the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

As you are aware, the NDP is strongly opposed to this agreement because of all its deficiencies and inconsistencies. It is based on the former Bill C-46, which was not passed in the previous Parliament. Let us remember the proposals and amendments suggested by our colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster. He submitted 11 amendments without success and the bill was never passed.

In this Parliament, the Conservative caucus decided to introduce this bill again as Bill C-24. Among other things, the Conservatives proposed that, for tax purposes, Panama should still be considered a tax haven. This is unacceptable in the eyes of the global financial community. The Conservatives are sending the message that we are not asking any questions and that we are not imposing any constraints on countries regarding the disclosure of useful or important tax information. It seems that the negotiators of this type of agreement have not shown the importance of this and have not sent the message to the officials negotiating for the other countries involved—such as Panama in this case—that this was perhaps not a binding requirement for signing this agreement. As we know, these countries have refused to disclose this financial information. It would appear that the Canadian negotiators said that there was no problem and that negotiations could continue.

Our country places a great deal of importance on workers’ rights, as demonstrated by all the collective agreements signed throughout Canada, by the existence of unions and by legislation that permits free collective bargaining. However, the hon. members can see for themselves what is happening right now, in our country.

The Conservatives want to sign a free trade agreement with a country where there are few guarantees that there will be at least minimal respect for the working conditions of employees. In reality, that is not a binding condition, either. It sends the wrong message. In fact, Panama can say in return that it understands very clearly that, in reality, the aim of this free trade agreement is just to grant certain advantages to mining companies, oil companies or Canadian casinos. These companies will be able to operate more profitably, considering the competitive advantage they will obtain from the lower wages and all goods that they can purchase more cheaply.

The countries that should be our partners have flatly refused to sign this agreement. However, this tax information exchange agreement was one of the critical points in the negotiations that Panama entered into with European countries. The OECD has made a number of statements and has even drawn up grey lists and black lists and lists of every colour imaginable in order to categorize certain countries whose economies are dysfunctional.

However, as everyone knows, the result of this is that there was never really a positive agreement between Panama and Europe, and particularly between Panama and France. Now, Canada comes along and wants to be the sheriff. It wants to sign a free trade agreement and it tells Panama what it must commit to do. It also tells Panama that what it is asking for in return is negotiable in a very unfair fashion.

Recently, I was stunned to hear a member of this House call one of our colleagues on this side a pompous socialist, because that member thought the New Democratic Party was fiercely opposed to international trade. It does not make any sense. We were misunderstood. That is really misquoting and mischaracterizing what we want to propose, or what was already proposed on numerous occasions by our colleagues in this House.

When it comes to trade, I feel that all the proposals made by the New Democratic Party are good. These include: protecting the environment and workers' rights—and I will say it again—and total honesty regarding the financial information that must be shared to avoid shenanigans. International trade is plagued by money transfers, money laundering and similar activities.

Our dear colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, proposed amendments, but the Conservatives and the Liberals always refused to accept them. At the time, there was a deadlock because we were proposing to secure “win-win” free trade agreements, instead of “win-lose” agreements like this one.

As for the member who called our colleague a pompous socialist, it is all a matter of interpretation, because if I said the opposite, they would then be deemed to be imperialists and even colonialists. That is all part of history and those days are over.

As we will see, international trade will evolve in a way where good faith will prevail, followed by everything related to financial interests and to profits from that trade.

Instead of collecting interests or buying bank drafts, we are going to go back to the ancient basic form of trade, namely the trading of natural resources for another form of financial resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have three quick points.

First, on the socialist issue, that is how the NDP members describe themselves. I am glad they do that, because the first step in any problem is identifying the problem. Now that they know they are socialists, they can work on becoming capitalists and join the world of prosperity, democracy and happiness.

Second, Panama, as a tax haven, has been removed from the OECD grey list. It has substantially implemented global pact standards for the exchange of information. Therefore, it is probably better that the NDP not keep repeating that false fact.

Finally, I am still waiting to hear of any free trade agreement the NDP has supported in the last 2,000 years.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member reminds me of an old story about the socialist and the capitalist. At the end, the socialist is the good guy and the capitalist is all the time the bad guy who wants to screw others.

Relative to the OECD list, we do not know what the objective of that organization is. It has prepared these lists and says that this is black, that this is grey and that this is white. We will see that all of the ones on the white list are the ones who commit more fraud than the other ones.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague surely knows the old adage, “give a dog a bad name and hang him”. It is obviously always a pleasure to talk of all manner of ills and illnesses—and why not talk about illnesses while we are at it.

However, I would like to bring my colleague back to the more serious matter of the interests at play in the free trade agreement with Panama. Considering that the Liberals and the Conservatives clearly seem very swayed by particular interests—or what could be described as corporate interests with ties to the world of finance—could my colleague talk more about the fact that this trade agreement will not defend the interests of 99% of the population?

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was indeed very well put. The member put the question rather clearly and accurately so that we could understand what is beneficial and what is not.

Canada has traditionally been a rich, developed country whose international trade has primarily been subject to the dictates of the United States of America. I can clearly remember, when I was still a student at university and at the HEC, we learned everything about economic relations. It was the NAFTA era and everyone knew that 85% of exports went to the United States of America.

Not everyone agreed with this and some argued that we would have to diversify and increase international trade with Europe, Latin America and Asia. This was suggested by some people in our discussion groups in our masters level international trade courses. These were the kinds of issues we discussed. It was only recently—less than 15 years ago I think—that we began to sign free trade agreements with other countries, those described as non-traditional customers, rather than the United States.

I can only agree with my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou. What he said was very apt.

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

Mr. Speaker, as usual, my colleague made some important points with respect to this trade deal and Canada's role in the world, making fair and just deals with other countries. As has been said, there is no doubt about the fact that Canada is a trading nation. It always has been a trading nation. I am from Nova Scotia. It is a trading province, always has been and always will be.

I have looked at some of the work the government has been doing, whether it be the CETA deal or what it has done on NAFTA, or other free trade agreements. The crux of the problem is that the government does not have a clear policy on what its position is on trade, just that it wants some.

Its negotiators do not have an industrial policy to work from. The European Union has an industrial policy. All other major trading nations in this world have a domestic, industrial policy to work from. They know where the strengths and weaknesses are in their economies. They know what it is that they want from a trade deal, not just the fact that they want a trade deal.

That is extremely important to begin with, to understand where we want to make gains and what the downsides might be in order to get those gains. If we understand them up front, then we understand that during the negotiations we need to make accommodations for the downsides. If we are going to engage in some deal that is going to affect a particular industry, in their wisdom, the negotiators and the government departments responsible may decide that the gains are greater than the losses. Nonetheless there are going to be losses, and they have to prepare for those.

There has to be, built into the deal, accommodation or adjustment strategies for the possible closing of an industry, the laying off of employees, the retraining, the relocation, perhaps, of the people and communities affected.

This is what a fair and responsible trade policy has to look like. It has to be progressive. It has to be fair. It has to be socially just. There has to be a commitment to human rights, to the environment, to labour protections and to making sure that the deal, in the final analysis, is right for this country.

I agree, and I bet there are not too many members on this side who would disagree, with the idea that Canada needs to be out there promoting what Canadians do best, creating new markets, creating new opportunities for our entrepreneurs, our businesses, our ideas, our technology and our resources. I do not think this country, certainly under the government, is doing a good enough job with that.

What are we dealing with here on Panama? We are dealing with a country that is important because it is a country and because there are working people, an environment, a government that is perhaps making some mistakes and doing some things that we are not happy about. Nonetheless, there are hard-working women and men in that country who are trying to provide for themselves, their families and their communities. There is an important ecosystem in Panama that we need to ensure is maintained.

However, in 2008, for example, two-way merchandise between the two countries reached only $149 million, less than 1% of Canada's total trade. Now I am not suggesting because we only do a bit of trade with this country it is not important. I would say just the opposite. It is even more important that we tailor the kind of deal that we do with a developing country like this, so we are all gaining from the experience, so the people of Panama gain as much as the people of Canada and the businesses in Panama gain as much as our businesses.

The problem is the government has put together a deal that is very much like the NAFTA deal. It is like a deal it would do with a major industrialized country. It does not have the kind of sensitivities that are necessary in dealing with a developing country, and those are some of my concerns. It does not deal to my liking with human rights issues. It does not deal appropriately with the environment, with labour rights and, has been stated by successive members of this caucus, it does not deal with the fact that Panama is a tax haven. Panama has been delisted by the OECD. As the member before me stated, it has been black- and grey-listed because it will not provide information and there is no transparency with respect to financial transactions. Even with this deal, the Government of Canada tried to get the Government of Panama to sign a taxation information agreement that would make its information more transparent and it did not happen. However, it is a free trade deal and the current government is a free trade government and it is going to sign it come what may.

It was interesting listening to my colleagues. We talk about pushing for environmental protections, human rights and labour rights. I began to think about what we have been talking about in this House in the past number of weeks and months. How many times has the government brought in back-to-work legislation? Twenty-one times, completely and utterly taking away the right to free collective bargaining for working people in this country. The Conservatives are getting rid of science. They have shut down the Freshwater Institute; the Centre for Offshore Oil, Gas and Energy Research, gone; the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, gone; the National Council of Welfare, gone; the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, disbanded last fall. These were organizations that provided valuable scientific and fact-based research to help governments and to help the private sector, to help communities make sound decisions and conduct themselves in ways that make our communities and our countries stronger.

The government has brought in a piece of legislation we are dealing with right now, the Trojan Horse bill, Bill C-38. It has stuffed an unprecedented amount of legislation into that bill. Seventy pieces of legislation would be changed. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act would be completely repealed. The Fisheries Act would be changed substantially to the point where it would hardly be recognizable. EI would be irreparably changed. Is it being changed in the face of discussion and debate? Not one iota. The government unfortunately is engaged in relations with countries like Panama and it has absolutely nothing to hold to that country because the way it is conducting itself is anti-democratic and opposed to human rights. That is why it should be subjected to all kinds of criticism from this side and from others in this country.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for having very clearly described the framework for the debate and the discussion we are engaged in with respect to this free trade treaty. He brought out the finer points, while focusing on the things that are important to us as progressives, which is to say environmental protection and respect for human rights.

What we have here is a very bad cut-and-paste version of George Bush style free trade agreements that place major corporations ahead of people.

I would like him to give us some further details about why Canadians should be worried and concerned about the fact that there is nothing about environmental protection or protection for the rights of workers, or about the fact that it may make our own working conditions worse.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question gets to who we are as Canadians, it gets to our values. Whatever the government of this country does, whether it is here in Ottawa, Halifax, Dartmouth--Cole Harbour, or whether it is in Panama, it reflects the values of the people of this country.

In a case like this where the government is negotiating a trade deal with a developing country, people are looking at our country and saying that we are taking advantage of that country, that we are a much bigger country, that we have a much bigger trade balance than Panama. They are saying that Panama is struggling and this country is taking advantage of it. People are saying that we do not care about the environment, about human rights or about labour protections. They and Canadians are increasingly asking what happened to the principles of justice, good governance and walking this earth with integrity.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for having given such an eloquent presentation that really went to the heart of the matter.

I wish to speak to my colleagues about another matter. I am very worried because a factory in my riding has been closed for a long time. One might reasonably hope that it could reopen within a few days, but unfortunately, the workers in my riding have no idea whatsoever about what the conditions will be like. Currently, it is owned by a private investor, or at least assumed to be.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives now want to raise the threshold for mandatory review of foreign investment to $1 billion. They want to raise it from $330 million to $1 billion. I am rather disturbed about this inconsistency in the government's approach to the management of our domestic economy while at the same time exporting problems that were created here in Canada by signing free trade agreements with countries whose treatment of their people raises serious doubts. There are all kinds of concerns about Panama.

Is my colleague as concerned as I am and can he tell us more about this matter?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is working hard for his constituents, who find themselves in the difficult situation of not having a job and are waiting with bated breath to know who is going to take over ownership of the country.

My colleague talked about foreign ownership. The government recently reduced that threshold of $1 billion. It reduced it considerably because everything in this country is for sale as far as the Conservative government is concerned.

The Conservative government is looking at countries around the world. China is taking a bigger stake in the oil sands in Alberta. An American company came up here and took over Caterpillar. Within five years it shut the company down. It took all the money, the tax breaks and everything else. That American company enjoyed all of the benefits of being in Canada. Caterpillar was shut down and the workers were put out of work. The company went back to the United States.

That is what happens when we do not have a government that is prepared to stand up for working people. They can be taken advantage of by foreign companies. Every Canadian has reason to be concerned about that.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act.

To be acceptable and really effective, free trade agreements have to do more than just open new markets like Panama. They have to be based on fair, sustainable principles that benefit both countries. The free trade agreement we are debating today does not really meet these criteria. In fact, this agreement has problems that are common to many of our free trade agreements. I would like to talk about these problems, as some of my colleagues have done.

One of the most disturbing parts of the agreement is in chapter 9, which has to do with investment. This chapter covers the same principle as chapter 11 of NAFTA, which allows a company to sue a government if it creates regulatory barriers to trade.

According to Todd Tucker of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, who testified before the Standing Committee on International Trade on November 17:

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.

Indeed, for decades, the Panamanian government has been deliberately pursuing a 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 are subject to little to no reporting requirements or regulations.

According to the OECD, the Panamanian government does not have the legal capacity to verify key information on these businesses, such as, for example, their capital structure. Panama's shadowy financial practices also make it a very attractive place to launder money that comes from all over the world.

According to the U.S. state department, major Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, as well as Colombian illegal armed groups, are using Panama for drug trafficking and money laundering purposes.

The Canada-Panama trade agreement could even exacerbate the problem posed by Panama's status as a tax haven. As the OECD pointed out, signing a trade agreement without first tackling Panama's shadowy financial practices may lead to greater tax evasion. So, an agreement with Panama would facilitate tax evasion, which would result in large sums of money not being collected by the taxman, Need I remind the House that this is a period of budget austerity, when that money is badly needed for our public services.

There are no restrictions on capital entering or exiting Panama. Transactions are protected by banking secrecy, and financial activity is not monitored. There is also a somewhat more specific problem in this case, and that is the absence of a tax information exchange agreement. The negotiation of a free trade agreement should be an opportunity to encourage Panama to be more transparent about tax evasion.

Although the importance of dealing with problems caused by tax havens was highlighted at the 2009 meeting of the G20 in London, Canada is moving in the opposite direction and is creating a new means of facilitating the flight of capital. This type of strategy is just irresponsible.

We should also note the serious environmental problems in Panama. While this deal includes an agreement on the environment, as we saw with the free trade agreement with Colombia—which has a separate agreement on the environment—it actually provides no enhanced protection for the environment or the resources in affected communities. Given Panama's very lax environmental regulations, especially when it comes to mining, this oversight is extremely worrying.

We know full well the devastating impact of deforestation, especially in that area of the world. Instead of taking real action to address the current and impending threats to Panama's precious natural resources, the Canada-Panama trade agreement risks encouraging a race to the bottom on environmental protection. Probably a new version of Easter Island.

Why is the government so willing to ignore the huge threats to Panama's environment? All trade agreements, including this one, should respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems.

However, seeing that this government cut eight ecotoxicology positions at the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne, I imagine that it does not understand the importance of preserving these ecosystems.

There are also problems when it comes to protecting workers. Panama is currently enjoying relatively high rates of growth, but it is ranked second among countries in the region in terms of inequality: 40% of Panama's inhabitants are poor, 27% are extremely poor, and the rate of extreme poverty is particularly high among indigenous populations. In recent years, the country has undergone considerable liberalization and privatization, but they have not trickled down to financially benefit the population.

The Canada–Panama agreement does not include specific protection for the right to associate and the right to strike. Instead, it provides effective recognition for the right to bargain collectively. As far as union rights are concerned, the agreement is, therefore, weaker than previous agreements.

The trade agreement does not level the playing field for investors and workers. Furthermore, this trade agreement does not create a level playing field for investors and workers. Under chapter 11, investors have the right to request compulsory arbitration that they can conduct independently, however a union in Panama would not be allowed to take a case to arbitration. It can file a complaint, which would lead to an investigation followed by a report, but it would be up to the government to seek and obtain remedies. Based on our experience with agreements modelled on NAFTA, governments are not inclined to go down that road.

Unfortunately, the trade agreement with Panama does not address any of these issues. In fact, the agreement does not refer to drug trafficking, tax havens or money laundering. It does have a side agreement to deal with labour, but we already know from previous efforts with such side agreements that they have no real effect on improving labour conditions in a country.

Quebeckers and Canadians will not benefit from the agreement any more than Panamanians. Moreover, in the agreement, there are several measures modelled on World Trade Organization agreements, which have been contested for some time by southern countries.

The Canadian government justifies this accord by the fact that Panama is an established market for Canada, and that bilateral trade and investment relations show strong, long-term growth potential. Some big Canadian businesses have sniffed out good deals and believe that the accord will facilitate trade relations with Panama, despite its dubious reputation, but what price will be paid by Canadians, Panamanians and all future generations?

We, the members of the opposition, proposed changes to improve this agreement. During the clause-by-clause study, we proposed 11 amendments that would have made this bill more progressive. For example, we suggested adding certain essential concepts, such as sustainable development and investment and, more importantly, transparency requirements for taxation. The Conservatives, together with the third party, rejected our amendments. That shows how backwards those two parties are when it comes to responsible, appropriate fiscal policy.

The NDP, for its part, prefers a multilateral approach based on a sustainable trade model. That might be the main difference. Bilateral trade agreements are usually protectionist trade agreements that grant preferred treatment to some trading partners to the exclusion of others. Weaker countries typically find themselves in an inferior position relative to bigger partners. A sustainable multilateral trade model avoids those problems and protects human rights and the environment. That is why these elements should be more prominent not only in this agreement, but also in other free trade agreements. That could be one way to solve the problem. That is our proposal.

I would like to end by talking about values, because I think values are also involved. This free trade agreement could allow us to assert our own Canadian values almost everywhere in the world. Our values could be reflected in our free trade agreements; they could be understood; they could be seen; and they would be clear. This would be interesting. In fact, I do not want to speak against the people of Panama. I just think that this agreement is not good for us, nor is it good for them.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Québec for her speech. It shows great intelligence and her great capacity for work. It is very promising. It makes me trust her work on the Standing Committee for International Trade. It is a committee that I am familiar with and I enjoyed my time on it very much. It is a fascinating field to learn about.

My colleague really put her finger on the problem of our Canadian values. These values are shared by people throughout the country, by 34 million Canadians. These values, of which we are extremely proud, are related to issues of world peace and human rights.

Sometimes I have the impression that the party in power, as well as the third party in the House, have confused these values with monetary values and other values relating to the development of natural resources or to human exploitation.

I will not hide the fact that I hesitated a long time in deciding that it was an approach that suffered from naïveté, which would be touching in other circumstances, were it not for the interests linked to it and to the fact that it might colour and in fact even damage and destroy our worldwide reputation. Or else, was it tied to much less commendable interests for a small portion of the population who profit handsomely from it, and have both hands in the cookie jar?

I would like to hear my colleague’s opinion on this issue.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his very astute comment.

It is indeed a question of values. We should also find out whether this agreement will benefit the entire population or only part of it. This is where the NDP differs with the government, which, all too often favours just some of the people.

This is something we have noticed in a number of policies, not just the policies involving free trade. We think it is important to promote these values for the benefit of all, not just for a portion of the population, and to do it in our own country, certainly, and also beyond our borders. These are also values that we would like to inculcate in the people of Panama. In fact, we would like to inculcate these values in everyone.

I would like to thank my honourable colleague for his very valid ideas, with which I completely agree.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the member her thoughts on the issues of human rights, labour legislation and environmental concerns. She comes across as being fairly passionate in terms of freer trade maybe not being able to deal with those types of issue in these bilateral agreements.

My question to the member is related to countries like China, which exports billions of consumer products and dollars to Canada. I am sure she would have concerns related to those three issues. What would she suggest Canada do with those countries we currently trade with, where there are those types of concerns, or does it just apply to those countries where there are agreements in place?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, human rights and the environment are issues of concern in any agreement with any country. However, what I wanted to emphasize in what I said was the idea of a multilateral approach. I meant a multilateral approach for other countries too, including Asian countries, where several countries can be involved. It is a better approach than bilateral agreements, which are often problematic.

This approach has often been suggested. I am thinking of Asia in particular because of the current situation. One frequently meets people—at the Standing Committee on International Trade, for instance—who suggest the idea of developing this multilateral approach and encourage us to think more seriously about it. That is why, in this case, I said to myself that it may be an answer.

It will never be possible to solve all the world’s human rights and environmental problems, but at least we can have the desire and show the leadership to work in that direction and to promote it. Nothing has even been said here about what is happening in this country. It is as if it did not exist. That is the problem.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I am rising in the House today to speak about 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.

As many of my colleagues have already pointed out, Bill C-24 is a new version of a bill that was introduced in the House during the previous Parliament, but that died on the order paper at the time.

In August 2009, the Conservative government entered into negotiations surrounding the future free trade agreement with the Republic of Panama. The agreement also included side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment.

This free trade agreement was signed on May 14, 2010, and tabled in the House of Commons as Bill C-46, but the legislative process ended at the clause-by-clause review by the Standing Committee on International Trade.

This same bill is now being reintroduced without any significant improvements over the previous version.

The NDP was opposed to Bill C-46 in the 40th Parliament for the many reasons that have already been enumerated here in this House.

Again, we are going to have to oppose Bill C-24, because there are no provisions in it to remedy the fundamental flaws that have already been cited in this House.

The Canada-Panama agreement negotiated by the Conservative government is in fact only a slightly improved version of the approach to trade taken by former American President George Bush. Once again, in this free trade agreement, big corporations come ahead of the Canadian and Panamanian people, and absolutely nothing is being done to ensure respect for human rights, and very little to protect the environment.

More specifically, it is obvious to my colleagues in the NDP and to me, at least, that there are no provisions in the Canada-Panama agreement to ensure respect for workers’ rights in Panama. If the agreement is ratified by Parliament as it stands, there is absolutely no guarantee that the rights of Panamanian workers will not be flouted as they have so often been in the past.

But honestly, is anyone here surprised by this? If we look at the Conservatives’ record since the May 2, 2011, election, it is clear that workers’ rights are the very last thing on this government’s list of priorities.

In barely a year, they have introduced a record number of bills to force workers back to work and violate their fundamental right to negotiate their conditions of employment in good faith. Given this kind of contempt for the rights of Canadian workers, it is really not surprising that there would be no provisions in the Canada-Panama agreement to protect the rights of Panamanian workers.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster had already proposed two amendments at the Standing Committee on International Trade to remedy this major flaw in the bill.

Those amendments would, first, have protected unionized workers in Panama by guaranteeing them the right to bargain collectively, as is the case here in Canada, or at least as it was before this government came to power.

The amendments presented by my colleague would also have forced the Minister of International trade to consult regularly with representatives of Canadian workers and with Canadian unions.

We know that this kind of consultation seems somewhat repugnant to this government, but New Democrat members think this measure is essential before we can ratify a free trade agreement with Panama.

Of course, in spite of Panama’s bad record when it comes to defending workers’ rights, those amendments were naturally defeated by the Conservatives, with the support of the Liberals.

With the Conservatives confirming on a daily basis their bias in favour of businesses and management—with their brutal attacks on workers' basic rights—it was hard to expect a different outcome.

Another major problem with Bill C-24 is the fact that it does not include any measure to prevent tax evasion. It is important to note that the Republic of Panama is still regarded as a tax haven. In fact, Nicolas Sarkozy, the former president of France, recently said so.

Even though these issues were raised by my colleagues during the 40th Parliament, Bill C-24 is still seriously flawed when it comes to tax disclosure.

Despite repeated requests from Canada, the Republic of Panama has refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement.

This is very troubling, considering the large amount of money that is laundered in the Republic of Panama, including money from drug trafficking.

The Conservatives are constantly boasting about the importance they attach to law and order in Canada and about the fact that they are prepared to put Canadians in jail for years just because of a few marijuana plants. However, they refuse to do anything to create obstacles for big drug traffickers. It is really impossible to understand this government.

In its present form, Bill C-24 is not acceptable to the NDP. This trade agreement, which is quite similar to NAFTA, unjustly favours multinational corporations at the expense of workers and of the quality of our environment. This type of agreement with various countries that are often at an economic disadvantage compared to Canada, increases social and economic inequalities, while also significantly reducing the quality of life of workers and their families.

The rights of workers all over the world are important to my NDP colleagues and to myself. We cannot, in good conscience, support an agreement that does not do anything to protect the basic rights of the country with which that agreement is reached. We already have enough problems protecting our own Canadian workers against this government, which is barely able to conceal its contempt for their rights. We should not, in addition, start interfering with the rights of workers in Panama. It just makes no sense. We must ensure there are guarantees, so that they can negotiate their collective agreements freely and in good faith, as should be the case in any democratic society.

Since the beginning of the debate on Bill C-24, Conservative members keep repeating the same old arguments dictated by their government, without trying to understand our position on this issue.

My colleagues and I have made speeches in this House that are very clear. Our position on international trade is clear: we believe in the importance of international trade, but it has to be fair, sustainable and equitable trade. It is totally false to say that the NDP does not support international trade. I think I will say that again for the benefit of my colleagues opposite: it is totally false to say that the NDP does not support international trade. We simply believe that the trade agreements being negotiated have to respect and support the principles of social justice, sustainable development and human rights, which is not to say that we have to neglect the need to expand our trading opportunities.

We are aware that Canada has to trade with other countries; to import and to export. That is the system we are in. That is how things work and we are very aware of these realities. However, my colleagues and I in the NDP do not think that Canada's economic prosperity needs to come at the expense of workers' rights in other countries, people who are less fortunate than we are and who do not enjoy all the freedoms we had before this Conservative government came on the scene. We can indeed see that the rights to free association and to collective bargaining are fading away as the weeks go by.

It is completely absurd and false to say that the NDP wants to close our borders to commercial products from other countries. We do believe, however, that the government should stop focusing exclusively on the NAFTA model and should remain open to exploring other possible solutions to establish trade ties with other countries.

We must ensure that Canada puts the pursuit of social justice, strong public-sector social programs and the fight against poverty at the heart of its trade strategy. As soon as this government presents us with a free trade agreement that respects the principles of social justice and sustainable development, we would be pleased to support and vote in favour of such a bill. So far, however, we have yet to see such a thing in the history of Canada. The Liberals did not present any such agreements, nor have the Conservatives.

So, until that time, we will continue to oppose them. However, there is still time to amend this bill and ensure that the principles of social justice, sustainable development and the fight against poverty are respected.

I invite my Conservative colleagues to reflect on this and remain open to the kind of amendments that my colleagues are proposing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering to what degree the NDP will have credibility on the issue of free trade agreements. On the one hand, when we look at 2015, it will be saying that it supports fair trade but that it does not support free trade agreements, and yet hundreds of thousands of Canadians have benefited immensely. I cited the potato industry in Manitoba.

Canada is an exporting nation and we are very dependent on our ability to trade worldwide. That is what generates jobs and wealth.

After listening to members of the NDP, there is a difference between the NDP and the Liberals. We see the value of freer trade agreements.

Contrary to what the member's colleagues would have said on the front benches, if, for example, the amendments the NDP proposed in committee had passed, would the NDP members then have supported the bill in the House?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that some of the nuances of my speech and those of my colleagues were not grasped by the member in the corner. I liked what the member for Davenport said earlier.

From the beginning the NDP has said that it encourages free trade if it is fair and just. This has yet to be seen in Canadian history. In the future, we will have a great deal of credibility among workers whose rights we will have defended, among Quebeckers whose culture we will have defended—an aspect sometimes neglected by these free trade agreements—and among future generations, for protecting the environment.

By defending the principles of social justice, the fight against poverty and strong public programs to help people, we will have the credibility needed to vote for the next free trade agreements that will respect the principles we defend.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her eloquent speech and clear explanations. There are no doubts.

I would like my colleague to comment on the current scenario. From the beginning, the Conservative government has used the muzzle and the bayonet. Now, it will find itself with a trade agreement with a country that is a poor student and a tax haven.

I would like to know what impact this will have on workers' rights, on the right to association and the right to strike. Unfortunately, these rights are not in the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the very important and greatly appreciated work that she does for her constituents.

The problems with the right to negotiate, freedom of association and the right to strike are likely to be very serious for the countries of South America, primarily for Panama, because this type of agreement contains no guarantee those rights will be protected.

We are already flouting the rights of our Canadian workers by stopping them from negotiating their collective agreements and by preventing negotiations in good faith. Basically, the government is telling employers that they do not have to try and negotiate because it will be there to save them and to give them exactly what they want at the expense of the workers, who will have to make do with whatever salaries and working conditions employers want to give them. This kind of risk is very real, and it already exists in Panama, where the workers do not have the same rights as we do at all.

In signing such agreements without protecting their rights, we will merely be worsening their working conditions, and we will not be able to pass on the democratic social values particular to Canadian society that should be spread throughout the world.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before recognizing the hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, I must inform him that I will have to interrupt him at 6:30 p.m., at the end of the time provided for government business.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty funny to realize I only have only three minutes to talk about all this, but what is even funnier—and I am not a specialist in international agreements—is when I hear my Liberal colleague talk about the credibility of the people in the NDP.

I think it is hilarious and laughable that, when his former leader had his ships registered in Panama, the lakers in the Great Lakes got themselves beautiful Panamanian flags. People can see right away the kind of country it is. As this is one of the rare opportunities I have to speak about this issue, I have to say that today it is certainly the cherry on the top to talk about this agreement with a country that is none too encouraging in terms of the Canadian economy.

Once again, we see the government on the other side preparing to slip a bill through that will put CP workers up against the wall with a gun to their heads, and simultaneously presenting us with a potential free trade agreement with a country where workers at many levels are denied the right to strike. And when I suggest that the whole thing is laughable, it is because their proposal does not at first glance strike me as obviously popular; what they are putting forward is a plan for a free trade agreement with Panama, a country which, to say the very least, does not have a sterling reputation and is recognized as one of the most notorious of tax havens.

I was reading Le Devoir, which reported that Panama was one of the countries where tax shelter transactions, like those currently practised in Barbados, were most widespread. I find the whole idea pathetic.

I am not casting aspersions on the people in Panama who have products to export, but I wonder whether tomatoes will cross the border more readily than people. We are going to trade agricultural products with these people, but we do not want to see their faces, and that is very sad.

Once again, it' is a back door agreement that serves the interests of a number of specific people who have lobbied the government, which always tends to lend a friendly ear to business interests rather than ordinary people. Enough said.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The Hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher will have seven minutes to speak when the House resumes debate on the motion and five minutes for questions and comments.

The House resumed from May 28 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

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher has seven minutes remaining.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for a long time to have the opportunity to speak on this exciting subject. It was so exciting to once again witness a vote to stop us from speaking. It is rather pathetic. I do not think it is right. I am smiling a little, but there is nothing funny about this. In fact, it is completely disgusting. There is no other word for it.

The people at home who are watching the proceedings of the House of Commons are saying to themselves that, at some point, their member of Parliament will be allowed to speak, but then they realize that he was not allowed to do so or that he was allowed to speak for only two minutes instead of five.

Since this 41st Parliament began, the people in the riding that I represent have been finding that I do not speak very much. The members do not really have the opportunity to speak because 25 gag orders have now been imposed on us. The cynic in me would like to point out that this is our silver gag order. When you get married, you celebrate your silver anniversary after 25 years, so this is our silver gag order. At the rate things are going, we will be celebrating our golden gag order before Christmas. It is absolutely pathetic.

I would like to add that after a while, unfortunately, we get used to this dictatorship and the extreme lack of respect for democracy demonstrated by the members opposite.

I will get back to the matter at hand because, clearly, the Conservatives are amused by my objections to how they are treating us.

With regard to Panama, I read a short paragraph on the Amnesty International website that summarizes the situation. It states:

Safeguards of the human rights of Indigenous Peoples remained inadequate, especially in the context of large infrastructure projects built on Indigenous land. There were concerns about restrictions on freedom of expression.

That is written on the Amnesty International website, and I will come back to this in a moment. However, I would point out that the publication L'État du monde is no more encouraging.

Anyone who follows current events, watches the news and hears anything about free trade with a country might think that this is a free trade agreement with the United States, and that it makes sense because they are our neighbours and we need to makes things easier. When one realizes that we are talking about Panama, one might find that strange and decide to do a little research. That is what we did.

Clearly, during the many committee meetings when we discussed this potential trade agreement, our representatives stated repeatedly how important it was to be cautious and express our concerns about this agreement with Panama. One such person was the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

The Canadian government even made some requests of Panama, which refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. That is another issue. The way I am addressing this is somewhat awkward, but the reality is that Panama is not a simple county to enter into an agreement with.

The Conservatives are saying that this agreement may be a bit complicated, but that we have to trust them. Excuse me? How can we trust them? Do they take us for fools? I am asking the question today for the second time: do they think I am that easily manipulated? It does not make any sense that they want to teach us a lesson and that they are surprised that we want to continue to debate and discuss this subject. Really.

The Conservatives are not proposing something clean and simple; rather, they are proposing a free trade agreement with a country that it is completely legitimate to have doubts about. But no. We do not have the right to do that, apparently. This is another example of the bad faith of this government, which claims that we are against the economy, against progress and against trade. Come on. The Conservatives are always trying to sneak things through and do things at the last minute. They keep everything to themselves and are really the champions of poor communication.

One thing I would like to address is the report found in L'État du monde. It is worth reading a few excerpts.

The second year of Ricardo Martinelli's mandate was marked by considerable tension. His popularity declined rapidly. Many criticized the president's entrepreneurial rhetoric [that sounds familiar], his authoritarian decisions and lack of dialogue.

Goodness me. These are the Conservatives' pals.

Labour code reforms affected unionization conditions and the right to strike, resulting in major demonstrations and a general strike on July 13, 2010...

How about that? It is clear who they have been swapping houses with.

Violent clashes between demonstrators and police in banana production regions resulted in the deaths of at least two people.

Fantastic. Reading that really makes me think, gee, maybe we should trust the Conservatives and let them ram this down our throats without a word of protest. It makes no sense.

Moving on. Here is another really excellent part.

The president's anti-judge [and anti-government official] decisions, appointments of friends to strategic positions and frequent about-faces on critical issues were also the subject of much controversy.

I understand.

I have only one minute left. It is too bad that time is so short. What can I say? We do not have time to fool around here. We put as many bills through the machine as the public can handle. As soon as the Conservatives' popularity plunges, they will become very nice and come and tell us that they want to listen.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is direct. The NDP members have delayed this bill, not only in this Parliament but in the former Parliament, at committee in the former Parliament and at committee in this Parliament.

It begs two questions. First, what do the NDP members have against trade? Second, if they are willing to pass the free trade agreement with Jordan, which is built on exactly the same template as the free trade agreement with Panama, why would they not pass the Panama free trade agreement? They are identical agreements with identical templates.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

This is nice; at least we are having a conversation, but really, we are going in circles. This is certainly not because of our questions, but more because of their answers.

The big difference is what is written practically everywhere. Try Googling “Panama” and the first thing you see is “tax haven”. Everyone is talking about that. That is a huge difference, and I think that is enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, we often hear the government side say that they are all about law and order, and are against criminals.

However, when it comes time to sign a free trade agreement with a country that is a known tax haven and that protects money laundering for criminal organizations like the Chinese triads, the Cosa Nostra and drug traffickers, it is a different story. In 2010, old friends of Manuel Noriega were part of the government with which this agreement was reached. I am old enough to know what happened in the 1980s with Manuel Noriega. It was the same gang.

Can my colleague explain why we might have some concerns about giving carte blanche to that country by signing this free trade agreement?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments.

His question is very eloquent. I know how proud we can be of our team in the New Democratic Party, because we have a lot of people who are very well-informed on these subjects. I am thinking of my colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges who just asked me a question, or our member from Ottawa. They are experts in the field and they are the first to stand up and tell young people to pay attention: the Conservatives are trying to pull a fast one. That is what we are watching out for.

Obviously, in situations like this, we do not have a history of good works, of inclusive consultations and of consensus. I even wonder whether the Conservatives understand the translation of those words. They are words that they are obviously not at all familiar with. If they at least had that past, if they had that approach to doing things, we could say we have major doubts about the subject, but we will discuss it. But no; there is no discussion; everybody has to be quiet and that is it; we have to pass the bill. That is what they expect.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cannot have it both ways. He talks about money laundering and got his information from Google. We can find just about any information we want on Google, but we cannot read part of it and ignore the rest. We need to read the entire thing. If he had read the entire thing, he would have found out that Panama is no longer on the OECD grey list. It has been removed from the list because its tax agreements with other countries have improved and its transparency has improved. It is a country that is making improvements, is moving into the rest of the world and is off the money laundering list and what does the NDP want to do that country? It wants to punish it.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny, in fact, because they are obviously making fun of me. They are saying that I get my information from Google.

We also have people who are well-informed and work hard. We have researchers and members who are very conversant with this subject. We have no trouble finding nonsense on Google, as I know some of his colleagues do among themselves.

We must not believe everything we see on Google. He is looking at me, but let him look at me; he may as well do it and may as well make fun of me. Thank you.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The time for questions and comments has expired. I would remind all hon. members to direct their comments through the Chair rather than to their colleagues.

The hon. member has 10 seconds remaining to complete his answer.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Fine, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

In fact, Panama has made efforts to meet the criteria so it would no longer be on the grey list, but the fact remains that it is refusing to sign a tax information exchange agreement. I think we are entitled to wonder about that, and they are not entitled to shove it down our throats.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have had copious and lengthy debate on the bill already but we will continue to debate the bill because it is an important bill for Canadian businesses, for Canadian industry, for Canadian workers and, quite frankly, for Panama.

The biggest issue for me when we look at these free trade agreements, regardless of which countries around the world we are entering into an agreement with, is that we are already trading with Panama. The NDP want us to spell it out that somehow this is a rogue nation with which no one is trading. When the Panama Canal is finished, 5% of all the containers on the world's oceans will go through the Panama Canal. That is an extremely important nation in our hemisphere. We are trading with it already. How can it hurt to put a rules based system in place so we know and can expect how our trading relationship will unfold?

I find it extremely troublesome that all the NDP members can do is find a reason not to support something, instead of looking for all of the good parts and the positive parts of this agreement.

As I said when I stood up, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-24, the legislation to implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. I will spend a few moments today talking about how this agreement fits into Canada's engagement in the Americas.

Five years ago, while on a week-long tour of the Americas that included Bogota, Colombia and stops in Barbados and Haiti, the Prime Minister declared that reviving and expanding Canada's political and economic engagement in the Americas would be a major foreign policy goal of our government.

Last summer, the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade made a highly successful visit to Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica and Honduras. During that visit, the Prime Minister made it clear that Canada was an active player in the hemisphere, strengthening economic ties with its partners, improving market access and promoting security, all things that I would think every member in this House could support.

Our commitment to the Americas is evident through the 175 ministerial visits to Latin America since we formed government in 2006, and the 20 countries in the Americas with which we have signed or are pursuing free trade agreements.

Canada is committed to playing an even larger role in the Americas, and doing so for the long term. Part of this commitment involves fostering closer economic ties with regional partners to promote trade, investment and prosperity across the hemisphere.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement will support job creation and economic growth in Canada and Panama, which, in turn, will contribute to advancing security and democratic governance in the region. It is an important part of our job creating free trade plan.

Our government is in the midst of the most ambitious free trade plan in Canada's history. Our government understands that one in five jobs and 60% of our GDP depends upon trade. Jobs and prosperity in communities across Canada depend on the opportunities that free trade agreements, like the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act, create.

Since 2006, we have concluded free trade agreements with nine countries and we are in negotiations with many more. That includes negotiations with the European Union and India. Just recently, the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Noda of Japan announced the launch of negotiations toward a free trade agreement that will deepen the trade and investment ties between Canada and Japan.

Free trade agreements help our businesses compete in global markets and, when our business succeed in global markets, Canadians succeed.

I will take a moment to talk about the opportunities in Panama for Canadian business, for Canadians and s for Panamanians in Canada. Panama is often referred to as the gateway to Latin America and its critical role in connecting the Latin American region also enhances the importance of a Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

Panama has long been considered a logistic centre and international connection point in the Latin American region. Over the years, Panama has evolved to become the pre-eminent air transportation hub and is now ranked as having the highest air connectivity in the Americas by the International Air Transport Association. Panama is also a central point for goods travelling to Latin America, a nexus for international trade and a strategic hub for the region.

According to Panamanian estimates, 5% of the world's trade passed through the Panama Canal in 2010. The Panamanian government's large investment to expand the Panama Canal means that Panama is positioned to play an increasingly important role in the Latin American region.

Panama's unique and influential position in the global trading system is significant. It represents an entry point for the broader region thereby enabling access to neighbouring markets. A free trade agreement with this strategically positioned partner would serve as a gateway for an increased Canadian commercial presence in both the Caribbean and Latin America.

As our results clearly demonstrate, Canada has provided global leadership throughout these difficult economic times by encouraging free trade and open markets. Our commitment to free trade is key to Canada's economic strength.

We will continue to open doors for Canadian companies in the Americas and around the world. We are enhancing trade and investment in the Americas by encouraging deeper commercial relationships and engaging in free trade negotiations, and with great success.

For example, our free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia are now enforced, and Canadian companies are taking advantage of the new opportunities these agreements have produced.

In August 2011, Canada and Honduras announced the conclusion of negotiations toward a Canada-Honduras Free Trade Agreement. The same month, Canada also announced that it would work with Costa Rica to modernize and broaden the scope of the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement. An updated free trade agreement with Costa Rica stands to lower remaining tariffs on goods and would remove trade barriers in a broad range of sectors, creating new potential opportunities for Canadian construction, manufacturing and agriculture industries.

In April 2012, Canada and Chile signed an agreement to amend the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement, including the addition of a financial services chapter, which will ensure that Canadian financial institutions enjoy preferential access to the Chilean market.

We are not stopping there. As was announced last year, Canada is also engaged in exploratory discussions with Mercosur to enhance our trade relationship with this regional bloc, which includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.

The trade agreements that Canada has negotiated or is looking to negotiate give our businesses an additional competitive edge that will help them succeed in these regional markets. That is why I am asking members to pass Bill C-24, implementing the Canada free trade agreement.

Our commitment to further liberalize trade and investment is a key component to our engagement in the Americas. Through the lowering of tariffs and the promotion of investment and commercial relationships, our government is supporting the efforts of Canadian businesses by helping them establish a strong presence in these foreign markets.

I am pleased to say that our businesses have seized the opportunity. Canadian firms have been forging commercial ties in the region for decades. Today we can find Canadian businesses, goods, services, expertise and investment dollars at work throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. This is a result of diverse opportunities and strong commercial ties throughout the region that are facilitated through free trade agreements. Many products manufactured in the region are using Canadian inputs before being sold domestically across Latin America and around the world.

I would repeat, once again, that I ask my Liberal and NDP colleagues here in the House to put partisan politics aside and look at what is to be gained here. This is not a complicated trade agreement. For example, there is a small company that makes oil and gas equipment in my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's, in Nova Scotia. They have another company in Mexico. Mexico has no tariff for goods going into Panama. However, we pay an 18% tariff. The product that the company is making today and selling in Panama is being made in Mexico so it can avoid the 18% tariff.

If we bring down the tariff walls, there are advantages there for Canadian businesses and for Panamanian businesses. Everybody gains. The hemisphere gains. Canada is a sought-after partner in the Americas.

We need to take advantage of the position we are in, the hard work that our government and other—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his speech. We agree on one thing. Rules-based trade is a great place to start in these agreements. Once we are working within the rules, things can improve.

Trade can bring improvement, not only to Canada, but also to impoverished peoples worldwide. That is, when we are trading on the basis of our economic strength: the high-skill, value-added, high-wage sectors. If we are just exporting raw resources, then it is not such an advantage for the people of that nation.

However, I want to get back to rules. The member mentioned that we have been blocking the legislation, and there are reasons for that. We asked them to sign a tax information exchange agreement. We asked them to put this into the free trade agreement. They refused.

My question is, why has there been the exclusion of this simple rule?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is not an exclusion of a simple rule. The reality is that Panama has made great strides in suppressing money laundering. It is off of the OECD “grey list”. It is moving in the direction that we want to move.

We have a double taxation agreement with Colombia already. For this trade agreement, that is what is required on our side. We believe the Colombians are living up to that.

The advantages of trade with the Colombians, the advantages of trading with somebody in our own hemisphere and in our time zone, are huge. We are a sought-after partner in Central America, in South America, in the southern hemisphere.

I can tell members that we need to take advantage of this, because the opportunity is now.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, students of economics always look at the issues of absolute and comparative advantage.

We know that Panama has many opportunities in absolute advantage that Canada does not have. The last time I looked, it was impossible for us to grow bananas here, for instance.

When I look at the opportunities for trade for a country like Panama with Canada, I know there are going to be products in which they have comparative advantage over Canada. We know when countries enter into relationships where comparative advantage is looked at, there are opportunities there for Panama to trade with Canada.

When we look at the lifestyle or we look at where Panama is currently, we know there are people who are living in poverty. However, we know that trade can open doors for job opportunities.

I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would comment on what those opportunities are for Panamanian people to grow opportunities and jobs and build a new lifestyle.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are tremendous opportunities in Panama for Panamanians. There are also tremendous opportunities in Panama for Canadian businesses and for Canadians.

The reality is that Panama is both the gateway to the Caribbean and the gateway to Latin America. It is the joining factor between the Atlantic and the Pacific. It is in a very enviable position in Central America. Nothing will change that. That is geography. Panama has a huge geographical advantage over its neighbours, and the only canal that joins the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean.

The hon. member spoke about the complementary aspect of Canadian trade with Panama. There is a huge complementary aspect.

Last year, our exports to Panama totalled $111 million. That is small on a world scale, but that is extremely important to Canadian businesses and extremely important to Panama. We trade machinery, semi-precious stones and metals, meat, aerospace products, mineral fuels and oil, vegetables—primarily lentils, peas and frozen potato products—electrical and electronic equipment, paper and paperboard and pharmaceuticals.

There is a myriad of issues that we trade with Panama and a number of issues and expertise that we trade with Panama, with great opportunities and procurement in the twinning of the Panama Canal, the building of the copper mine, the copper-gold deposit in northern Panama. The opportunities are endless.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to 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. The title of this bill, which suggests this legislation will provide excellent economic spinoffs for our country and for the country with which the agreement was reached, is somewhat misleading. Over the course of my speech, hon. members will come to understand what I mean by that. They will also understand that, for obvious reasons, my party and I are against this bill.

Let us begin with some background. Bill C-24 came out of the 2010 negotiations between the Government of Canada and Panama. At the time, Panama was still considered to be a tax haven under OECD tax haven criteria. Does wanting to conclude a free trade agreement with such a country not strike my colleagues as questionable? Let us not forget the problems related to tax havens.

Each year the Government of Canada loses $9 billion in taxes to tax havens. Obviously, this $9 billion is not being spent on programs and services for Canadians. By signing agreements with countries like Panama, the government is indirectly encouraging the rich and corporations to avoid paying their fair share to Canadian society, which means Canadians lose money. Clearly, that forces the middle class and the poor to make up the difference. Where is the logic in this?

The Prime Minister is also making cuts to several programs, organizations and services, such as Rights and Democracy, employment insurance, old age security, the experimental lakes program, the Canadian fisheries sector, and the list goes on.

An application for a lousy $12,000 to install a ramp for the disabled was denied recently in my riding on the pretext that the government has to tighten its belt and make cuts. The application was rejected in spite of the fact that it met all the eligibility criteria set by the minister. This application was denied at a time when $9 billion is being lost to tax havens. Again, where is the logic in that?

Evidently, cuts are often made to services that benefit the middle class and the poor. The government justifies that by saying that there is not enough money in its coffers, when on numerous occasions it could have replenished the government coffers, as is currently the case.

Of course, the government will say that Panama no longer meets the criteria because it signed 12 tax information exchange agreements with France. That is what the minister of state just told us. I would like to remind members, however, that that is the minimum number of agreements to get through the crisis. So, evidently, the government is expecting the minimum. What kind of logic is this?

This is not evidence of the Panamanian government's genuine intention to resolve these issues because these problems are due to the fact that Panama is a tax haven. All this demonstrates is Panama's desire to no longer be labelled a tax haven, because otherwise I would imagine that Panama would take a number of other steps to ensure that it in no way meets the four criteria for tax havens.

Furthermore, the New Democrats and many people in my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and that of my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord—who was unable to speak because closure was invoked by this government—as well as people in the 308 ridings in our country, cannot believe that Canada would enter into a free trade agreement with a country that refuses to sign a tax information exchange agreement, given Panama's reputation.

The government believes that the double taxation convention is enough. Let us be serious. Given that Panama engages in many illegal financial activities such as money laundering, it is quite naive to be satisfied with a convention that requires Panama to disclose only its legitimate revenues. Come on.

It is as though the government were unaware of the importance of money laundering to the country's business and unaware that Panama's tax haven policies make it a place that cannot be ignored.

As Todd Tucker said in November 2010, when he appeared before the committee studying this matter, “major Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, as well as Colombian illegal armed groups, use Panama for drug trafficking and money laundering purposes. The funds generated from illegal activity are susceptible to being laundered through Panamanian banks, real estate developments, and more.”

The government does not seem to realize that by doing business with Panama, it is encouraging this whole industry. That is what the Conservatives want. Well, no. They are muzzling us in order to hide the truth from Canadians and to make sure they get this agreement, no matter what the consequences. They are invoking closure to ensure that the opposition does not say anything embarrassing.

The government cannot remain indifferent to these facts, for as Françoise Héritier said, “Evil begins with indifference and resignation.” We in the NDP still believe that fair trade is possible and that we do not have to remain indifferent to the challenges that exist in other countries in order to create economic agreements that are sound and beneficial for all parties involved.

Another key point in this bill that prevents the NDP from supporting it is the notion of respect for workers' rights. There is absolutely nothing in this agreement to protect the fundamental rights of workers. There is nothing to ensure that these rights will not be denied in the future, as they were in 2010, when collecting mandatory union dues was prohibited, when the boss could fire striking employees, when roadblocks became illegal and when the police were protected from all criminal charges, legitimate or not. There is no protection against this.

The Conservatives seem to think that we can enter into an agreement with Panama and everything will magically work itself out, unless the Conservatives do not like workers' rights and are not really interested in them. Who knows. Clearly, I could talk about other questionable aspects, but there is not enough time.

At least I had time to speak. Many of my colleagues have not been able to represent their constituents because of the Conservatives' time allocation and closure motion.

I repeat: the NDP believes that it is possible, and desirable, for an effective trade strategy to make room for social justice, public-sector social programs and the gradual elimination of poverty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the same question to the hon. member that I asked to the previous speaker from the NDP. Hopefully, she will give a different answer.

The question is simple. We have negotiated this agreement with Panama based on the same template that we used in negotiating the Colombia and Jordan agreements. The agreements are practically identical, yet the NDP picks and chooses to support Jordan, apparently. We have not seen it support Jordan yet, but we will find out.

However, it does not choose to support Panama. It is in our own hemisphere. It is an area that certainly needs a hand up, an area that needs a good, fair and honest trading partner. My question for the hon. member is—and I do not want the nonsense about money laundering, because Panama is no longer on the OECD grey list—why support Jordan and not Panama?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I took the time to mention in my speech, we obviously do not have the same expectations, because we think that the minimum is not enough. For me, the minimum is not enough. To tell us that Panama met the 10 minimum criteria is not enough.

I would also like to take the time to say that money laundering occurs in Panama, that Panama is a tax haven and that it has a law against protests. It also does not respect workers' rights.

As a result of all these things, we believe that we need to discuss this now, while we are debating this bill. Unfortunately, the Conservatives imposed a 25th gag order on us today. Two gag orders today; it is rather harsh. We believe that we need to continue to discuss this and that there are essential things that need to be added to protect the rights of Panamanian workers before we sign this agreement.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we hear the government talk about the fact that it wants to export Canadian values on top of that. In Canada we work to respect the rights of workers, including the rights of workers to be protected, to work in safety and to earn a wage on which they can raise their families. Do we not have a responsibility to make sure that the agreements we enter into are mirrored in that way in the countries that we have these agreements with?

I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on that.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, it is important that we export our values to Panama. The NDP is very aware of workers' rights. On this side of the House, we believe that it is essential to discuss workers' rights before signing any type of agreement. Other concerns reflect our values—certainly not those of the government but those of the NDP—including sustainable development in Panama, responsible investments, the protection of workers' rights, and collective bargaining. These are all things that are important to us, and we want to see them reflected in this agreement before we sign anything.

If the government would listen to us instead of imposing gag orders, we could come to an agreement, but things are definitely more difficult when the government silences us and we are told that, in any case, the government will refuse all of our proposals without even checking to see if they are worthwhile.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for London West, I will let him know that I will need to interrupt him at 5:30, this being the end of the time allocated for government orders.

The hon. member for London West.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to speak on behalf of the Canada–Panama free trade agreement.

After hearing some five dozen-plus speeches on this that have gone on in the House during this Parliament and some five dozen-plus speeches in the last Parliament, I am reminded of something that my Cape Breton mother once said about politicians. She said, “After it is all said and done, there is a lot more said than done”.

I respect the fact that those members who are currently on the trade committee and those who are making comments did not sit on the trade committee in the last Parliament, so they did not have the experience from the last Parliament that they are garnering this time.

However, having sat on the trade committee since I was elected almost four years ago, and now going through some 125 to 130 speeches that we have heard on free trade with Panama, it is clear to me that there is nothing that is brand new. There is not one thing that is new that we have not heard time and time again. For the benefit of newer members, we have heard these issues over many years and we would have had a free trade agreement in place had we not had an election forced upon us back in May of last year. That agreement would have been put in place. It would have been better for Canada and it certainly would have been better for Panama.

As my colleague, the illustrious Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, said so eloquently, we already do trade with Panama. What we are now saying is that we are looking to put in place a rules-based system that would ensure that in the event of disputes, there would be a mechanism in place to more quickly resolve issues relating to trade.

We have also issues relating to labour rights, and we have an ILO-approved standard by which we are asking Panama to increase its standards. At the same time, Canada has that provision and has the ability to work with Panama to ensure that it is put in place.

If there is a reality that I have seen in my time in trade, it is clearly this: if we want to engage with and promote better conduct in countries around the world, we do not do that by shunning them. We do that by engaging them. We do that by trying to increase their standard of living. We do that by trying to increase trade with those countries. It betters Canada, absolutely, but it betters the other country with which we do business. That is the honourable thing to do. It is the right thing to do for Panama.

I say to members across both sides of this House that if we really have that humanity about trying to raise the level of human rights, trying to raise the level of business, trying to raise the level of people so that they are in a position where they can improve their lifestyles, we do that in part by trade. To members opposite who have said they support trade, I would ask them then to please support trade. Again, in my four years I have not yet seen members in the official opposition support one free trade deal. It would be great if they could get behind Panama to improve the standard of living for those people and to improve job opportunities for Canada, which has a huge impact.

I will leave it there at this point. I hope I will have an opportunity to address this Parliament again, but I sincerely ask all members of this House for their thoughtful consideration as we work towards Panama. We could do a great thing together.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for London West will have six minutes remaining for his speech and the usual five minutes for questions and comments when the House next returns to debate on the question.

The House resumed from June 7 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

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for London West has six minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to resume my comments with respect to the Canada-Panama free trade deal, which we hope will have the same success as Jordan did this past week. I want to acknowledge the members of the opposition who came together to help us move the arrangements for the trade deal with Jordan along. I hope that vision and support that they showed in the last free trade deal carries on this time. I would say to our friends in the loyal opposition, let us not do this for the sake of the opposition members being able to say that they have passed the deal so they as a party can never be told that they do not support free trade deals. I do not believe that is the case. Therefore, as my Cape Breton mother would say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I would like to encourage members opposite to share that same vision as we look towards Panama.

When I consider why Canada is doing any trade deals, let alone this free trade deal with Panama, it is really clear from my four years on the international trade committee that with the deals that we have signed, a very aggressive agenda with respect to free trade deals, we do it because it is in Canada's interest. We also acknowledge that it is in the interests of the countries that we trade with as well. What we tried to do is raise the level of quality of life of individuals. Without the ability to work or without solid employment, they do not have those same opportunities.

We trade with every country in the world. That is absolutely clear. Therefore, what we are looking for with Panama, as with the other trade deals that we have negotiated, is a rules-based system that will assist us when there are disputes and will make sure that we eliminate tariffs going from Canada to Panama and from Panama to Canada. That makes a dramatic difference for our country and certainly for theirs. However, there are a few advantages. If it were not in the interests of Canada, why would we consider doing this at all? It would be helpful for members of this House to have a strong sense of what it does mean for all of us to be able to put this deal together.

Clearly, the free trade agreement would require Panama to provide Canada with improved market access in a variety of areas. For those members of Parliament who have agriculture in their ridings, access to Panama in terms of imports of beef, cattle and pork matters. That is done through a combination of tariff cuts and transitional tariff rate quotas. That is very dramatic.

It is rather interesting that in August 2009, Canadian ministers announced that Panama had approved Canada's meat inspector system and lifted its BSE ban on Canadian beef. Those were progressive steps that were being taken with the long-term intent of putting the free trade deal in place.

In June 2010, our ministers announced that Panama had lifted its ban on Canadian cattle. As a result now, federally registered beef and pork meat establishments are able to export to Panama, as are Canadian exporters of cattle.

In addition to that, we put in what has now become a Canadian standard. We put in a labour co-operation agreement and an agreement on the environment. We look to standards for countries that are not as developed as Canada. We ask them to raise their standards as we deal with them. We think that is very important for the quality of life for Panamanians. In some sense it justifies the involvement that we have with them well. We think it is important and necessary for Panama to proceed on that basis.

All provinces would benefit in terms of the improvements of the framework that governs this free trade deal. Quebec, for example, would benefit from the elimination of Panamanian tariffs on exports relating to agriculture. I mentioned pork and in addition to that industrial and construction machinery, pharmaceutical and aerospace products. To my province of Ontario and my city of London, some key export areas are industrial and construction machinery, electrical and electronic equipment, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and furniture. The western provinces benefit. The Atlantic provinces benefit. There is not one part of Canada that does not benefit as a result of this free trade deal.

Therefore, I would encourage members opposite, as I know that members on this side will when we look to complete Panama, to give their full support, because it is clear that we almost had this done in the last Parliament. Then an election was put upon the Canadian people and as a result of that election the free trade deal with Panama died on the order paper. That can happen.

We have had debate upon debate about this. Frankly, I do not believe, as members from both sides may choose to ask some questions today, that there is any question that has not already been asked and answered, both in committee and in the House. That is to be fair to those members who were more recently elected because we covered this at length in our last Parliament.

For any questions members have, we will be candid and clear. I would ask for the sake of Canadian businesses to please help us pass the Panama free trade agreement.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for basically asking us what we do not like about this deal with Panama. Quite clearly, Panama is a country that encourages tax evasion and money laundering. Its structure is one where there are literally hundreds and hundreds of paper corporations established in that country to take advantage of its lax rules. Does the hon. member have an understanding of what it is costing the Canadian economy for these types of activities: tax evasion, money laundering and the kinds of things the Panamanian government has refused consistently to fall into line on with international standards? Does the member have an answer to that?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier comments, there is not a question that has not been asked at least once. The question my colleague, the member for Western Arctic, has asked has been answered very candidly several times in the House, both in the last Parliament and this one.

To assure the member I do have some understanding, I would like to think that with my 30-plus years of business before I got into politics I have some understanding of business. I also have some understanding of business relationships, contractual and legal.

I would like to share something with him and the House. I do not know if we can put this to bed forever. Regardless of the answer, it will continue to come back up. However, let me be clear about one thing. Canada committed to implement the OECD standard for the exchange of tax information to combat international tax evasion in 2002. Let me update that now. In 2011, the OECD formally placed Panama on its list of jurisdictions that have substantially implemented international standards for exchange of information.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to a candid answer. In principle, we in the Liberal Party have supported the Panama free trade agreement. Having said that, while the government has been so focused on a couple of free trade type of agreements, it has been very negligent in other areas. The United States entered into an agreement with Korea which is going to have a huge negative impact on Canada, in particular within the pork industry in provinces like Manitoba.

What is the government doing for the Prairie farmers, particularly the pork farmers in Manitoba, to ensure they will be able to secure those critically important markets in Korea for Manitoba's pork?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, when it is time to speak to Korea, I would be happy to have that discussion. The issue has come before my international trade committee from time to time. Today the debate is about Panama and I do not want us to lose focus on today's debate. Frankly, the divide and conquer approach confuses issues. We want to be extremely clear that today we are talking about Panama.

Let us talk about Manitoba and western provinces. The Liberal Party in the past has been supportive of our various trade agreements and I hope it will again. When it looks at Panama, Canada will have a unique advantage over other countries because of the arrangement that we made with some $123 billion of business both ways today between Panama and Canada. The western provinces will benefit from Panamanian tariffs on key support interests that include processed food products, cereal, precious stones, fats, oils, paper and paperboard. The western provinces, including Manitoba, will benefit very well by this free trade deal.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to get back to work again and stay focused on additional issues after we unfortunately passed Bill C-38, the budget bill, last night. Today we have to move on to a variety of other issues, whether we like it or not, and I am happy to add a few comments on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

The Liberal Party has been in support of this agreement for some time and, in spite of some concerns, which I will outline, we will continue to be in support of free and fair trade.

One of the key concerns with respect to expanding our trading relationship with Panama has been evident with respect to the government's free trade agenda. We must not put aside our domestic practices within the countries with which we are seeking new trade agreements.

As we negotiate free trade agreements, there are some very important issues that we need to keep in mind. Whether they are issues of money laundering, tax evasion, human trafficking or issues of human rights, areas in which we could use our leverage on the agreement to make some improvements in the quality of life for people in those countries with which we are making agreements, but also to have some clear benefits over and above just the dollars and cents factor for Canada.

An additional point that should be kept in mind and one that the government would do well to carefully consider was raised by Jim Stanford of the Canadian Auto Workers, someone we see often on the Hill when we are dealing with issues in the auto industry, who recently spoke at the international trade committee. Part of his presentation outlined the following with respect to the lack of apparent benefits, as far as he was concerned, that was being derived by the free trade agreement.

Mr. Stanford pointed out a variety of things and the five longest-standing trade agreements were some of the things he talked about. He referred to the trade agreement with the United States, Mexico, Israel, Chile and Costa Rica. Canada's exports to them grew more slowly than our exports to our non-free trade partners, while our imports surged must faster than with the rest of the world.

Mr. Stanford went on to say that if the policy goal was to boost exports and strengthen the trade balance, then signing free trade deals would be exactly the wrong thing to do in his opinion.

With Colombia there are outstanding issues related to labour and human rights issues that I referred to earlier. The same concerns apply to Jordan as they do to Panama.

With respect to Panama, one of the outstanding concerns has been the issue of tax havens and issues relating to money laundering, which has been talked about a lot in this House over the several years that we have been discussing and debating this particular agreement, as with other agreements.

I will put this concern into context. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, in response to issues relating to the Canada-Jordan FTA, in violation of human and labour rights and Canada's response, told this House:

...what both hon. members fail to realize is the entire issue of extraterritoriality. There are certain things we can do when negotiating with another country and certain things we cannot do because they are beyond our sphere of influence.

Even if it is beyond our sphere of influence, we should always push right to the wall to get clear benefits for Canada. Whether we are talking about human rights, money laundering or other issues pertaining to that, if we can use our leverage, we should be doing it far more forcefully.

Clearly there are benefits on both sides but there are far more benefits in my mind to Panama. Therefore, we should be using that opportunity with these agreements to get everything possible we can get out of it, not only for our country but also for the people who live in the other areas of the world that are affected by many of these agreements.

The question that must be raised is that where there are concerns and issues that would not be acceptable to Canada, we need to know what mechanisms within the agreement should be in place with countries where issues of concern are found to exist and persist. It is a question of signing an agreement and then raising it every once in a while, issues, again, about human rights or money laundering, but being able to do absolutely nothing about it and having them ignore the concerns we are raising.

What kind of strength do we have with these agreements? How many years would we allow all of this to go on before deciding to cancel an agreement because of clear violations of the rules?

Canada is earmarked out there when it comes to doing things right, or at least it used to be. We were well respected in the world because we would follow the agreement, we would ensure the agreements were fair on all sides and we would be respectful of the countries that were trying to grow, better themselves and make a better life for their people. Often we do not use enough of our country's strength to insist that there should be some improvements to areas that we have concerns about.

An example would be the Panamanian situation. When federal government officials testified before the international trade committee earlier last fall, they could not adequately address the money laundering and tax haven issues relating to Panama.

In December 2010, Panama signed a tax information exchange agreement with the United States, not with Canada. In testimony before the U.S. house ways and means subcommittee on trade on March 30, 2011, the research director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch also raised concerns with respect to the money laundering issue in the wake of the agreement between the U.S. and Panama. He said:

Panama promised for eight years to sign a Tax Information Exchange Agreement.... Yet when it finally signed a TIEA with the Obama administration in November 2010, the agreement did not require Panama to automatically exchange information with U.S. authorities about tax dodgers, money launderers and drug traffickers.

Those areas have weaknesses and, because of everybody's interest in signing these agreements, they often take one particular part of the puzzle and accept it and continue to work on the tax information issue or whatever other avenue to ensure that we stop money laundering and drug trafficking. We need to be stronger on these issues and use them as leverage.

In the previous Parliament, concerns were raised with respect to Panama being a tax haven in which instances of tax evasion and money laundering were found. Concerns were raised as to whether a free trade agreement should be proceeded with prior to a clear tax information exchange between Canada and Panama being in place.

We would be far better off to keep going slowly with this process until we have what we want, which is both of those agreements when it comes to sharing the tax. We would then be eliminating opportunities for money laundering, tax havens and other issues rather than signing the agreement and going forward in good faith, which is clearly what the government wants to do and what our party has decided to do as well. As of yet there is still no tax treaty or tax information exchange agreement signed between Canada and Panama nor an intention that it will be done.

The history, as we understand it, is as follows. Panama has asked that Canada enter into a more comprehensive double taxation treaty. Canada refused, asking instead for a more limited TIEA. Panama, which at that time had only entered into double taxation treaties, insisted on a double taxation treaty. Canada has not yet responded to this second request.

I will go back to who is in charge. I think the benefits to Panama are far better than the benefits to Canada so why would we turn around and continue to water down our leverage?

Members should note that all of the DTA's include tax information and exchange obligations between signatory countries based on article 26 of the OECD model convention. As of November 2010, Canada was party to DTA's with 87 countries, with 8 more signed but not yet in effect. As of November 5, 2010, Canada had signed 9 TIEA's, none of which are in effect.

In testimony before the international trade committee on September 29, reference was made to correspondence between Canada and Panama in which the latter was asked whether Panama had responded to the concerns expressed by Canada on the tax haven issue. According to DFAIT officials, no such response had been received.

There are a variety of concerns as we move forward. I know the government is anxious to move this forward but I hope we put in what is best for Canada first and Panama second, not Panama first and Canada second.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was shocked to learn in my research on the subject that there are almost 400,000 corporations registered in Panama, which is four times the number of corporations that we have in Canada. It makes one think that this is not just another developing nation but quite a unique developing nation.

I listened to the member's remarks regarding her fears about money laundering, the tax haven situation and the lack of tax treaties. Would she not agree that Panama itself, through a deliberate strategy, has become a magnate for these corporations that are trying to hide behind the lack of reporting requirements and the lack of transparency? Transparency International has spoken out about countries like Panama.

Did the hon. member watch the national news on TV last night? It had an exposé on Canadian mining companies and what they were doing in Panama. Does she make any kind of connection between Bill C-300 in the last Parliament, which was sponsored by her colleague, about corporate social responsibility and the egregious, outrageous behaviour of Canadian mining companies--

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I must give the hon. member time to respond.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague got all his points in order and just about took up the whole five minutes for a response.

I am very concerned with some of those issues and I think I had made those remarks. Signing free trade agreements are good and I believe in free in trade but I also believe in using the leverage that Canada should have to ensure we are doing our job of protecting Canadians and our companies, eliminating opportunities for money laundering and the drug trade, and all the rest.

My colleague for Scarborough—Guildwood had introduced his bill on what goes on in mining. All kinds of exploitation happen around the country and these agreements need to be clear. We need to know the check marks to get out of these deals. Where are our markers on these things when it comes to issue of human rights and so on? Where are the lines where we cancel these agreements, or are we just leaving ourselves wide open to 10 years of complaining and doing nothing if things do not go in the direction we want them to?

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. Basically I am in favour of free trade, especially if it is fair trade, if it benefits all parties and if it does not harm the environment or workers.

I am particularly interested in the issue of signing a free trade agreement with a country that is so well-known for money laundering and will not sign international conventions to prevent it. I would like to hear a little more about how the member feels about that.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I suppose that goes back to Canada being the one to sign the agreement when it meets a level of standard that we can say, “It is great that we got this agreement signed”. I would like to ensure that we have everything we need in there to protect Canada's interests and also protect the world's interests.

We should not just be looking at the ultimate dollars and cents that would be transacted. We need to look at what is good for the world. It is not a question of living in isolation and thinking only about Canada. We need to have the safeguards in place to ensure the world will be better off, not just Canada or Panama, within the agreement?

With a variety of things that continue to move forward, I would like to see more safeguards put on this issue. I think it would be very beneficial for the government to ensure there are some safeguards where, if within 12 months of an issue not being dealt with, the government would be able to cancel the agreement. I would much rather see that kind of clause in this agreement.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House of Commons today to speak on what I think is an important matter for our country and its standing in the world, and that is the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Specifically, I would like to address one important element of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement that has not received a lot of attention, and that is the provisions on government purchasing.

Our government has been at the forefront of efforts to expand and secure access to foreign government procurement markets. Why? According to OECD statistics, government purchasing plays a significant role in the economy of most countries. It accounts for approximately 10% to 15% of a country's GDP, amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars annually around the globe.

These markets present significant opportunities for Canadian suppliers. Through the negotiation of international trade obligations in this area, our government is working hard to enable Canadians to take advantage of these market opportunities. These obligations also support our own domestic interests in obtaining best value for Canadian taxpayers in government procurement. Increasing access, competition and fairness in government procurement serves this overall policy objective.

Lastly, our government actions help to promote an international framework for procurement, a framework that strengthens good governance through efficiency and effective management of public resources and through reducing corruption and conflict of interest in government purchasing around the globe. More accountability, more transparency and more value for taxpayers' dollars all help suppliers, governments and taxpayers to benefit from these efforts.

We seek to accomplish these goals by negotiating agreements such as the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement and specific chapters in Canada's comprehensive free trade agreements. I am happy to report that our government recently welcomed the successful conclusion of negotiations to modernize the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. This agreement was recently tabled before Parliament. As the tabling period ended on June 12, the government will now proceed to implement the agreement. However, our efforts to secure and expand opportunities for Canadian suppliers go well beyond the WTO.

Most of Canada's bilateral free trade agreements, from the North American Free Trade Agreement itself, NAFTA, to those with Chile, Peru and Colombia, have obligations on government purchasing, as they should. These obligations are based on a core set of principles: non-discrimination between domestic and foreign suppliers, transparency and fair process. These principles provide greater public access to information on government purchasing and a fair opportunity for suppliers to compete. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement being debated here today is another step in our efforts to fulfill these objectives and create jobs and economic prosperity for hard-working Canadians and to reach out to partners who we believe are making progress.

As many would know, Panama has a dynamic and rapidly growing economy, as has been referenced in the House many times, and Canada's businesses have long been interested in gaining or expanding access to this emerging market. Despite the global economic downturn since 2008, Panama's economy continues to show strong signs of growth and improvement in many areas, including some of the expressed concerns we have heard about tax laws. In fact, it is of interest to note that its political stability and progressive business environment have helped Panama achieve consistent average growth of 6% to 7% over the past several years.

Panama is also an ideal location for Canadian businesses seeking to expand and build long-term business ventures in the region. Often the most difficult contract to secure is the first one, so this agreement would make it easier for Canadian businesses to establish a credible presence in the region.

Panama's government and its markets, particularly in the areas of infrastructure, transportation and services, represent a significant opportunity for Canadian suppliers, particularly those in the engineering and construction industries and environmental technology. Perhaps the greatest example is the ambitious $5.3 billion project to expand the Panama Canal, which would be at the top of the list. Here was an opportunity for Canadian engineers and construction companies to bid on contracts, on what is, of course, a significant gateway for the shipping industry here in North America. The Panama Canal, as we know, serves as a key transportation hub between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. It is a significant driver of Panama's economy and many economies, including the Canadian economy.

Its expansion will lead to increased container traffic, some of which will access Canadian ports to supply the North American market. We know that post-Panamax vessels and super-post-Panamax vessels are now coming into ports around our country. This is a significant driver for the Canadian economy.

That said, the project for this canal's expansion is already well under way, so there is a timeliness aspect to moving forward on this free trade agreement. We must act quickly to ensure that Canadian companies will be given a fair opportunity to compete for a broad range of opportunities overseen by the Panama Canal Authority.

The opportunities exist well beyond this canal. In 2010, the Panamanian government announced an infrastructure plan valued at $13.6 billion over five years. This enormous infrastructure project has many projects that are well under way and progressing to build and improve roads and hospitals, social housing, bridges and airports. Among these projects is the Panamanian government's plan to construct a metro system, estimated at $1.5 billion.

These projects underscore the ambition of Panama's infrastructure plans and present, as I mentioned earlier, opportunities for Canadian companies and workers. These are just a few of the innovations that are happening in the region, where Canadian firms can position themselves and take advantage of this opportunity, should we enter into this free trade agreement in the region.

SNC-Lavalin is an obvious Canadian leader when it comes to these types of contracts. It was recently awarded a contract to help design and build the project infrastructure for the world-class copper mine in Panama. This award represents a tremendous opportunity, covering project infrastructure valued at $3.2 billion. The project is scheduled to be operational in 2016, and the mine is expected to have a life of about 30 years.

The Royal Canadian Mint has also been active through its production of the commemorative Balboa coins. B.C.-based Helitech supplies helicopter avionics technology to the Panamanian police. Kubik, a leading museum and gallery space creator from Mississauga, Ontario, has been awarded the design, development, installation and commissioning of Panama's biodiversity museum.

Canadian companies clearly have the expertise to meet Panama's development plans. These are competitive companies that are world leaders in many of these areas, particularly in engineering and design and construction.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement would guarantee access for Canadian suppliers to these types of procurement opportunities, reducing the risk of doing business in the region. Moreover, the free trade agreement would ensure that Canadian suppliers can compete and win on the same basis as their main competitors, mainly in the United States of America.

It is our job, as parliamentarians, as members of the government, to ensure that Canadian companies have secure access to opportunities of this nature.

This is very much in keeping with the plans and vision this government has for our country: to increase opportunities, to see our companies thrive in the international marketplace and continue to expand into areas like Panama and the region of the Americas.

They do this so that they can create opportunities, so they can create jobs, meaningful employment for Canadians, and prosperity for the shareholders in many of these companies, the employees and the communities.

I would now ask for the support of all members for the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. I believe this would be good for Canada. It would be good for our relationship in the region and continued opportunities that will open.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, the minister is looking for the support of the New Democratic Party, obviously, for this free trade deal. We have said over and over again that free trade must be based on consistent ethical behaviour on the part of those countries in the development of these relationships.

Quite clearly Panama, with its reputation for money laundering and its worldwide reputation for tax evasion, is one of those counties that is under question. We have heard some evidence that it has made some improvements in tax evasion, but at the same time, how are we guaranteed that this relationship will not actually lead to Canadian companies having more opportunities to move into areas of ethical behaviour that are really not appropriate?

If we are going into a free trade arrangement with a country that has a lower moral and ethical business environment, and we are bringing our companies in there on the basis of increased free trade, how is that going to improve the standing of Canadian companies in the world in a way we can respect as Canadians?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a legitimate question. The short answer is engagement. I would suggest to my colleague that the answer is through engagement, through encouraging countries like Panama to live up to those standards, the standards we expect of companies here in Canada.

We do know and he did reference the fact that Panama has come a long way. In fact, information that I have been provided, and that has been referenced by my colleague from London West earlier, indicates that in July the OECD formally placed Panama on a list of jurisdictions that have substantially implemented international standards for exchange of information.

We know it is a signatory to the labour organization. We know it has, in 1998 in fact, under the declaration of fundamental principles of rights to work, come forward with greater attempts at fairness and transparency, all of those things that we encourage here in Canada. So, there are strong signals that are being sent that Panama is improving.

I would suggest that giving Canadians opportunities, the ability to compete, to set a standard and to lead by example would improve Panama's overall quality of life and its standards, and it would look to Canada for example.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the two speakers from the Conservative Party, and I am wondering about a few things. One of the issues the last speaker talked about was development opportunities for Quebec and Canadian companies, including engineering companies like SNC-Lavalin.

I am wondering about the comments the previous speaker made about the hog industry in Quebec. He said that Quebeckers would potentially deprive themselves of exports in that sector. I checked my information and I noticed that we do not have any trade with Panama in pork. We trade with the United States, Canada, Japan, Russia, North Korea, and the list goes on, yet we have nothing with Panama.

I have a question that I would like to ask the hon. member: what are the chances that Panama would export more pork to Canada, rather than the other way around?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. It is obviously important to have opportunities in agriculture and other industries.

What I can tell my hon. friend is that the elimination of tariffs is what the free trade agreement would accomplish. That certainly has implications for the Quebec hog industry, for the forest industry in my own region of Atlantic Canada and, in fact, across the country.

I am told that the pharmaceutical industry, the aerospace industry and all of these are just a few examples of industries that would benefit from the reduction or the elimination of tariffs.

We also, as I mentioned in my remarks, would see companies like SNC-Lavalin and engineering firms have the ability to compete on a more level playing field for construction and projects such as the Panama Canal.

I would encourage my colleague and all my colleagues opposite to support the free trade agreement. There has been significant debate in this Parliament and the last Parliament. Time is of the essence and time is wasting.

For our economy, this is important. We need to move forward productively.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill today.

This bill started life as Bill C-46 in the last Parliament. The bill came to an end when the election was called. It was introduced in November of this past year and is now called Bill C-24.

I point that out because nothing has changed. There was an opportunity for the government to listen to all the debate, in committee and in this House, on the old bill and to make some adjustments and changes so the rest of the House could find it acceptable, and it did not. As a result, New Democrats continue to oppose this bill, for that reason and a number of others.

In the last Parliament, compelling testimony was heard from witnesses regarding the tax haven situation in the Republic of Panama, as well as the poor record of labour rights in the country. Motions and amendments that would address the glaring issues in the agreement were introduced by our member for Burnaby—New Westminster, but were opposed and defeated by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. The new legislation, despite a new and inspirational short title, does nothing to address the fundamental flaws of its previous manifestation, most importantly the tax disclosure issues that have yet to be meaningfully addressed, despite protestations to the contrary from the Panamanian government, and undoubtedly from the Conservative government, as we raise this issue.

Just before the clause-by-clause review of the old Bill C-46, our member for Burnaby—New Westminster proposed to the Standing Committee on Internation Trade a motion that would stop the implementation of the Canada–Panama trade agreement until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement. The member's motion was defeated by both the Conservatives and the Liberals, who argued that the double taxation agreement Panama had agreed to sign was satisfactory.

Unfortunately, the double taxation agreement only tracks legal income, while a tax information exchange agreement would track all income, including that made through illegal means. Considering Panama's history and reputation on such matters, it should be clear why such an agreement is necessary before signing a free trade deal.

Another issue is human rights in Panama and the complete failure of this trade agreement to ensure that these rights would not be denied to Panamanian workers as they have been in the past. Two amendments put forth in committee would have protected trade union workers in Panama by offering the right of collective bargaining as well as requiring the Minister of International Trade, as the principal representative of Canada on the joint Panama–Canada commission, to consult on a regular basis with representatives of Canadian labour and trade unions.

Like all other amendments, these were defeated by the Conservatives and Liberals. Unfortunately, this would create a free trade zone that belittles the rights of labour, a serious problem already prevalent in Panama.

In addition, two amendments regarding definitions were proposed. The first was regarding the definition of sustainable development. The amendment would define sustainable development as:

development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, as set out in the Brundtland Report published by the World Commission on Environment and Development.

The second amendment was regarding the definition of sustainable investment. The amendment would define sustainable investment as:

investment that seeks to maximize social good as well as financial return, specifically in the areas of environment, social justice and corporate governance, in accordance with the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment.

The NDP prefers a multilateral approach, based on a fair and sustainable trade model. In fact, bilateral trade deals amount to protectionist trade deals, since they give preferential treatment to a few partners and exclude the rest. This puts weaker countries in a position of inferiority vis-à-vis the larger partners. A multilateral fair trade model would avoid these issues while protecting human rights and the environment.

New Democrats reaffirm our vision for a fair trade policy that puts the pursuit of social justice, strong public sector social programs and the elimination of poverty at the heart of an effective trade strategy.

Canada's trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade that builds trading partnerships with other countries that support the principles of social justice and human rights, while also expanding business opportunity.

The federal government should stop exclusively pursuing the NAFTA model at the expense of all other alternatives, and then it should invest in other avenues of trade growth, including, above all, a vigorous trade promotion strategy that builds the Canadian brand abroad, along the lines of the Australian experience.

For example, it is shocking to see that the European Union spends in excess of 500 times more than Canada in promoting one single industry—in this case, its wine industry.

Fair trade should be the overarching principle, not just an afterthought of trade negotiations. The NDP strongly believes in an alternative and a better form of trading relationship that can be established with Panama and any other country, one that includes within an overall fair trade strategy the points that follow.

The first is to provide a comprehensive common sense impact assessment on all international agreements that demonstrates that trade deals Canada negotiates are beneficial to Canadian families, workers and industry. The government does not sign any trade agreement that would lead to a net job loss.

Second is ensuring that the trade agreements Canada negotiates support Canada's sovereignty and freedom to chart its own policy, support our ability to be a competitive force on the world stage and support the principles of a multilateral fair trade system.

Third is the fundamental principle that all trade agreements must promote and protect human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any product that is deemed to have been created under sweatshop conditions, forced labour or other conditions that are not in accordance with fundamental international labour standards and human rights.

The fourth is the fundamental principle that all trade agreements should respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems.

The fifth is that any time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to proceed with enabling legislation must be subject to a binding vote on whether or not to accept the terms of the agreement. The current system, which consists of tabling FTAs in the House for a period of 21 sitting days prior to ratification, is not mandatory and does not bind the government to a decision in the House.

In the last Parliament during the study of the bill, the committee heard testimony from Todd Tucker of the Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. Mr. Tucker made a compelling case that Panama is one of the world's worst tax havens and that the Panamanian government has intentionally allowed the nation to become a tax haven. The tax haven situation in Panama is not improving under the current government and conditions in Panama. In addition, a trade agreement with Canada would only worsen the problem and could cause harm to both Panama and to Canada.

Teresa Healy of the Canadian Labour Congress spoke to the committee regarding the agreement on labour co-operation. She testified that while the International Labour Organization's core labour standards are invoked, the agreement is still weaker than it should be. As well, the current Panamanian government has been increasingly harsh on labour unions and workers in recent years.

It is interesting to note that when my colleague from London West spoke, he indicated that there is some agreement on another trade deal, the Canada-Jordan trade deal.

While New Democrats are not against free trade, we believe it is important that it should always be fair trade. Unfortunately, in this situation it does not happen.

To be fair to the Conservatives, they have moved a little toward the centre. There was a time not so long ago when they would not have even talked about the environment or human rights.

I see my time is up. I look forward to any questions the House may have.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, as usual, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River has done a very thoughtful analysis of this bill. He talked a lot about what others have talked about here, such as money laundering and the lack of democracy and workers' rights, but I would like to raise a point to see if he finds it a concern also.

Panama's environment has a wealth of biodiversity. It is one of the countries with the most biodiversity in the world. The agreement does not deal with that at all, or with any protections for the environment. Panama has a lot of serious problems, including water pollution from agricultural runoff, threats to the fishery resource, endangerment of wildlife habitats and biodiversity, deforestation on a massive scale, land degradation and loss of wetlands.

I wonder if the hon. member is also concerned about that and wants to add anything.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for Thunder Bay—Superior North for that question. It allows me an opportunity to continue with the line of thought that I had a moment ago, that is, talking about the environment and human rights.

The government has moved on these areas. Before, it did not talk about it; now it has some side deals on it.

To answer my friend's question, the problem with the side deal on the environment is that it does not have any teeth. There is no enforcement. My question to the government with this and all of the other trade deals is this: if the government has started talking about human rights and the environment, why leave them as side deals? Why not put them into the body of the agreement so that there is some enforcement capability, so that the environment and human rights become part of the whole trade agreement and there is some enforcement? I think government members would be very happy to see that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to build on what my colleague was saying a minute ago. We know that even with NAFTA there is a framework for oversight on the environment and on labour, and that there is a panel to which citizens have recourse if they have a concern around what is happening with respect to the environment. It can be from Mexico, the United States or Canada.

That is not in this deal.

The notion that we cannot have binding and enforceable mechanisms in trade deals does not seem to make any sense. The government has said that is the best it can do, but we want responsible trade on this side, and the government wants to just simply sign off on whatever.

What does the member think about the mechanisms we have in existing trade deals, such as the ones I mentioned, and the ability to put those into future trade deals so that we actually have responsible trade?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

My friend from Ottawa is absolutely right. Responsible trade is the goal. Unfortunately, the Conservatives see having any kind of mechanism to protect the environment or to protect human rights built into the body of an agreement as frivolous. They see it as an opportunity for people to voice their concerns, but they are not interested in their concerns.

Those mechanisms can be built. They can be built in to work for all of the parties. It is distressing to see that the government does not seem to be interested in trade deals or in any other matter in which there is some questioning of its decisions. I do not think that is good for democracy and I do not think it is good for free trade agreements.

There are models, and it would be very easy to build these into free trade agreements so that there is a possibility for discussion and for enforcement and so that the world would see Canada as a leader in fair and responsible trade.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today about the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act. At a time when Canadian businesses are faced with tough economic challenges, the benefits that the Canada-Panama free trade agreement will provide are tremendously important to our economy.

This government clearly demonstrates that our top priority continues to be jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity, growth and prosperity that will benefit Canadian businesses, workers and their families. That is why the implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement is a priority for this government.

The economic benefits of the agreement are clear. A free trade agreement with Panama will give Canadian exporters, investors and service providers preferential access to one of the fastest-growing markets in the Americas.

Panama has a dynamic and rapidly expanding economy, with real GDP growth, estimated at 10.6% in 2011. Such remarkable growth produces tremendous economic opportunities. Once implemented, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement will help facilitate access to these opportunities for Canadian companies. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement will provide Canadian businesses with improved market access for goods and services, as well as a stable and predictable environment for investments in Panama.

Upon implementation of this agreement, Panama will immediately eliminate tariffs, representing approximately 90% of recent imports from Canada. Let me explain what these benefits actually mean for the various sectors of our economy.

First, for our agricultural sector, which in 2011 exported $23.6 million worth of agriculture and agrifood to Panama, the free trade agreement will immediately eliminate tariffs on 89% of Canada's current agricultural exports. This is important considering the current tariffs on Canada's main agricultural exports to Panama range from zero to as high as 70%. Products that will receive immediate duty-free access include beef, pork, frozen potato products, pulses, malt, oil seeds, maple syrup and Christmas trees, a cornucopia of Canadiana.

The free trade agreement will also benefit exports in non-agricultural sectors through the elimination of Panamanian tariffs, including pharmaceuticals, wood, pulp and paper products, electrical and industrial machinery, vehicles and auto parts, information and communications technology, the aerospace sector, plastic products, fish and seafood, as well as iron and steel products.

For the pharmaceutical sector, the elimination of Panamanian tariffs, ranging from 5% to 11%, will benefit Canadian exporters of many of these goods. For the pulp and paper sector, which exported to Panama $5.3 million worth of goods in 2011, the elimination of Panamanian tariffs, ranging from 5% to 15% on certain paper products, will benefit Canadian exporters of goods, such as books, wallpaper, packing materials, boxes and corrugated cardboard.

Tariff elimination of aerospace products will also enable Canadian exports to be more competitive in Panama. In 2011 Canada exported to Panama $8.1 million of aerospace products, including various ground flying trainers, turbo propellers and airplane and helicopter parts. The immediate elimination of Panama's 3% to 15% tariffs on aerospace products will promote the competitiveness of Canadian exporters of these products.

The information and communication technology sector, a sector of particular importance in my riding of Kitchener--Waterloo, will also benefit from this agreement. Canada exports a variety of information and communication technology products to Panama, representing about $4 million in 2011, and these include examples such as radar systems and machines for the reception and conversion of voice images or other data. The elimination of Panama's 3% to 15% tariffs on information and communication technology products will help Canadian exporters expand their presence in the Panamanian market.

While Panama is a signatory to the WTO information technology agreement, or the ITA, which eliminates duties on certain information technology products, the majority of Canada's information and technology exports to Panama are not covered by the WTO ITA and will therefore benefit from the elimination of Panama's tariffs through this free trade agreement.

However, there is more. This agreement is also expected to have a positive impact on the Canadian manufacturing sector, which as we all know has experienced some challenges in recent times.

In 2011 Canada exported $18.6 million of a variety of electrical and industrial machinery to Panama, including machinery for working rubber and plastics, machine tools for forging and stamping, as well as electrical switch boards and panels. A variety of Canadian machinery exports are currently subject to Panamanian tariffs, ranging from 3% to 15%. Tariffs on these products would also be eliminated.

As an additional case in point, I should also highlight the vehicles and auto parts sector. The elimination of Panamanian tariffs on vehicles and parts, which range from 3% to an astonishing 20%, will help Canadian businesses exporting these products.

As we can see, numerous sectors of the Canadian economy will benefit from this free trade agreement. By opening up foreign markets, we create opportunities for Canadian businesses in a wide range of sectors, which is crucial in our export-driven economy.

Certain members of Parliament continue to criticize the Canada-Panama free trade agreement, claiming that Panama is a “tax haven”. I would like to kindly remind those members that, in July 2011, the OECD formally placed Panama on its list of jurisdictions that had substantially implemented international standards for the exchange of tax information, commonly known as the white list. This important achievement demonstrates Panama's commitment to combat international tax evasion, and I trust it will appease the concerns regarding taxation.

Panama is committed to the implementation of this free trade agreement and has already completed its domestic ratification process. Canada cannot stand by while other countries forge closer economic ties with this strategic partner. Panama's FTA negotiations with the European Union were concluded in May 2010 and this agreement could possibly enter into force before the end of this year.

Even more important to Canada, however, our main competitor in the Panamanian market, the United States, has completed an FTA with Panama that the United States Congress has already approved. The United States-Panama trade promotion agreement could very well enter into force this fall.

Both the United States and the European Union will soon benefit from their trade agreements with Panama. If Canada does not quickly implement its free trade agreement with Panama, Canadian companies will be at a competitive disadvantage as competitors benefit from preferential access to the Panamanian market.

For all of these reasons, I ask all hon. members to support the swift implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in this House today to express my opposition to 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.

In spite of what Conservatives accuse, New Democrats do believe in trade. We do want to expand Canadian business and we do want to generate economic growth. However, the bill overlooks distressing concerns when it comes to Panama's record on environmental issues and workers' rights. New Democrats believe that we can do trade without it being ultimately harmful to the citizens of those countries and to the environment.

The NDP believes in free trade that is fair, viable and realistic, a fair trade policy that, as part of an effective trading strategy, prioritizes social justice, strong public sector social programs, poverty elimination, and a trade policy based on sustainable fair trade. These should be the guiding principles for trade negotiations, not afterthoughts.

The NDP is calling on the federal government to stop focusing exclusively on the NAFTA-based model and consider other alternatives. It should explore other ways to increase trade. There is another, better model of trade relations that could be established with Panama or any other country, a model that would include the following elements within a comprehensive fair trade strategy.

First, it includes a comprehensive and rational impact analysis for all international agreements to determine whether the trade agreements being negotiated by Canada are good for Canadian families, Canadian workers and Canadian industries. The government should not sign any trade agreement that is likely to lead to a net loss of jobs.

Second, this model includes a guarantee that trade agreements negotiated by Canada will strengthen Canada's sovereignty and its freedom to establish its own policy, that they will help make us a force to be reckoned with on the world stage and that they will support the principles of a fair multilateral trade system.

Third, this model follows the fundamental principle whereby all trade agreements must protect and promote human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any products considered to have been manufactured in sweatshops, by forced labour, or under any other conditions that do not meet basic international standards for labour or human rights.

Fourth, this model includes the fundamental principle whereby all trade agreements should respect the notion of sustainable development, as well as the integrity of all ecosystems.

Fifth, under this model, every time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to adopt the enabling legislation must be submitted to a mandatory vote on whether or not the terms of the agreement are acceptable. The current system, which consists of tabling a free trade agreement in the House for a period of 21 sitting days prior to ratification, is not mandatory and does not bind the government to accept a decision of the House.

Canada's trade policy should be based on the principles of fairness, sustainability and equity. This is how we can and should pursue real and sustainable economic growth, because sustainability will result in long-term economic health and prosperity for our country and the countries with which we do trade.

The NDP opposes this bill on free trade between Canada and Panama for one specific reason: we are worried about the rights of workers in Panama and we suspect that this trade agreement contains no provisions to ensure that the rights of Panamanian workers are not violated, as they have been in the past.

The New Democrats want the kind of growth that is mutually beneficial for our trading partners and their citizenry, not only because it is ethically right to do so but also because it is a safer long-term investment that will yield better growth over time.

Canada and Panama are not equals in trade, but the types of agreements and trade policies in the bill are meant to be between equal industrialized nations. One size does not fit all. We cannot be using this kind of trade agreement when we are talking about a country that is developing.

The reality is that our negotiations with Panama are exploitative. One-third of its population lives in extreme poverty. We want its resources but it will not act in good faith with its citizens to sell them to us. Canada must not take advantage of the needy in developing countries for us to grow economically.

We need to be more flexible in our trade policies so that they are suitable to the countries that we are brokering our deals with.

It should be clear by now that the NDP can only support trade deals when Canada can ensure that the foreign workers who labour to put money in our pockets and in the pockets of Canadian corporations and shareholders are entitled to the same human rights that Canadian workers enjoy. To strive for anything else would be pure hypocrisy.

If we sign a deal with Panama, it should offer Panamanians the right to collective bargaining, just like Canadians enjoy.

Panama has a bad human rights record. The House of Commons committee that studied this agreement heard some very compelling testimony about the fact that the Republic of Panama is a tax haven.

A tax haven is not exactly the type of country with which we should be negotiating this type of agreement. We should be negotiating with industrialized countries. This is a sign of problems to come for Canada.

Panama has refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement, which is a red flag. It is very troubling, given the high volume of money laundering activities in Panama, including laundering of money from drug trafficking.

This is extremely worrying. Panama refusing to sign a tax exchange information agreement is hugely problematic because such an agreement tracks illegal income, as well as legal income. There is an utter lack of transparency around Panama's tax system because, as the OECD has recognized, it is a tax haven for illegal activities, such as harbouring drug cartel money from Mexico and Guatemala. These drug cartels are wreaking havoc on the populations of countries like Mexico and Guatemala.

A few weeks ago, I was in Chile at the ParlAmericas delegation meeting about the summit for women parliamentarians of the Americas. We were talking about the violence against women in these countries, which is often linked to drug money, to illegal trafficking and to very well-coordinated problems that happen in South America, in Central America specifically. We should not be negotiating trade agreements with countries like Panama that do not allow us to see where this money is going when there is a problem that, collectively as the Americas, we are trying to solve. Canada cannot turn a blind eye to this extremely destructive source of illegal drug trade and the systems that facilitate that trade, such as Panama's tax havens.

The NDP cannot support this bill. We have tried to propose amendments to it. For example, my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster proposed amendments on sustainable development and responsible investment. Since the amendments were rejected by both the Conservatives and the Liberals, it is clear that there is no hope left of working together to conclude a good agreement.

That is why the New Democrats will not be supporting Bill C-24.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for her excellent speech. I would like to reiterate a few things she said. For one, the NDP are not against free trade agreements. However, we want good agreements that are well thought out. Unfortunately, there are shortcomings in this agreement, as my colleague pointed out.

Moreover, at the end of her speech, she mentioned amendments moved by our colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster concerning workers' rights. He proposed an amendment that would define sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, as set out in the Brundtland Report published by the World Commission on Environment and Development. Unfortunately, the amendment was rejected, to the detriment of workers in Panama.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for her question and the points she has made.

Our colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster moved amendments that would give workers the right to collective bargaining and would require the Minister of International Trade, Canada's main representative, to regularly consult with workers' representatives and unions. He also moved an amendment to define sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

I do not understand why there would not be support for such amendments. We are talking about social justice, the environment and long-term investments in people, our environment and our earth. Development must be sustainable in the long term for future generations.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I need to understand why the hon. member and the NDP believe in protectionism as an effective economic strategy for Canada. Why does she not see the value in Canada engaging with countries like Panama to negotiate free trade agreements, separate agreements on the environment and important labour standards and principles? Why would that not help bring countries like Panama into the community of nations and advance the important principles that we are so fortunate to adhere to here in Canada?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, one important point is that Panama is not a major trading partner of Canada. The two-way merchandise trade between the two countries only reached $149 million in 2008, which is less than 1%.

According to the U.S. department of justice, Panama is a major financial conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers' money laundering activities.

The NDP believes that NAFTA agreements were initially designed for trade between highly industrialized developed countries. However, Panama is a developing nation, as I mentioned in my speech. This trade deal will not help Panama grow sustainably or increase the standard of living for its citizens.

The amendments proposed by my colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster would have helped this agreement but, unfortunately, the other parties voted them down. Instead, this trade deal will increase the role and incentive for exploitation by multinational corporations and inequality will grow at a far greater pace and scale than was the case before because this is a developing nation.

That is why we are opposing this trade agreement. However, that does not mean that we oppose all trade. We want a fair trade agreement that is environmentally sustainable and fair for workers. That is what we want to see in these trade agreements and I do not think it is too much to ask.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. I would like to spend a few minutes explaining how this agreement fits into Canada's larger economic plan.

The government understands the importance of trade and the benefits it brings. As an export-driven economy, Canada must open its borders. One in five Canadian jobs is dependent on international trade. Thus, bilateral and regional trade agreements are key to ensuring Canadians' continued prosperity. That is why expanding Canada's trade relations to rapidly growing foreign markets, such as Panama, is an important part of our government's pro-trade plan to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

With the challenges in concluding the World Trade Organization Doha round, regional and bilateral trade agreements have taken on increased significance. The government also recognizes that there are a growing number of countries where Canadian companies are at a competitive disadvantage because their competitors have preferential market access under some form of preferential trade agreement.

Canada cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while other countries vigorously pursue trade deals to secure better market access for their products and services for their country. That is why our government is in the midst of the most ambitious pursuit of new and expanded trade and investment agreements in Canadian history.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is yet another step this government is taking to help Canadians compete and succeed in the global market. It supports the global commerce strategy which will ensure that Canada maintains its current economic strength and prosperity in an increasingly complex and competitive global economy.

With 60% of our GDP dependent on trade, it is completely clear that jobs and communities across Canada depend on the business we do with other countries. Our Conservative government's pro-trade plan is an essential contributor to Canada's prosperity, productivity and growth.

By improving access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses, we are supporting domestic economic growth and creating new opportunities for Canadian workers. Canada's exporters, investors and service providers are calling for these opportunities. Business owners and entrepreneurs want access to global markets.

This government is committed to expanding the various opportunities created by free trade agreements. Our track record speaks for itself.

Since 2006, Canada has established new free trade agreements with nine countries: Colombia; Jordan; Peru; the European Free Trade Association countries of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland; and more recently Honduras and Panama.

We are also negotiating with many other countries, including the European Union. A free trade agreement with the European Union would be the most significant Canadian trade initiative since the North American Free Trade Agreement and could increase trade with this important partner by 20%. Such an agreement would also give a $12 billion boost to the Canadian economy, which is equivalent to a $1,000 increase in the average national family income or the creation of 80,000 new jobs in Canada.

Canadian businesses recognize the many benefits a trade agreement between Canada and the European Union would have for workers and businesses.

We are also intensifying our focus on Asia. During the Prime Minister's visit to China in February 2012, leaders announced that Canada and China will proceed to exploratory discussions on deepening trade and economic relations on the completion of a bilateral economic study.

Also, this past March, the Prime Minister announced the launch of negotiations toward a free trade agreement with Japan and the start of exploratory discussions with Thailand.

Canada also continues to explore the possibility of participating in the trans-Pacific partnership, the TPP negotiations.

The potential benefits of these initiatives are enormous. However, that is not all. Canada is also committed to advancing our ongoing free trade negotiations with other partners, including India, Ukraine, Morocco, the Caribbean community and Korea. In addition, Canada is working to modernize its existing bilateral free trade agreements with Chile, Costa Rica and Israel, as encouraged in the exploratory discussions with Mercosur, the largest trading bloc in Latin America, made up of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.

All of these initiatives are critical for the economic future of our country. With the global economic recovery remaining fragile, it is important that Canada continue to deepen its trade and investment ties with strategic partners. Expanding Canada's trade and investment ties around the world will help protect and create new jobs and prosperity for our hard-working neighbours and for all Canadians.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is be yet another step in the right direction. This agreement represents an opportunity for Canadian businesses to grow and expand their operations in the growing and dynamic Panamanian economy.

The agreement would also reduce tariffs for Canadian producers who want to export to Panama. Upon implementation of the free trade agreement, Panama will immediately lift tariffs on 89% of all non-agricultural imports from Canada, with the remaining tariffs to be phased out in five to fifteen years. Tariffs will also be lifted on 89% of Canada's agricultural exports to Panama. This reduction in trade barriers will benefit a wide range of sectors across the Canadian economy, including fish and seafood products, paper products, vehicles and parts in the greater Toronto area, construction materials and equipment, industrial and electrical machinery and many more. This agreement will provide Canadian service providers with a secure, predictable, transparent and rules-based environment, which will facilitate access to Panama's $20 billion services market.

Panama is an established destination for Canadian direct investment abroad, particularly in the banking and financial services and construction and mining sectors. This proposed agreement will provide greater stability, transparency and protection for Canadian investments in Panama.

The free trade agreement will also better enable Canadian companies to participate in large projects, such as the $5.3 billion expansion of the Panama Canal, by providing non-discriminatory access to a broad range of government procurement opportunities in Panama to Canadian suppliers. This is an enormous opportunity for Canadian companies to compete.

For all these reasons, the free trade agreement between Canada and Panama is a good thing. It will support more Canadian jobs by improving our ability to export more products and services to this market. That is why implementing free trade agreements is a priority for our government.

I ask all hon. members to support Bill C-24, which aims to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Panama, as well as the side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite for her speech, and especially for how well she addressed the House in French. It was most pleasant to listen to.

I have a fairly simple question for my colleague about Bill C-24. We know that a tax information exchange agreement has not been signed with Panama. The only thing that has been signed is a double taxation treaty. However, that is not necessarily enough because it concerns only legitimate revenues. So any revenues or means that are considered illegal are not included. Illegal revenues could be included in a tax information exchange agreement.

I would like to know why we have not signed this tax information exchange agreement, since Panama has already signed them with major partners, including the United States.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the other side for her very kind words. In fact, as we enter into free trade negotiations with a number of countries, we are looking at providing greater stability and transparency for our companies. The ability to go out and trade freely and to compete on the global stage is something for which all Canadians are clamouring.

We will continue to negotiate with countries to ensure they have the most reliable regulatory framework possible. It is our intention to ensure that the rule of law prevails. That is exactly why countries engage in free trade negotiations, so their companies can compete and have some confidence that if they need to avail themselves of legal recourse, the laws will apply to them as foreign nationals.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Canada-Panama agreement is a bilateral agreement between two countries. When we look at the resources and trading power that Canada has compared to Panama at this stage, does she not feel that is an unbalanced relationship, that it actually opens the door for transnational corporations to exploit the people of Panama and does not lead to sustainable development, which is what Panama needs?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

In fact, Madam Speaker, what we have found historically is that when countries engage in free trade and residents prosper, people do better. They want opportunities and would like to compete. As I mentioned during my comments, a massive $5 billion construction project is about to get under way in Panama. We would like to provide our Canadian companies the opportunity to go there to compete and ensure that they are not at some sort of disadvantage because other countries have negotiated preferential agreements.

Panama is also a very critical hub to Central America and will allow an important foothold for our companies to go there, establish their beachheads and compete and create wealth for Canadians and foreign nationals.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question for the hon. member is this. Is she aware that the United States has resisted, based on advice in a 2009 report from its state department, signing any free trade agreements with Panama because of the serious problems in money laundering, banking, civil rights abuses, et cetera? If she is aware of that, why would Canada go where the U.S. fears to tread?

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to reassure the House that in fact Canada wants to send a very strong signal to ensure that the rule of law will always prevail. Panama has committed to implementing the OECD's regulations on the exchange of tax information. I would like to reassure the hon. member that we are actively considering this matter.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Simcoe—Grey many of the local businesses are very pleased with new free trade agreement. What type of impact is that having on the local businesses in my colleague's area.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, whether it is folks involved in the manufacturing of electronics, or auto parts or in the services industry, many of my neighbours and residents are chomping at the bit to compete on the world stage. They have great products and expertise and they do awfully well when they compete on the world stage. It means additional wealth for my neighbours.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

I think all hon. members will agree that this agreement opens up a wide range of exciting new commercial opportunities for Canadian businesses as well as investors.

In these difficult economic times, Canadians depend on governments to work together to pursue new opportunities in markets around the world. Opening new markets and promoting trade is a key part of this government's plan to create new jobs and improve the well-being of Canadians over the long term.

This government is committed to broadening Canada's trade relationships with regional partners like Panama. We will continue to fight to open markets for Canadian businesses to ensure they are well placed to compete in these difficult economic times.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is about more than just trade and investment. This government is committed to protecting the environment. Indeed, the government believes that trade liberalization and environmental protection can be mutually supportive goals. That is why, as part of the comprehensive free trade agreement, Canada and Panama are committed to strive for good environmental governance in order to protect the environment, while reaping the benefits of increased economic activity flowing from liberalized trade.

In addition, when Canada and Panama signed this free trade agreement, we also signed a parallel environmental agreement. The parallel environmental agreement commits both countries to pursue high levels of environmental protection and to continue to develop and improve their environmental laws and policies.

Recognizing the importance of environmental conservation and protection, as well as the promotion of sustainable development, the environmental agreement will require Canada and Panama to enforce their domestic environmental laws effectively and to ensure that they do not relax or weaken those laws to encourage trade or investment.

The agreement also includes important commitments to encourage voluntary best practices of corporate social responsibility by enterprises and to ensure that appropriate environmental assessment procedures are maintained in each country. In addition, the agreement reaffirms both countries' commitment under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to strengthen the protection of biological diversity and respect, preserve and maintain traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities.

Furthermore, the agreement contains commitments to promote public participation and transparency. It includes the mechanism for residents of Canada and Panama to ask questions of either party about the obligations or co-operation under the agreement.

In addition to these commitments and obligations I have mentioned, the agreement also establishes a framework between Canada and Panama for undertaking co-operative activities. Most specifically, Canada and Panama have agreed to work together to develop a co-operative work program to support the environmental objectives and obligations of the agreement, address environmental issues of mutual concern and enhance overall environmental management capacity.

Themes for co-operation would include topics ranging from conservation of biodiversity and migratory species to parks and protected areas management to cleaner production technologies and best practices for sustainable development.

In order to oversee the implementation of the agreement, it provides for a committee on the environment to be established. This committee would be made up of government representatives from Canada and Panama.

Finally, the agreement contains mechanisms to manage differences that may arise under the agreement. We recognize that in some cases non-compliance with the environmental agreement may be more a question of limited environmental capacity than a lack of commitment to the obligations. Therefore, our approach focuses on collaboration in order to seek constructive solutions and build an environmental management capacity rather than impose additional burdens.

Beyond the environmental agreement itself, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement includes a principles-based environmental chapter as well as environmental-related provisions in other parts of the FTA, highlighting the importance of environmental protection and conservation and the promotion of sustainable development.

For example, in the exceptions chapter of the agreement, Canada negotiated important environmental-related provisions stipulating that Canada and Panama could take environmental measures that were necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, provided that they were not applied in a discriminatory manner or represented a disguised restriction on international trade or investment.

In addition, Canada negotiated provisions that allow certain multilateral environmental agreements with trade-related provisions to prevail over the free trade agreement in the event of an inconsistency. As we can see, the parallel environmental agreement and the environmental-related provisions in the Canada-Panama free trade agreement are an important part of this initiative that would ensure increased trade does not come at the expense of the environment.

Through these agreements, Canada and Panama have demonstrated our commitment to protecting the environment. The agreement is yet another clear example of the government's approach to mutually supporting trade liberalization and environmental protection.

As the government continues to open doors for Canadian businesses abroad, we want to ensure that our presence is positive and that our activities are sustainable. We believe that free trade can play a positive role around the world. The environmental agreement with Panama is an example of just this. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement, complemented by its parallel environmental agreement, would create new commercial opportunities for Canadian businesses while ensuring the protection of our planet for future generations.

For these reasons, I ask all members of the House to support the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the bulk of the member's speech focused on the environment. The agreement says that neither party will do any damage to their domestic environmental laws. Could the member comment on what she feels Bill C-38 would mean in terms of Canada's environmental laws in the context of this free trade agreement? Does she see that many of us feel that Bill C-38 actually reduces Canada's environmental protection and what does she think it means in this context?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, Bill C-38 enhances environmental protection and creates an opportunity for sustainable environmental development.

I would just like to stay focused on what we are contemplating today. From the standpoint of provisions with respect to the environment and the Canada-Panama free trade agreement, as I mentioned in my speech, the agreement on the environment commits both countries to pursue a very high level of environmental protection, to improve and enforce environmental laws effectively and maintain appropriate environmental assessments. We are making sure that we have sustainable development while still having protected environmental programs in place, whether through this trade agreement or others that we will do in the future.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we worked on this issue with Panama in previous Parliaments, as was mentioned by others. Why is it important for Canada to be moving forward with free trade agreements around the world, including this one with Panama? What will that do for the Canadian economy, and why is it important at this time, based on the world economic situation?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burlington has done such great work in the House.

The bilateral agreements between Canada and Panama have totalled, just in 2011 alone, over $235 million. The member asked what the benefits are. My riding of Simcoe—Grey is here in the province of Ontario and the benefits are substantive, whether that be the elimination of tariffs on key exports in this province, focused mainly on construction machinery, electronics, chemicals, or pharmaceuticals like Baxter, in Alliston, or making sure that they have the opportunity to expand their markets, thereby expanding what they are exporting, and create jobs. That is what this is all about. It is about creating jobs in the long run for Canadians so they can have a better quality of life.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to drill down a bit more on this agreement. Last night on CBC we saw a documentary on mining in Panama and the effects that it is having on the population and the environment, killing fish and lakes. Could the member tell me exactly where the binding framework is for Panama and Canada when it comes to the environment under this agreement?

We can have a side agreement, but if we do not have a binding framework agreement where citizens can come forward and raise concerns, like we do in NAFTA, it is only worth the paper it is written on, which is not a lot.

Can the member point out what section of this agreement would allow for a binding framework agreement when it comes to the environment?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, there is a separate agreement on the environment that would commit both countries to pursue a high level of environmental protection. The agreement on the environment includes provisions for encouraging the use of best practices in corporate social responsibility, and a commitment to promote public awareness so that members of the public may step forward and express their concerns with respect to environmental laws.

The agreement reaffirms the country's international commitments under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to promote conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, as well as to respect, preserve and maintain the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous peoples.

We are moving forward substantially on this. As I mentioned before, we want to be focused on sustainable development while we are still focused on environmental protection. That is exactly what this free trade agreement is doing.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am no longer a member of international trade committee, but I enjoyed my time there immensely. Over a year ago, prior to the previous election, we were working on this same agreement then. Checking with one of the people in the lobby, we worked out that there were over 50 hours of debate on this minor treaty alone. To those who are wondering about whether the House sufficiently debates issues, the answer most clearly is yes. I do not blame the people of Panama or the government for being a bit frustrated with Canada that we have yet to implement this treaty.

I am pleased to rise today to talk about Bill C-24 and the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. This agreement would provide benefits to Canadians in numerous sectors, and hopefully I will have time to get through most of them. In particular, I wish to speak about the services sector.

As many hon. members I am sure are aware, the Panamanian economy is built on the service sector. Panama is not known as a manufacturing hub. It is perhaps best known for its canal and for the strategic position it provides to the world in the transportation of goods.

Panama offers opportunities for Canadian service providers in a broad range of commercial services, financial services and temporary entry for business persons. This free trade agreement would expand opportunities in these key areas and others.

In 2009, which according to my notes is the latest possible data, Canadian commercial services exports to Panama amounted to $48 million. During the negotiations with Panama, our government's approach was to develop substantive provisions to govern cross-border trade in services as well as to provide a level of market access similar to that afforded under NAFTA. Canada sought similar treatment as afforded to the U.S. under its free trade agreement with Panama. This is important because we are going to be competing with American businesses as we try to sell to Panama.

When it comes to free trade, a lot of the benefits are derived from buying and importing from countries so that we acquire lower-cost goods, but we are also interested in selling to Panama and obtaining the same treatment so that we are on level ground with the United States, one of our major competitors. This is yet another example of how our government is committed to achieving a level playing field for Canadian businesses around the world.

Free trade is a cornerstone of our economic success as a nation. Our ambitious pro-trade plan is helping to open doors for our businesses around the world, including in Panama.

The free trade agreement contains strong provisions to provide access on a competitive basis. The agreement provides market access beyond Panama's obligations under the WTO and GATT, particularly in areas of Canadian expertise and export interests, which include mining and energy-related services, professional services, which involve engineering and architectural services, environmental services, distribution and information technology.

The services and services-related provisions of the agreement would benefit Canadian exporters, particularly small to medium-sized enterprises, through the implementation of principles and conditions of regulatory stability as well as fair and equitable treatment. Regulatory stability is important not just as has been demonstrated in our current budget, but in our agreements around the world.

Canadian services exporters would also benefit from provisions designed to increase transparency of regulations, including increased transparency on access for temporary entry for a broad range of service providers.

The agreement also provides a framework for the negotiation of mutual recognition agreements respecting professional licensing and qualification requirements and procedures.

Consistent with past practice, Canada has taken reservations in this free trade agreement to maintain full policy flexibility in areas of domestic sensitivity, including social services, health and public education. There is no concern or fear-mongering necessary in those areas.

Another area of service that is of particular interest in dealing with Panama is financial services. In this area the agreement establishes NAFTA equivalent access for all financial services in respect of right of establishment, full national and most favoured nation treatment, certain cross-border commitments and various other carve-outs.

In terms of provincial government measures, the openness of the provincial financial sector framework was bound at existing levels. As members probably know, Canadian firms are among the top financial providers in the world, and we are proud of their success.

This free trade agreement would enable them to succeed in the dynamic and growing Panamanian market. In terms of sector-specific market access commitments, the levels of access Panama offered to Canada achieved parity with what was offered to the U.S. through the trade promotion agreement.

The portfolio management commitment, however, would only take effect at the time the U.S. trade promotion agreement comes into force. Importantly, Canada has achieved the same treatment as the U.S. in respect of ownership of insurance brokerages, pension fund management and securities dealers' requirements.

Canadian financial institutions expressed significant interest in expanding relations with Panama through a free trade agreement. If members have ever been to Latin America, they will have seen that Scotiabank very much plants the Canadian flag all over the continent of South America and Latin America. Scotiabank, for example, currently operates 12 branches in Panama City that offer a wide variety of banking services. These include corporate and commercial lending facilities, project and trade financing, cash management services and personal retail banking services.

These institutions supported a free trade agreement to better position Canadian business vis-à-vis competitors in this market, particularly those that already benefit from preferential trading agreements with Panama, and to institutionalize investments and dispute settlement protection for existing investments.

I will wrap up with just a few brief words about the temporary entry for business purposes, again, something that helps to expand the delivery of services to Panama and increases our service sector in Canada with its export.

The service provisions of this trade agreement address the important question of temporary entry for business people. The temporary entry chapter takes important steps to address barriers that business persons might face at the border, such as limits on the categories or numbers of workers who can enter the country to work or provide services.

Temporary entry provisions are important because they facilitate entry for covered business persons by eliminating the need to obtain a work permit for business visitors and by eliminating the need to obtain a labour market test and/or economic test for other categories. They also would exempt certain occupations from numerical restrictions, such as domestic/foreign proportionality requirements and quotas with respect to the hiring of foreign nationals at a single enterprise.

This free trade agreement would ensure the secure, predictable and equitable treatment of service providers from both Panama and Canada. It would give Canadian companies enhanced access to the Panamanian market, which offers numerous opportunities including the ongoing multi-billion dollar expansion of the Panama Canal. This is a free trade agreement that would benefit service providers and all Canadians.

Let me also add that one of the things we must always recognize with all free trade agreements is that all parties can benefit. Trade is not a zero-sum game; it is something that expands the possibilities for both consumers and exporters on both sides of the equation. This has been recognized by economists for hundreds of years. In fact there are many people who will look at trade as one of the best ways to alleviate poverty in countries that have not achieved the economic success of Canada, including in areas of income inequality, an area about which I am sure opposition members will be most interested in asking questions.

I encourage all hon. members to vote for this agreement, an agreement that would bring Canada and Panama closer together and increase the wealth of all Canadians.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that there was quite an interesting documentary on CBC last night, The New Conquistadors. It was focused on Panama, specifically mining in Panama. It talked about the toxic tailings ponds that are killing fish in lakes and water and the fact that indigenous people are being pushed off the land. Canadian mining companies are the ones that are involved here. We have indigenous people protesting in front of Canadian embassies. As a result, sadly, of the protest two people have been killed recently.

I say that because one of the issues around this trade deal is: Where is the binding framework agreement when it comes to environmental standards? I asked the member's colleague earlier if he could point out where it is in this agreement. He basically said that it was a side agreement and would promote the ideas of sustainability, et cetera, but there is no binding framework agreement that is actually going to be solid, like we have in NAFTA.

If I am missing something here, maybe the member could enlighten me. If not, why do we not have a solid binding framework agreement that is going to be something we could actually show people, to demonstrate we are being responsible when it comes to the environment?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, but there is a presupposition there that I do not necessarily buy into, which is that the democratic government of the country of Panama cannot protect its own citizens.

I did not see the documentary last night, but I am aware of documentaries that have said similar things about Canadian mining projects in Canada. Possibly sometimes those are true. Does that mean Canada has had poor environmental practices? Does that mean that the Panamanian democratically elected representatives cannot implement their own environmental laws?

We should not stereotype countries that are less economically developed than Canada that they do not have their own democratic institutions to defend and decide their own responses to environmental, labour and other issues. That there are protesters and discussion about it means there is a good democratic and robust discussion in Panama that the Panamanian people will resolve.

It is positive that we have an environmental agreement, but do we absolutely need a binding agreement with them? Not necessarily.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to concerns expressed in this and previous Parliaments with respect to Panama being a locale for money laundering and a tax haven.

My concern specifically relates to the protracted negotiations that went over some eight years before the United States was finally able to sign a tax information exchange agreement with Panama. Even within that tax information exchange agreement, the level of disclosure was not ideal. It was certainly less than ideal. In other words, the Panamanians were quite reluctant to provide the level of disclosure the Americans wanted. What concerns me is that after all that, Canada does not yet have a tax information exchange agreement with Panama, and here we are passing legislation with respect to free trade.

Does my colleague opposite share my concern with respect to a tax information exchange and entering into a closer business relationship with a country where these concerns with respect to money laundering and a tax haven have been expressed?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and I am glad to note that he did not make the mistake that some other members have made in this House when they referred to old data that Panama was on the OECD's watch list. In fact, Panama has made enough agreements with enough countries that it has been pulled off the black list or grey list, and now that situation has changed.

With respect to dealing with the United States, I would remind the hon. member, and I am not familiar with all the details, that Canada right now is having a little problem with the overreaching elements of the American Internal Revenue Service with its demand for financial institution on Canadians and Canadian institutions that have dealings with Americans or are American born. We all have constituents who were born slightly south of the line who are now being hassled or have the fear of being hassled. Therefore, I would not necessarily share that concern, because the United States can be extraordinarily aggressive in reaching out to the world.

The final point I would make to the hon. member is the fact that Canadian financial institutions, which are deeply tied into Canada on an economic basis, are going to be expanding there, and I mentioned Scotiabank in my speech. I think they would provide some reassurance that the standard business practices in Panama going forward would be increasingly aligned with countries like Canada. Scotiabank has a vested interest there to make sure their reputation is spotless in actions, words and deeds.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-24. The Liberal Party has long been in support of opening new markets on the basis of fair trade. We will be supporting this particular legislation. We do have some concerns, given the obvious bipartisan support, that this is yet another instance where time allocation has been imposed, but nonetheless, the Liberal Party stands in support of the content of the legislation.

One of the key concerns with respect to our trading relationship with Panama, and this has been evident with respect to the government's free trade agenda, is about the domestic practices within some of the countries where we are seeking to have new trade arrangements. An additional point to be kept in mind, and one the government would do well to carefully consider, was raised by Jim Stanford of the Canadian Auto Workers, who appeared recently at the international trade committee.

Part of his presentation outlined the following, with respect to the lack of apparent benefits derived from free trade agreements. Mr. Stanford, before the committee, reviewed the five longest-standing trade agreements. He said:

...with the United States, Mexico, Israel, Chile and Costa Rica. Canada's exports to them grew more slowly than our exports to non-free-trade partners, while our imports surged much faster than with the rest of the world.

Mr. Stanford went on to say:

If the policy goal (sensibly) is to boot exports and strengthen the trade balance, then signing free-trade deals is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Looking back on some of the previous free trade agreements, with Colombia there were outstanding issues with respect to labour and human rights, and the same concern applied in Jordan. With respect to Panama, one of the outstanding concerns, as I raised in my question just a few moments ago, is the issue of tax havens and issues related to money laundering.

Just to put this in context, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade , in response to issues on the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement and violations of human and labour rights and Canada's response, told the House

...what...members fail to realize is the entire issue of extraterritoriality. There are certain things we can do when negotiating with another country and certain things we cannot do because they are beyond our sphere of influence.

The question that must be raised, of course, is: What mechanisms within any agreement should be in place with countries where issues of concern are found to exist and persist?

For example, with respect to the Panamanian situation, when federal government officials were testifying before the international trade committee last fall, they could not address adequately the matters of money laundering and the tax haven issues related to Panama.

Again, as I indicated earlier in my question to the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, in December 2010, Panama signed a tax information exchange agreement with the United States. In testimony before the United States' House ways and means subcommittee back in March of last year, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch research director raised concerns with respect to the money laundering issue in the wake of the agreement signed between the U.S. and Panama. He said:

Panama promised for eight years to sign a Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA). Yet when it finally signed a TIEA with the Obama administration in November of 2010, the agreement did not require Panama to automatically exchange information with U.S. authorities about tax dodgers, money launderers and drug traffickers.

In the previous Parliament, concerns were raised with respect to Panama as a tax haven in which instances of both tax evasion and money laundering were found. Concerns were raised as to whether a free trade agreement should be proceeded with, without a clear tax information exchange between Canada and Panama in place.

There is as yet no tax treaty or tax information exchange agreement between Panama and Canada.

The history, as we understand it, is this: Panama asked that we enter into a double taxation treaty, which is more comprehensive than a tax information exchange agreement; Canada refused and asked for a more limited, less all-encompassing agreement; Panama, which at the time had only entered into double taxation treaties, insisted on a double taxation treaty; Canada has not yet responded to this second request.

All double taxation treaties include information exchange obligations between signatory countries. That is because of the model convention of the OECD. As of November 2010, Canada was party to double taxation agreements with 87 countries, with eight more signed but not yet in effect. As of November 2010, Canada had signed nine tax information exchange agreements, the less robust agreements, and they were yet to come into effect.

In testimony this past fall before the international trade committee, reference was made to the correspondence between Canada and Panama, in which the latter was asked whether Panama had responded to the concerns expressed by Canada on the tax haven issue. According to Department of Foreign Affairs officials, no such response had been received.

This past December, during debate on Bill C-24, the parliamentary secretary went to considerable lengths to express his confidence in the commitment by Panama to improve its exchange of tax information and went to great lengths to reference the OECD statement acknowledging the progress of Panama in that regard. However, the issue of tax havens and money laundering is and should be of concern to the government.

It is unfortunate that the parliamentary secretary apparently did not read the statement issued last July by the OECD, which states that the OECD's Global Forum:

...must still evaluate whether Panama's domestic laws will allow for effective availability, access to and exchange of information.... The government has introduced domestic changes so that the agreements can be effective. The Global Forum will follow up to make sure they work as intended. It is important that Panama continues to work to fully implement the standards.

Article 6 of the agreement between the United States and Panama on the issue of tax co-operation and information, entitled “Possibility of declining a request”, states that the “The competent authority of the requested Party may decline to assist”.

To conclude, the Liberal Party will be supporting this agreement. We feel, in the circumstances, that the discussions and negotiations between the two countries with respect to the exchange of tax information should be at a more advanced stage before we as parliamentarians consider this legislation and we raise that as a concern, but it will not be a significant enough concern to prevent us from supporting the agreement.

We would encourage the government to proceed as rapidly as possible to ensure that the issues with respect to tax havens and money laundering with our trade partners in Panama are properly and adequately addressed.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member say that he will be supporting this agreement. Obviously there has been great consideration given as to how important this agreement is to Canada. I would like my colleague to explain to the House why he feels it is good to support this agreement. I am really glad to hear that he is going to. Perhaps he could give the rest of us some insight as to why he feels this measure is worthy of being supported.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is and always has been supportive of free trade and of anything that serves to break down barriers between countries, as long as concerns with respect to environmental matters, taxation and human rights are addressed.

It is important to break down barriers to encourage business between countries. It is a help to our exporters and importers to remove tariff barriers or other potential impediments to trade. It is all about providing greater opportunity to Canadian exporters and importers, as is the nature of any free trade agreement. The key is balance, and that is what I attempted to address in my remarks.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the member's opening comments he mentioned there was time allocation on this bill. Once again we have a bill with some important repercussions, yet debate is going to be finished in a mere few hours on this particular section of the legislation.

Could the member comment specifically on the time allocation? Members opposite have said this bill has been back a number of times. However, clearly there are still some gaps in it, and the member identified some of that. I wonder what he feels about continuing to shut down the process so that parliamentarians do not have the opportunity to fully engage in debate, call appropriate witnesses and so on.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. It almost seems as though it is a reflex in this Parliament to introduce legislation and then limit debate. It somehow has become automatic, and that is most unfortunate.

In the course of my remarks I indicated my concern over the lack of any solid agreement with respect to the exchange of tax information. That aspect could and should be addressed before this bill goes forward. Tactics such as time allocation prevent that from happening. It is unfortunate, but it seems to be ingrained in the government and in this Parliament.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Liberal Party talked about the problems that free trade with some countries might pose.

I would like to know if he agrees with us. The Conservatives are giving us the impression that they are putting the blinders on and closing their eyes as soon as we talk about free trade. That way, they cannot see the possibility of tax evasion and violations of human and workers' rights.

Does the hon. member agree with us that we have to make sure not to sign free trade agreements at any cost, and that we have to look at what is happening in foreign countries?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do not fully agree with the hon. member.

It is very important to protect human rights and workers' rights, but it is also important to have a good trade environment. Both are important. We have to take both these interests into consideration.

This is all about balance. All too often my colleague's party, the NDP, errs on the side opposite commerce, and it would be very bad for the country if it were the will of Parliament to constantly err away from the side of economics. There does have to be balance, and I do appreciate that.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House to talk about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

The House has spent considerable time debating the key elements of this trade agreement. We are aware that Panama is already a significant trade partner for Canada, with two-way trade totalling over $235 million in 2011. Panama is an established market for Canadian exports and holds significant potential for Canadian businesses.

We have also heard about the tremendous opportunities that exist in Panama with respect to government procurement. In addition to the ongoing USD $5.3 billion Panama Canal expansion project, the Government of Panama has numerous infrastructure projects either under consideration or already in progress to build or improve ports, roads, hospitals, social housing projects, bridges and airports. These projects are part of the Panamanian government's USD $13.6 billion strategic investment plan for 2010-2014. A country like Canada, with so much expertise, can take advantage of these significant opportunities in Panama.

Panama is also a strategic destination for Canadian investment, with the stock of Canadian investment in Panama reaching over $121 million in 2010.

However, looking beyond this investment, government procurement and market access for goods, this agreement is a comprehensive free trade agreement with obligations that extend well beyond these subjects to include other areas of importance to Canadian businesses.

The free trade agreement provides comprehensive obligations in areas such as financial services, temporary entry of business persons, electronic commerce and telecommunications, and competition, monopolies and state enterprises.

Canadian banking is consistently recognized as among the best in the world. In fact, the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world for four years in a row. This is an area where Canada is truly excelling.

The Canadian financial services sector is a leader in providing high-quality and reliable financial services. Across the Americas, Canadian banks are helping foster economic growth through access to credit and other financial services. In Panama specifically, Canadian financial institutions such as Scotiabank have an active presence and offer a wide variety of banking services. This agreement will help those Canadian financial institutions take advantage of opportunities in Panama.

On financial services, this agreement provides market access parity with what Panama offered to the U.S. through the trade promotion agreement and contains a robust prudential carve-out. This agreement includes comprehensive obligations for the financial services sector, including banking, insurance and securities.

These market access commitments are complemented by key obligations that ensure non-discrimination, provide a right of establishment for financial institutions, and promote regulatory transparency in the financial sector. These are key elements that the Canadian financial services sector is seeking in order to ensure that it is able to compete in an increasingly competitive global market. This government is responding to this demand.

Another important area included in this trade agreement to ensure that businesses are able to fully maximize the opportunities in Panama is temporary entry for business persons. This is an important issue for Canadian businesses to ensure that their employees are able to work in Panama and is a natural complement to market access for goods, services and investment.

In recognition of a significant number of Canadian companies operating in the region, the agreement removes unnecessary barriers impairing the ability of companies to bring in the skilled workers they need. These would include impediments such as the requirement for labour certification, tests, quotas, proportionality requirements or any other prior approval procedure.

The agreement extends to an extensive list of professions, including various technicians and provisions for spousal employment.

The strength of this free trade agreement does not stop there. It also extends into the areas of electronic commerce and telecommunication. Electronic commerce is an important addition to previous free trade agreements in light of the importance of ensuring that no digital economy issues, such as the protection of personal information, consumer protection and paperless trade, are overlooked. These are issues that are increasingly important for businesses in the 21st century and Canada and Panama have recognized this fact.

In the free trade agreement with Canada, Panama has agreed to a permanent moratorium on customs duties for products delivered electronically. This includes items such as electronic software, music purchased online and digital books. This moratorium is important, not only for businesses but for consumers as well.

In addition to electronic commerce, telecommunications provisions were also included to support the competitive development of the telecommunications sector. Through this free trade agreement, Canadian telecommunication service providers will be able to better compete with their American counterparts in the Panamanian market.

Clearly there are many benefits to this free trade agreement with Panama that go beyond trade in goods and investment.

The final area that I will touch on is the obligation in the free trade agreement related to competition, monopolies and state enterprises. This agreement meets Canada's objective of ensuring that anti-competitive business practices and the actions of monopolies or state enterprises do not undermine the benefits of trade and investment.

Canada and Panama will co-operate on issues relating to competition policy through their respective authorities. The obligations ensure that Canadian companies doing business in Panama are treated fairly. There are many other areas of agreement that will offer real commercial benefits to Canadian companies.

Overall, this is a high quality and comprehensive trade agreement. It will allow Canadian businesses to compete and excel in the Panamanian market. This is a market where many key exporters are seeing enormous potential.

According to a recent report published by the Global Centre for Aviation, Panama has the fastest growing economy in all of Latin America and is expected to have the fastest growing economy in Latin America for the next five years. Panama's real gross domestic product growth for 2011 is estimated at 10.6%. That is a faster growth than many other rapidly emerging economies and clearly illustrates that the commercial potential in Panama is very significant.

It is important that Canadian firms establish an early presence in this emerging market and build solid relationships that will provide them with a competitive edge.

Panama holds a unique and influential position in the global trading system, thanks to the Panama Canal. Panama represents an entry point to the broader region, thereby enabling access to neighbouring markets. This growth, driven by the expansion of the Panama Canal and other major infrastructure projects, represents tremendous opportunities for Canadian businesses. This country's sound macroeconomic policy and improved security have resulted in favourable economic conditions and stronger demand for imported products. This represents new opportunities for Canadian exporters.

This free trade agreement has the support of key exporters and investors across Canada and its passage through this House will ensure that Canadian businesses are able to take advantage of opportunities in this important market.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on her speech.

We know that a free trade agreement between Panama and Canada was signed on May 14, 2010. In that agreement, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of International Trade—the same two we have today—stressed that Canada and Panama would respect the fundamental labour rules and standards set out by the International Labour Organization.

Could the hon. member tell us if compliance with those standards will be required in the new agreement?

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member opposite that our government will only be signing agreements that are in the best interests of Canadians. I am quite certain that she will find her question falls into that rank.

Global trade is vital to our economic prosperity. A country like Canada, with so much expertise, can now take advantage of these significant opportunities in Panama. This will help ensure Canada's growth, prosperity and strength.

I ask members to share in our vision and support this agreement.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite for her speech.

I would like to ask about the lack of an agreement on exchanging tax information in this free trade accord. Usually, the answer we get is that Panama has agreed to sign a double taxation convention with Canada. But that type of convention only deals with legitimate income. However, we know that a lot of income in Panama is obtained illegally. Exchanging information through a tax information exchange agreement makes it possible to track all types of income, including illegal ones.

Why did Canada not want to put more pressure on Panama so that we would have an agreement of that kind, given that the United States signed such an agreement with Panama in 2010?

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I guarantee and assure the member that our government will be looking for factors and concerns like this and will only sign the agreement once it is sure the best interests of all Canadians have been taken care of.

This free trade agreement has the support of key exporters and investors across our country. Its passage through the House will ensure that Canadian businesses are able to take advantage of many opportunities in this important market. This will ensure Canada's growth, strength and prosperity. It is part of our global trade and part of our economic prosperity. Canadians elected us to do what is best for them.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would be so kind as to expand on the importance of free trade agreements and the importance of growing Canada's economy, along with world economies, with free trade agreements. Our government has put a lot of new free trade agreements together which has helped to keep our economy in good stead.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is well-known that Canada works to produce a trade industry across our country. This agreement will not only help one province but all the provinces will benefit from it.

It is important that Canadian firms establish an early presence in this emerging market and build a solid relationship that will provide them with a competitive edge.

Trade has always been a powerful engine for Canada's economy and so it is with this Panama trade agreement as well.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-24,, an act to implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. It will be of no surprise to those in this House that I will be speaking against this agreement because of my strong concerns about the impact of free trade agreements that lack adequate environmental, labour and human rights safeguards.

While this package does include side agreements on labour co-operation and environment, both of these are extremely weak. The Conservatives and the Liberals joined together to defeat amendments proposed by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster which would have strengthened those agreements by providing both dispute resolution mechanisms and enforcement mechanisms. Without those safeguards, I cannot support this free trade agreement.

In debate today, some members on the other side of the House have asked the New Democrats, as the official opposition, why, if we supported the free trade agreement with Jordan, we were not supporting the agreement with Panama. Part of that answer lies in the differences in the agreements that I just mentioned. The side agreements in the Jordan free trade agreement were far stronger, had enforcement mechanisms and had dispute resolution mechanisms included in them. There is a difference in the agreements themselves.

The other part of that is the feeling I have that we ought to choose our partners very carefully when entering into closer economic associations. There are large differences between Jordan and Panama. For instance, Jordan is not a tax haven while Panama continues to refuse to implement a tax information exchange agreement with Canada. That lack of transparency means that Panama remains a major centre for money laundering, especially from the drug trade.

When I hear members on the other side talk about the provisions in this agreement for closer relations in financial institutions, this raises a big red flag for me about why we would want closer relations with a country that lacks that transparency and is a major transfer point and money laundering point for the drug trade in the Americas.

Again, on the question of why Jordan and not Panama, one only needs to look at the human rights and labour standards of these two countries. Here again, Jordan has made great progress and Panama has not. Jordan has made progress in raising labour standards and enforcing those standards, including several recent raises to the minimum wage and activities to try to enforce basic safety in the workplace conditions.

Panama has made no such progress. In fact, in Panama, the existence of sweat shops and other exploitive labour practices remain a real problem. Labour organizers working on these issues also come under very severe pressure, both from the government authorities and under threats from unidentified forces who we can only imagine are perhaps associated with those other illegal activities in Panama.

Not only do labour organizations face human rights threats in Panama, so do journalists attempting to cover labour and justice issues in Panama. Professional organizations of journalists have reported that over half the working journalists in Panama now face or have faced criminal defamation proceedings brought against them by the governments or businesses. These defamation suits carry penalties of up to one year in prison and very hefty fines.

This places an extreme chill on journalism and the freedom of expression in Panama, a problem that does not exist in Jordan. This has become so extreme that, in 2011, two Spanish nationals who had permanent resident status in Panama, Francisco Gómez Nadal and Maria Pilar Chato Carral were detained while covering a demonstration by the Ngäbe-Buglé indigenous people in Panama City. They were detained for 48 hours before being permanently expelled from Panama. This, again, placed a very severe chill on the activities of all journalists operating in Panama, because Mr. Francisco Gómez Nadal and Ms. Chato Carral were extremely prominent journalists, working both for the daily newspapers in Panama City and also filing stories for newspapers in Spain.

We on this side have been very consistent in calling for trade agreements that have labour standards, human rights standards and sustainability built into those agreements. When we talk about sustainability, we are talking about sustainability that is both economic and social, as well as environmental.

In Panama in the past few years, there have been very severe conflicts over development, in particular between mining companies and hydroelectric projects and local communities, and especially indigenous peoples in Panama. Indeed, this was the subject of a CBC documentary this week which attracted the attention of international human rights organizations.

According to Amnesty International, one protestor died and more than 40 were wounded during clashes at a blockade of the Pan-American Highway by the Ngäbe Buglé indigenous people who I mentioned earlier. They are asserting their rights to be consulted and to give informed consent before any development project on their lands proceeds in the province of Chiriqui. Similar protests by local community organizations occurred earlier this year over the reopening of the Cerro Cama open-pit gold and copper mine by a Canadian mining company.

These conflicts over development also involve a lack of enforcement in environmental standards. At the Santa Rosa mine, which operated throughout the 1990s and was operated by a subsidiary of the Canadian mining company, Greenstone Resources, the mine finally closed in 1999, leaving three large tailing ponds, which are now very strongly suspected of having contaminated local water supplies. Local protests have broken out again very recently from the local community as this mine is now being reactivated without there ever being any attempt by the government to address these environmental concerns.

When members on the other side say that we are opposed to trade, they get it wrong. What we are opposed to is entering into these agreements which will provide advantages to multinational corporations, some of them Canadian, to impose working conditions that are dangerous, to develop projects that have severe environmental consequences and to undertake development in a country where freedom of expression comes under very severe threat.

Therefore, when we talk about trade on this side, we prefer to see multilateral agreements that have some basic principles inserted within them. However, if not, and obviously the government will not pursue the multilateral agreements, then we would like to see the same kinds of principles in these bilateral agreements, the principles I have just talked about: environmental sustainability, social sustainability and economic sustainability.

Of course, in a country like Panama with a large indigenous population and a large poor population, this means working with poor communities and working with indigenous communities for development that would help them build their communities and build their lives in a sustainable manner. We see nothing of the kind going on in Panama at this time.

We also want to see agreements that have very strong benefits to both parties. Therefore, we have called upon the government, before implementing free trade agreements, to have some kind of independent assessment of what the effects of the trade will be. We have not seen anything of this kind coming down the pipe from the government.

When we talk about competition on the international stage, we on this side support free trade based on efficiency and innovation. If a company can be more efficient than another company, and Canadian companies are often very good at this, then it should have access to markets and it should succeed. If a company is more innovative than other companies, it comes up with new ideas that would help advance the quality of products or develop new products that would fill a niche in the market, then it ought to be able to succeed in that trade.

What we do not want to see is companies that succeed in international trade by offloading their environmental costs on to future generations. What we do not want to see is companies that succeed in international trade on the basis of paying the lowest wages in the most dangerous working conditions. Therefore, if we are to build closer economic relations with new trade partners, we need to ensure it is on the basis of shared values of democracy, human rights and sustainability.

When my colleagues on the other side asked why we supported the trade agreement with Jordan, we said that it was not because it was a perfect agreement, but that it is a good agreement. Jordan shares those same values with us and has shown demonstrable progress in the areas of democracy, human rights and labour standards. When it comes to the Panama agreement, we see exactly the opposite.

Therefore, I would question why we would want to enter into this agreement with a partner that has shown a disrespect for human rights, that has some of the lowest labour standards in Central America and where Canadian companies are involved in projects that often have quite severe environmental consequences.

I would ask the government that when it thinks about new partners, that it go back to those basic values. Yes, we want to see trade, but we want to see trade based on efficiency and innovation. We do not want to see trade on the basis of offloading environmental costs, paying low wages, dangerous working conditions and those which threaten the rights of free expression in order to proceed with those dangerous economic conditions. When we do that, I think we will find many good partners around the world to trade with and that trade will advance the interests of both nations.

Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I will be voting against the free trade agreement with Panama and I will be urging all members of the House to do so.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fundamentally disagree with the premise of my colleague's discussion.

In our view, we agree that there needs to be a set of values, standards and regulations that all abide by, and that is exactly what free trade agreements do. They allow two countries, two parties, to come together and have an agreement to move the yardstick further in terms of human rights, values and corporate environment in which companies should work.

I find it interesting that the NDP members take credit for supporting one agreement with Jordan, even though they say it is not perfect. Then in the same sentence, they say that they would agree with having multilateral agreements with countries.

I would like the member to name the countries that the NDP would support Canada having multilateral free trade agreements with so it can be on the record. I would like to know what countries they would like us to pursue.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misses the point when we talk about multilateral. When we talk about multilateral agreements, the point is to involve as many nations as possible to remove artificial barriers to trade. Multilateral by its very nature means that we would attempt to work through organizations like the World Trade Organization to remove those legitimate trade barriers.

It is very interesting when the member says that he does not share the premise of our discussion. However, he points to Panama and says that we have some kind of provision in that agreement to encourage Panama to have higher labour and environmental standards and greater respect for human rights. Those amendments were put forward by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and the members of the Liberal Party and Conservative Party voted against them. If we had those kinds of guarantees in an agreement, we might be able to support it, but we certainly cannot in this case.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a consistency problem within the New Democratic Party. On the one hand, its members want desperately to try to show that they are in favour of some form of free trade, but we just do not know exactly what. They are consistent on the fact that they do not like Panama. I have detected that in the comments as expressed by numerous members.

There were NDP members on the Jordan file who said yes to Jordan, while other members had said no to Jordan. They never did request a formal vote so we really do not know where they stand on the Jordan file. I think there is a lot of controversy within their own caucus on that issue. However, it is valid to point out that on Panama we know clearly where the NDP stands.

Does the member believe that there is a united NDP caucus in dealing with freer trade with other countries? As the previous member asked, is he prepared to share with the House other examples, one or two other countries, that NDP members might have a consensus within their caucus to support freer trade?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, the Liberals as well as the Conservatives miss the point of multilateral agreements. Multilateral agreements tend to invite all parties in to try improve them.

However, if the member is asking me to name one country that I personally think we should look at expanding trade with it would be Brazil. It is a great example of a country that has made huge progress on democracy, labour standards and human rights standards.

Another interesting question we could ask is this. Why is the government pursuing a free trade agreement with Panama? It was in talks with the government of El Salvador, but when it elected a progressive president, the government abruptly cut off those talks and went on to work other partners like Honduras and Panama, which have a much worse human rights record.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for talking about sustainable development. We had a bill in the House on corporate social responsibility for Canadian companies working overseas and it was defeated.

Could the member comment on the need to have that kind of corporate social responsibility for Canadian companies that operate in countries like Panama?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster was doing very good work in trying to introduce a private member's bill to guarantee that Canadian companies would respect the same standards abroad that we would expect them to respect at home. Unfortunately, the examples I gave on Panama today largely involved Canadian companies operating in Panama in conflict with indigenous people and in some projects that had some very severe environmental consequences.

I look forward to a time when we in the House can impose the same standards on Canadian companies abroad that we expect them to meet at home.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have this opportunity to talk about the benefits for Canadian investors. My speech today will be about the investment aspects of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

Foreign investment is a crucial component of today's modern economy. Foreign investment not only brings with it jobs, but increases the transfer of know-how, efficiencies and economies of scale to a host of economic opportunities. These markers of success, in addition to the people ties fostered, help strengthen Canada's global competitiveness at home and pave the way for new opportunities for Canadian companies overseas. These opportunities help Canadian companies remain globally competitive by ensuring their integration into the world economy.

At the end of 2011, Canadian direct investment abroad reached an all-time high of $684 billion. The value of the stock of foreign direct investment within Canada is also impressive. By the end of 2011, Canada had attracted more than $607 billion in foreign direct investment.

I will pause for a moment to remind my colleagues and to emphasize that the actual numbers from the end of 2011 show there is more investment from Canadian companies abroad than direct investment we get from foreign companies. This is important. We often hear in the House, on the street and in our ridings, that Canada is hollowing out, that Canadian companies are being sold and we are losing our control. In actual fact, that is not the case. Canadian companies are more aggressive and progressive in investing in foreign lands than the money that comes into our country.

As the past few years have demonstrated, the Canadian economy has proven to be a safe harbour as the global economy faces severe challenges. Canada is home to 27 of the Financial Times “Global 500” companies. More top global companies have headquarters in Canada than in Germany, India, Brazil, Russia or Italy.

Canada has also outpaced its G7 partners with its economic growth, the fastest it has been in the last 10 years, as a result of having lower corporate taxes, prudent fiscal management and financial regulation, a business climate that rewards innovation and entrepreneurship and an open economy that welcomes foreign direct investment.

Canada must remain diligent to ensure that our economic credentials remain strong at home and that Canadian businesses continue to have access to an increasing number of investment opportunities abroad. This is why it is important for us to leverage our investment relationships that we have around the world and with countries like Panama.

While data is unavailable for the end of 2011, the stock of Canadian direct investment in Panama was estimated by Statistics Canada to have reached $121 million at the end of 2010. Canadian investment in Panama, primarily found in the financial services and the mining sector, also has strong potential for growth.

There are many Canadian investment success stories around the world and Panama is no different. Scotia Bank has been in Panama since 1973 and has expanded to become the country's fifth largest commercial bank. SNC-Lavalin moved its Central American regional office to Panama in 2006. Inmet Mining Corporation continues to develop its copper mine in Panama, which is now over 13,000 hectares.

Opportunities for Canadian investors in Panama are also poised to grow in the future. We have heard about the tremendous opportunities that exist in Panama with respect to large numbers of infrastructure projects.

In addition to the ongoing $5.3 billion U.S. Panama Canal expansion project, the government of Panama has numerous projects either under construction or already in progress. These projects include the building or improvement of ports, roads, hospitals, social housing projects, bridges and airports, which are part of the U.S. $13.6 billion Panamanian government strategic investment plan for 2010 to 2014.

Under this plan, a large number of infrastructure projects would create new opportunities for Canadian businesses. A country like Canada, with so much expertise to take advantage of these significant opportunities in Panama, must act now. The current and future opportunities for Canadian investors show how important it is to enhance our investment relationship with countries like Panama.

This agreement would do just that by building upon a Canada-Panama Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement signed in 1998. By enhancing the investment provisions under this agreement, a free trade agreement with Panama would provide investors from both countries with the benefits that come with enhanced investment obligations. These provisions, which would promote the two-way flow of investments between Panama and Canada, would provide a range of obligations that would benefit investors from both countries.

They are designed to protect investment abroad, through legally binding rights and obligations. The investment obligations of this agreement incorporate several key principles. They include: treatment that is non-discriminatory and meets a minimum standard; protection against expropriation without compensation, meaning we cannot take land or property without compensation; and the free transfer of funds without penalty.

In short, Canadian investors would be treated in a non-discriminatory manner. This dynamic would help foster an investment relationship between our two countries and pave the way for an increased flow of investment for the years ahead.

Through this agreement, investors would also have access to transparent, impartial and binding dispute settlement systems.

While this agreement would ensure that investors and their investments are protected, it would not prevent either Canada or Panama from regulating in their public interest, with respect to health, to safety and to the environment.

The investment provisions also include an article on corporate social responsibility. This provision recognizes that Canada expects and encourages Canadian companies operating abroad to observe internationally recognized standards of responsible business conduct. This provision would also help level the playing field for Canadian investors when they invest abroad by encouraging CSR principles among all investors.

Overall, this agreement would send a positive signal to our partners around the world about the openness of Canada to foreign investment. This agreement would enhance investment opportunities abroad for all Canadians.

Foreign investment links Canadian companies to global value chains and to new economic opportunities. This enhances our competitiveness and increases the flow of goods and services between Canada and our trading partners.

To date, Canadian companies have shown a significant interest in investing in the Panamanian economy. However, as time passes, opportunities for Canadian investors are at risk. That is why it is critical that Canadian companies have the ability to strike while the iron is hot. I encourage members not to delay the approval of this agreement.

Our government has been very clear that trade and investment are vital to the economic growth and long-term prosperity of Canadians. That is why our government continues to move forward with an ambitious free trade agreement agenda that focuses on creating partnerships with key nations around the world. To take advantage of commercial opportunities around the world, we must do everything we can to open doors for Canadian businesses.

That is why I ask all hon. members to show their support for the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find the member opposite to be a kind, caring and sensible man. However, this agreement and others have side agreements for the environment and human rights. One of the problems with side agreements is that they do not have any teeth. They are not enforceable.

A very simple way to get MPs in this House on board with trade deals is to move those two things, the environment and human rights agreements, into the body of the agreement so that there are some teeth, so that there is an opportunity for people to voice their concerns and to have them heard.

Does my normally very sensible friend across the way not think that is a good idea?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kinds words of the member opposite.

It is a bit of a red herring. It is in the agreement. We have side agreements on particular issues. Negotiation on free trade agreements is a two-way street. The member and his colleagues in the NDP believe that it is the Canada way or no way. We do not believe that. We believe this is an opportunity. When we sign these free trade agreements, there are issues that we need to deal with, whether they are with labour or the environment. We have discussions and put it in writing in, as he defines it, as a side agreement. It is progress. It is the way to move forward on creating jobs for Canadians.

The NDP way is to take the ball and go home. Nothing gets accomplished, no jobs for Canadians and no future for Canadian businesses abroad. That is not the way to go.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very fine speech. But I cannot totally agree with what he said in his remarks.

Once more, I will ask the question I have already asked several of his colleagues today. But this time, I would appreciate a semblance of an answer.

We have signed a double taxation agreement with Panama. That can give us access to all legal and fiscal tools. I do not know why there has been no agreement to exchange tax information between Canada and Panama. That would have given us access to all types of income, whether earned by legal or illegal means.

Why was that not put in place? Canada has signed tax information exchange agreements with several countries and Panama also has signed them with several countries. In the light of what went on in Panama a few years ago, and of what is still going on, why do we not have this tax security measure in this bill?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member has heard the answer before. What we were dealing with on the free trade agreement had to do with tariffs and investment. There is an issue with the tax treatment of companies that are doing business in Panama. We have many tax exchange agreements, as the member said, with other countries. The United States has a tax agreement with Panama, which is relatively new. I can say that we are working on the tax issue. It was not ready in time to be included in this, but it is an issue we know we need to deal with as a government.

Denying Canadian companies an opportunity to do business in Panama and reducing the barriers to trade with Panama is not the right approach, in our view, in terms of moving the yardstick further along to accomplish those goals, including a tax agreement.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I noted my colleague's comments about not taking Canadian standards to other countries. After the budget implementation bill that was just passed and the environmental standards in it, we have brought different environmental standards to this country, which are really not appropriate.

When the hon. member talks about the need to be magnanimous toward other countries in terms of their ability to move forward on the environment, and social and economic issues surrounding tax issues, he is really missing the boat. What is happening in this country with this budget implementation bill is driving down our standards, whereas we should be putting standards forward for other countries which are more appropriate.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the member opposite misunderstood the statement. The statement was that through free trade agreements, we are promoting Canadian values and standards. If we told countries that they have to be like Canada or we would not speak to them, as the NDP wants us to do, we would talk to no one and Canadian companies would suffer, Canadian jobs would not be created and innovation would not happen.

We are looking for partners to do business with. Part of that process is that we promote our values in terms of the environment, the workplace and human rights. It is through those agreements that we are able to express what Canada stands for in the world. We are number one. I take exception to the member saying that Canada does not have a high level of standards. We are promoting those standards through free trade agreements.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-24, which has to do with a Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

It is very important that we take a stand and take the time to read this free trade agreement, because Panama is an extremely important international partner. Panama is the largest economic power in Central America, partly because of the Panama Canal, which sees a large number of goods pass through. Right now, it is being expanded, which will allow for greater flow and traffic.

Maritime traffic is rather important to Panama. Panama also is specializes in financial services, commerce and tourism. So it is important for us to examine this agreement and decide what this agreement with Panama will contain. We need to do things the right way.

I have listened to my colleagues' comments today and will get back to them shortly. I think that the government is botching this job and is not taking the time to create a worthwhile agreement. The NDP is in favour of free trade agreements if they are responsible and sustainable. Right now, we have the momentum to show that Canada is a leader. Right now, Panama is an emerging country. Canada, as a proud economic partner and world leader, could show Panama the way in terms of proper environmental norms and a system of rights for workers and unions in Panama, and we could make this free trade agreement into an agreement that supports sustainable and viable long-term development.

This could be the time for Canada to move things forward internationally. Canada could be an excellent partner. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is completely ignoring this extremely interesting opportunity that is right in front of it.

The sad thing about this bill is that there has been a time allocation motion, which means that we will not be able to discuss it in greater detail. However, there are a number of interesting points I would like to make. When I read Bill C-24, I noticed a number of shortcomings. My NDP colleagues tried to make amendments to correct those defects, but unfortunately, all of the proposed amendments were rejected.

In my view, the most significant flaw is probably the fact that there is no tax information exchange agreement in this bill. I will say more about that later. There is also a glaring lack of vision with respect to sustainable development. The agreement lacks meaningful protection for the rights of Panamanian workers. We know what happens when jobs and workers are not protected. When that happens in Canada, factories close their doors and move jobs elsewhere. It is important to ensure that Panamanian workers are protected. Another problem is the fact that this is a bilateral agreement, not a multilateral one.

As for the tax information exchange agreement, it may sound very confusing to some, but actually, it is quite simple. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development gives a very good description of tax information exchange agreements on its website. Basically, any country can refer to that description in order to create its own tax information exchange agreement. All of the information is on the website. It was created in 2002, and since that time, many countries, including Canada and Panama, have used this model to clarify their tax information exchange agreements.

So what is a tax information exchange agreement? The following description is from the OECD document:

The purpose of this agreement is to promote international co-operation in tax matters through exchange of information...The agreement grew out of the work undertaken by the OECD to address harmful tax practices...The agreement represents the standard of effective exchange of information for the purposes of the OECD's initiative on harmful tax practices.

As I just mentioned, many countries have followed this model to create their tax information exchange agreements. Canada has entered into several such agreements, for instance with the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas and Saint Lucia. In 2010, Panama signed a tax information exchange agreement with the United States, one of its biggest financial partners.

I just asked the hon. member for Burlington a question. I asked him why Bill C-24 does not contain this kind of tax information exchange agreement with Panama based on the same model as the one presented by the United States.

I was told that it was not ready in time. That is not a reason. In fact, it is proof that this bill was completely botched. We need to take the time to do things. This is important; it is a free trade agreement. I was honestly shocked when I heard this. If it was not ready in time, why not take the time to do things the way they should be done before presenting them to the House? Why did they not accept the amendments presented by the opposition to resolve the problems with this bill? I wonder.

It was not ready in time, and I find that very sad. This is clear evidence that we should go back, call a halt to this bill and secure an agreement. It is not as if things are pressing and we absolutely must have a free trade agreement with Panama by tomorrow. And it is not as if they are our most important partner. Panama is not Canada's largest trade partner. Bilateral trade in terms of goods between our two countries was worth only $149 million in 2008. We are not even talking about 1%. We have the time to do things right. I do not see why we are not, and it saddens me a little to hear this.

I know that Panama was recently removed from the OECD grey list because it has implemented information exchange standards, but we do not even have these information exchanges with Panama. If that were the case, this bill would already be much better. We do not have a tax information exchange agreement, but the Conservatives, on the other side of the House, are trumpeting the double taxation convention that Panama has agreed to sign. They think that will do.

Is it really enough? I do not think so. Double taxation tax treaties—the definition is on the Canada Revenue Agency website—are designed to avoid double taxation for people who would otherwise pay tax on the same income in two countries. That applies to legitimate income only. A tax information exchange agreement helps track down all income, legitimate or otherwise. It is a much sounder and more interesting way to protect ourselves in terms of taxation standards.

Again, I am extremely disappointed not to find this exchange agreement in the bill, especially since we have already signed such agreements and so has Panama. So why not sign one together? It is a mystery. My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster proposed some extremely interesting amendments, including some on sustainable development and responsible investment. That is what we want to see. That is the direction we should be taking. We are all responsible. We all live on the same planet and everyone has the right to fairness.

We were also very disappointed that the benefits of sustainable development were not considered. I understand that it is a system of rules, but it has to be applied fairly and it is not included in this bill.

This bill touched on several issues all at once. I will not have time to talk about protection for workers or the environment, which has been clearly bungled in this bill, as it was in Bill C-38. I would like to talk about what we want to see in a Canada-Panama agreement.

We simply want a fair trade policy, one that gives a rightful place to social justice, and fair, sustainable, equitable trade. These are very simple things that should be the basis for a free trade agreement with another country. We should instead be negotiating multilateral agreements. However, if the decision is made to enter into a bilateral agreement such as this one, we have to do more and make a more responsible commitment with this kind of agreement.

We are reaffirming our vision of a fair trade policy that puts the pursuit of social justice, strong public-sector social programs and the elimination of poverty at the heart of an effective trade strategy.

Let us protect the environment, protect workers and, at the same time, ensure that the tax measures included in this type of bill are appropriate.

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, no doubt it is difficult to pretend to be in favour of or open to a policy that one completely opposes.

The reality is that this NDP member, just like her NDP colleague who spoke before her and other NDP members, plays this game of saying that she believes in multilateral trade agreements. The problem is that when the previous Liberal government was in office, it put forward for negotiation the multilateral agreement on investment, a multilateral approach that brought in all countries, and the NDP was opposed to that. NAFTA is a multilateral approach to trade that brings three countries together for the best interests of the continental economic regime. The NDP is opposed to that.

It is the NDP and its members who are in the streets waving placards and chanting whenever there are meetings of the WTO or NAFTA or the G20 or the G8 in Canada or around the world.

Now the member and the NDP say in the House, “We are against Panama. We might be in favour of Jordan, but we are not quite so sure; maybe Brazil, but we are not quite so sure.” They cannot name any country in the world they actually want to trade with. Then they put out this red herring and say, “We are in favour of multilateral agreements when it comes to foreign investment and international trade and commerce”, except that every single time that has come forward, they have been against it as well and were in the streets chanting and waving placards like a completely non-serious political party would.

One has to wonder whether the NDP is in favour of bilateral trade agreements or of multilateral trade agreements. Could the hon. member please make up her mind?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

I find it sad because I think that, unfortunately, he did not bother to listen carefully to what I took the time to explain in the 10 minutes that I had. We spoke about multilateral agreements, but it is not just that. This type of bill has plenty of shortcomings.

We are talking about environmental standards, labour standards and fiscal arrangements. I am surprised that the hon. member does not want to sign a tax information exchange agreement with Panama, since the members opposite are trying to make out that they are squeaky clean. There are many things that do not make any sense.

This goes much further than a bilateral or multilateral agreement. We are talking about the very essence of a bill. In this case, there has been a blatant lack of study. Earlier, his colleague, the hon. member for Burlington, said that they were caught off guard and that they did not have time to establish an agreement.

Therefore, I am not in favour of it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has been fairly clear in terms of expressing concerns regarding labour, environmental conditions and coming up with freer trade agreements, but that does not prevent us from being able to acknowledge the benefits, both to Canada and to other countries with which we would enter into these agreements, and we would always like to see agreements improved upon.

The issue I have with the NDP members is that they do not seem necessarily to be consistent with their thoughts when it comes to international trade. For example, they will not sign any sort of free trade agreement with any country we know with which they might have some concerns with regard to human rights issues, for example.

Let us use the country of China, where there is a great deal of concern regarding human rights issues. Would that mean that the NDP would take some sort of trade sanctions or anything of that nature in order to take a stand on that particular issue, or would they be open to an agreement between Canada and China?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member from the Liberal Party for his question.

What I find interesting in the preamble to his question is that the Liberal Party apparently also agrees that the bill has to be improved in terms of the environment, human rights and even sustainable development.

I would like to remind the hon. member that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster introduced amendments to improve this bill in terms of the environment, sustainable development and human rights. But both the Conservatives and the Liberals voted against those amendments. So he is in no position to lecture us about what should be improved because they did not support our proposals.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure for me to stand and speak to this important piece of legislation.

I just came from chairing the international trade committee. It is a pleasure for me to serve in that capacity. When it comes to trade, it is absolutely imperative that I explain to Canadians just how important trade is to Canada.

One out of every five jobs is created because of trade. Sixty-three per cent of our GDP is represented by trade, and we have accomplished that because of trade agreements.

The trade file started with NAFTA. NAFTA has been in existence for almost 17 years. What has happened in that time period? Jobs have gone up by 23%, meaning there are 40 million net new jobs in North America because of NAFTA. Trade has tripled, and has quadrupled with one of our partners.

Opposition members argue against free trade agreements. It really puzzles me that they let the Jordan free trade agreement go through on a voice vote; it was as if their union people were not watching. It is absolutely amazing to me that they could agree with the Jordan free trade agreement and then stand in the House and give some of the arguments that I have heard recently against the Panama free trade agreement. I will talk about that in a few minutes.

I want to give one quick example about NAFTA. We heard arguments that when NAFTA came in, the wine industry in Canada would be absolutely destroyed. It would cease to exist. All those arguments were presented on the floor of the House, and they were argued vigorously.

Can members guess what happened? Canada's wine exports amounted to $1.8 billion. From all the various countries—Argentina, Australia, France, Italy, Spain—we imported $800 million in wine, so our exports doubled our imports. What a great success story, and all because of international trade. That is something my hon. colleagues should keep in mind.

What have we been doing as a country? We have signed nine different free trade agreements: Colombia, Honduras, Jordan, Peru, the European Free Trade Association members, and Panama, the one we are dealing with today.

What are we pursuing? We are pursuing an economic free trade agreement with Europe. We just heard testimony less than an hour ago in committee from our chief negotiator, who indicated how well that is going. We expect to have the final draft by the end of the year.

Why is that important? It is important because it is the most comprehensive free trade agreement between any two nations anywhere in the world. It will supposedly be at end of text by the end of the year. It is exciting to see how well that is going, and I compliment the negotiators on that free trade agreement.

What does that agreement mean to Canada? It means $1,000 per family per year. That is a fair amount. That is $12 billion coming into Canada every year because of the economic free trade agreement with Europe.

We are also working aggressively on another free trade agreement, in this case with Japan. The benefits to Canada would be $9 billion. As well, there is India, Brazil, Thailand.

Just a few minutes ago we heard that we are in the TPP, which, as of yesterday, is a group of 10 countries on the Pacific rim that will work on a comprehensive free trade agreement in that group.

What about China? Last year we imported $44.5 billion from China. It imported $13.2 billion from us. To equalize the trade benefit from China and to balance the trade would be a $30 billion benefit. It could be just an act of goodwill by China.

We are very excited about accelerating trade and about our opportunities with these growing countries that are in need of the products we produce and the resources, industries and intelligence we have here in Canada to offer them.

What are the elements of the Canada-Panama agreement? We trade cross-border services, telecommunications, investment, financial services, government procurement and so on.

It is important to sign this agreement and get on with it. The bill reached third reading in the last Parliament. It is important because the United States, Chile, Taiwan and Singapore already have an agreement with Panama.

What would bilateral trade with Panama mean? In 2011, trade was $235 million. We imported about $144 million in products such as metals, gold, fruit, machinery, fish and seafood products. We exported about $111 million in products such as machinery, meat, aerospace products, vegetables and so. Signing this kind of agreement would provide a great opportunity for our corporations and our country.

It is very important to understand the opportunities that lay themselves before us under this agreement on the procurement side. In Panama it is projected there will be $28.9 billion U.S. worth of infrastructure projects over the coming years. One of the largest is the Panama Canal, which is a $5.3 billion expansion and a great opportunity for Canadian corporations with regard to not only that but also ports, roads, bridges and airports, with respect to procurement.

It is important to understand that the tariffs on our agricultural products are rather intense. They go from 13.4% right up to 260% for some of our agricultural products. Imagine what the elimination of those could do with respect to exporting frozen potatoes, pulses, pork, malt barley and other products such as beef, hogs and so on. When it comes to the non-agricultural goods, the tariffs are anywhere from 6.2% right up to 81% on many of those, such as materials, equipment, industrial and electrical machinery, paper products, vehicles and so on. We can see that the potential for this is great.

The resistance I hear from the opposition members is rather interesting because they have talked about labour problems, human rights problems and environmental concerns. There is a corporate social responsibility that has been agreed to by Canadian corporations when we get into this piece of legislation. It very much encompasses environmental protection, human rights, labour relations, corporate governance, transparency, community relations, peace and security, and anti-corruption measures. Therefore, the opposition members are really blowing smoke when they say that the legislation does not include any of this. It is very important that it is there and that we sign this agreement so that Canadian companies would be able to capitalize on these kinds of opportunities.

The corporate social responsibility part of this agreement is very important. It is something that has not been talked about an awful lot here but is something that is very important. With respect to the side agreements on labour and the environment, I have heard opposition members ask why they are not encompassed within the body of the agreement. It is no different than with Jordan, for which they had no problem with standing in this House. Well, actually they did not stand; they just sat there on a voice vote and let it go unanimously at third reading. It is off to the Senate and will be passed very soon we hope. There is no difference here with respect to that, so I do not know how, in their own thinking, they can support one and not the other.

In testimony at committee we heard the most outrageous circumstances on human rights happening in some of the factories in Jordan. The members of the opposition who are on the committee heard the same testimony. There are two approaches that can be taken when we look at a free trade agreement. We can either say that unless that country comes up to Canadian standards we will disengage or just check out because there is no point, which will send a message that we would not do business with anyone who does not come up to our standards. The other approach is to engage that country as much as possible, improve its standard of living and give Canadian businesses as well as the corporations in those other countries opportunities that would help them along, so that we both win. That is the approach this government is using.

The most hypocritical position I have ever seen in this House on the trade file is the opposition members supporting Jordan but not supporting Panama, Colombia and others. It is really beyond anything I have seen. Clearly, it is something that has to be addressed when we challenge the opposition members to come on side and sign the agreement. If they say they are pro-trade then they should do it. The excuses I have heard are absolutely not excuses but rather blind ideology that hurts Canadian businesses and Canada as a country.

Canada is a wonderful country. It is the greatest country in the world, according to the IMF, the OECD and Forbes magazine. We have created 760,000 net new jobs since the bottom of the recession. We have done that by lowering taxes and giving Canadian corporations the opportunity to actually develop and move their goods and services into international trade opportunities around the world. As a government, we will continue to do that. Why? That is what Canadians expect us to do.

The NDP would like to raise taxes to get out of this recession. We believe we should grow our country. That is the way to win, and we will continue to do that.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. One concept came up twice in the hon. member's speech: that simply engaging with those people and those emerging countries will suddenly and magically improve workers' fundamental rights, environmental conditions and so on.

If the hon. member is so convinced that that has to happen, how is it that the agreement includes parallel agreements that bring up environmental concepts that are not in the body of the text? How is it that there is no vigorous mechanism to resolve environmental disputes? If he thinks that this really is part of the main thrust of trading with emerging countries, why is that not clearly indicated in the body of the agreement?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I addressed that question in my deliberations, but nonetheless I would like to repeat it.

It is absolutely no different from the agreement with Jordan that the opposition sat in this House and agreed with 100%. The most horrendous testimony we have heard in our committee came from the factories in Jordan, of the misuse of human rights, yet the side agreements on human rights and on the environment are the very same.

I am saying to my hon. colleague that it is ridiculous to say that the side agreements on human rights and environment say we are going to go soft on it. We are going to go as hard as we possibly can and make sure we do what we can, in this agreement and other agreements, to be able to respect human rights wherever we can. We understand very well that in Jordan and in Panama there may be problems.

I would say the opportunity to have more intense problems, when it comes to human rights, is in Jordan rather than in Panama.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party has been fairly clear on the issue in regard to this particular bill. In principle, we support it. We do have concerns regarding the environment, as I alluded to earlier, and labour and so forth. At the end of the day, this is a bill we be supporting.

Having said that, I think Canadians need to be concerned about the growing trade deficit that the Conservative government has created. The government tends to focus on this particular agreement and the Jordan agreement.

What does this particular member believe the Government of Canada is going to have to do to try to turn things around and bring back the days, with Liberal administrations, when we had a trading surplus? At the end of the day, that is going to create the hundreds and thousands of jobs here in Canada. We have to achieve that surplus.

When does the member believe we are going to be able to address that particular issue?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting comment. Maybe the member is rather new here, but when the Liberals were in power for 13 long years, they signed zero agreements.

We signed nine and are heading to ten free trade agreements. It is very important that we not allow other countries to eat our lunch when it comes to trade. That is exactly what I said: when it comes to Panama, we have the United States, Singapore and other countries ahead of us with free trade agreements. The first one in usually has an opportunity ahead of the others. That is why we are pursuing, aggressively, free trade agreements with Japan and others. There is an advantage to making sure we do that.

It is very interesting, coming from the Liberal Party that agrees with free trade, because they did absolutely nothing. We have seen that as a trend by the Liberal Party for many years, so we are not really surprised.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that the NDP does not oppose free trade, but it does oppose time restrictions on debate. The NDP also opposes everything that is hidden in legislation and everything the Conservatives forget to mention. The NDP is in favour of a healthy economy and wants workers to be protected and to have their own rights. The NDP also wants to put an end to tax havens.

Can the hon. member confirm that there is nothing hidden in this bill?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is not opposed to trade; she is opposed to time allocation. This bill got to third reading with the last government. How much more debate does the member want on this thing?

Now we have started from scratch. This government has brought it up through committee and into the House, into third reading. That is a fairly extensive look at it. If the opposition has not made up its mind by now, it is never going to.

When it comes to tax havens, this is something that has been brought up before. In 2002 Panama committed to implementing the OECD's standards when it comes to exchange of tax information. In 2011, the OECD took another look at it and formally listed Panama as having substantial implementation and as having achieved international standards on exchange of information.

I believe Panama has come a long way. This is the right thing to do, and I encourage all members to consider that and vote for this piece of legislation.

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

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to discuss Bill C-24 to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Panama.

First, I would like to point out that, once more, this motion is subject to time allocation. This is the 25th time this year that we have had to put up with a motion of that kind.

I am going to make a somewhat lengthy comment about the level of absurdity that this Parliament has reached by being constantly constrained by the party in power. This week—actually for two weeks—we have watched the heights of contempt for this Parliament being scaled with Bill C-38. The Conservatives refused to split up a budget bill of more than 400 pages that has impacts on all kinds of departments: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Agri-Food, not to mention Human Resources and Skills Development because of the employment insurance issue that affects fisheries and tourism and that got a very poor reception from most Canadians. The provincial governments are angry. Another concern, and not the least of them, is the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

All of this is in a huge bill on which we were muzzled. The hon. members opposite are constantly throwing numbers at Canadians: 50 hours, 70 hours. Those numbers cannot really be weighed by someone who is not in the House. They do not accurately reflect the time that members would normally have required to share information and hear from witnesses in committee on such dense bills, had the work of Parliament been respected by the current government in this House.

Another aspect of Bill C-38 is completely mind-boggling. Just thinking that we were muzzled on it is astounding. There were decisions to eliminate organizations. Division 33 of part 4 repeals the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Act and allows the government to take the necessary measures to do away with the centre. We are gagged on fundamental issues dealing with the elimination of organizations that have been very important to the development of Canadian policies.

On the Experimental Lakes Area, Mr. Del Giorgio, a professor of biology, said:

This is a disaster of proportions...that are hard to describe. It is not just the Canadian scientific community that is completely outraged; people from all over the world are sending petitions.

The government is shutting down the Experimental Lakes Area, not just slashing its budget.

For two weeks, we were simply gagged on that as well.

Here we are with Bill C-24 before us, a free trade agreement. This is not some minor information that can just slip through. This is a potential free trade agreement with a country in the Americas. That is important. Has this bill received unanimous support? If the bill had unanimous support, we could perhaps better understand why a gag order was imposed again, but no, we have before us a bill that does not have unanimous support.

Todd Tucker, from Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, has conclusively demonstrated that Panama is one of the worst tax havens in the world and that the Panamanian government has deliberately allowed the country to become a tax haven.

Despite requests from the Canadian government, Panama refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. This point is very important. At some point during the whole free trade agreement process with Panama, the Canadian government asked for a tax information exchange agreement. Why? First, Panama has some serious problems with illegal money and money laundering associated with illegal drugs.

There is something I do not get at all. There are members here who brag about being tough on crime. They are in the middle of negotiating with a small Latin American country that has a serious money laundering problem associated with drugs and, suddenly, it is no big deal.

The Conservatives want to be tough on crime with a 16-year-old kid who makes the mistake of growing a few pot plans in his basement, but they do not have the courage to apply their own tough on crime logic, in an international agreement, to a problem as serious as money laundering associated with drugs. That makes no sense at all.

My NDP colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster moved a motion to stop the implementation of a trade agreement between Canada and Panama until Panama agrees to sign a tax information exchange agreement. This motion was rejected by the Liberals and the Conservatives. But in light of this situation, it made sense to resolve this issue first. Other countries, including the United States, that came to agreements with Panama signed similar agreements.

I will repeat, because this is a very important point. Why did a so-called tough on crime government disregard the very idea of a tax information exchange agreement that could have covered all types of trade agreements? This could have perhaps covered the problems related to money laundering. How could this have been excluded from the negotiations and not remain central to the agreement? I do not understand it.

This is not a unanimous bill, and so it is not a bill that should be muzzled. Teresa Healy of the Canadian Labour Congress testified that although the minimum labour standards of the International Labour Organization are cited, the agreement is still weaker than it should be. Moreover, as Ms. Healy pointed out, the current Panamanian government has become increasingly tough on unions and workers in recent years.

Some things having to do with workers' rights and fundamental human rights have not yet been resolved.

Muzzling debate about Bill C-24 amounts to muzzling debate on tax evasion and workers' rights. This is not trivial; it is really not trivial.

Panama is not Norway. You need to show a good dose of bad faith to throw the name Panama in the middle of existing agreements with northern European countries. That is what I heard two or three times from colleagues on the opposite side of the House. You cannot put Panama on the same list as Norway and Switzerland without showing bad faith.

A fair trade policy can be realistic. For instance, from the beginning of our discussions with emerging countries, we should demand standards regarding human rights and tax ethics that are in line with Canadian standards. It would be simple. We would not have any surprises or any appendices to add at the end, but rather just the fundamental principle whereby all trade agreements must protect and promote human rights. We should be talking about this from the beginning, imposing it, and prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any products considered to have been manufactured in deplorable conditions that do not meet international standards. This notion should be imposed at every stage of the negotiation process. Ensuring that all trade agreements respect sustainable development is a notion that this government cannot seem to grasp or assimilate.

The agreement includes side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment. These side agreements are not in the main body of the text. Someone probably suddenly realized that a bare minimum should be done in order for this to be acceptable. Why is it not simply in the main body of the text?

More than one-third of Panamanians live in dire poverty. Free trade agreements should guarantee that better living conditions and working conditions will result from the agreements, rather than the potential exploitation of the poverty there. Although the agreement appears to protect the environment on the surface, it does not include any really strong measures or any mechanisms to resolve disputes.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, which someone mentioned earlier, Panama is a major financial conduit for drug trafficking and money laundering activities. Under those conditions, there is no way anyone can guarantee a better way of life for the people of Panama.

Trade between Canada and Panama is currently worth $150 million. Why the urgency, especially since we already do $150 million worth of trade with this trading partner? How can the Conservatives justify ramming another free trade agreement down our throats as quickly as possible, using another closure motion, when the agreement does not even ensure that Panamanian tax laws will not encourage tax evasion?

I congratulate the government on one thing: in this agreement, Canada has kept over-quota tariffs on supply managed goods such as dairy, poultry and egg products. That is very good.

What is deplorable about this bill is the failure to address human rights and tax evasion. I have been talking about this from the beginning. Every time we fail to address such fundamental issues in our international agreements, we somewhat deride the work of our most courageous predecessors in Canada. They struggled to move the country forward, while constantly working to improve our fundamental rights. We must never lose sight of that.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House today and talk about the Canada-Panama labour co-operation part of the agreement in Bill C-24, which is a very positive initiative. It started many years ago, but even in January of this year our Minister of Labour visited Panama to talk about labour co-operation and discuss labour related issues. She met with government officials and people in business. She took the trip to support the free trade agreement but specifically to discuss labour related provisions. As we all know, our Minister of Labour is very much a supporter of having good labour relations and ensuring those conditions are in place so people can continue to work.

Our government is proud of its journey of bringing into place a number of free trade agreements. We are a free trade country. We have products that we need to export to other countries and we do that by partnering with other countries. However, we also need to ensure that we coordinate our labour issues with those countries. If we do that and work with our partners on a trade agreement, then obviously it becomes a potential benefit for Canadians.

As free trade agreements are signed and brought forward, they will bring forward many preferential investment opportunities. Many of those, through trade, will reach out into many aspects of the commodities that we have in Canada. However, we also want to ensure we protect the environment and those investments in it, along with labour. As we know, economic advancements cannot be made at the cost of labour rights.

It will be in interesting when the free trade agreement comes into force because Panama's trade tariffs sit at over 90% for Canadian exports going to that country. We hope that many of those tariffs will be eliminated. That is good news for all Canadian companies that export into that market.

For service providers to gain access, we need to help expand Panama's communications, technology and financial services markets. There is also a chapter that ensures there are rules that will govern Canadian investments to give greater protection and predictability to Canadian investors who are looking to invest into Panama, which will encourage companies to invest and help strengthen Panama's economy.

The free trade agreement also gives Canadian exporters of goods and services greater market access. That access goes into Panama's government procurement opportunities, one of the few that are available to it. One example that we know of is the Panama Canal expansion process that is happening or about to happen. It is one of the U.S. $5.3 billion worth of investment projects that will widen and make export and trade more accessible. It gives Canadian companies a procurement opportunity for products, whether it is Canadian goods and services, that they will be able to bid on.

When we talk about trade and economic growth, the goal is rationale, which we talk about within our economic action plan. We believe it is a part of free trade. It is more than just a philosophy. It is a key element of our economic policy and our relationships with other countries.

Quite honestly, this recession was the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s and many countries around the world are still struggling through it wishing they had the same economic stability and governance that Canada does. It has intensified our negotiations with other countries so that we will be able to partner with them to help them and ourselves become stronger in our economy and labour rights. We are doing that particularly in the discussion today around Panama.

How do those opportunities for Canadian exporters actually happen?

Panama is a strategic hub logistically. It is a platform on which Canada can build on. It will allow commercial activity to grow through Central America, the Caribbean and the Andean region of South America. It brings in a great global perspective for trade. However, free trade is also about having a level playing field where Canadian businesses can compete in the Panamanian market.

In these challenging economic times, it is important than ever to build solid trade relationships with countries around the world to secure our future prosperity. Canada is committed to pursuing initiatives that will help Canadians compete in global markets, and Panama is one of those markets.

I will now talk about the importance of labour rights. As Canadians, we naturally want to see our country prosper and continue to prosper, but not at any price. We are eager to advance our trade agenda but we must also ensure that labour rights and obligations are respected. Prosperity cannot come at the expense of labour rights. This is a concession that we are simply not willing to make. We will not accept this free trade agreement nor any other accord without the proper concessions in place. As I said, we will ensure a level playing field and that means that everybody must play by the same rules.

There is also a labour co-operation agreement, which is why the free trade agreement with Panama is paralleled with a labour co-operation agreement. This agreement includes the enforcement of labour rights and a transparent complaints and dispute resolution mechanism.

Under the terms of the labour co-operation agreement, Canada and Panama have committed to ensuring that their laws respect and embody the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The declaration covers the right to freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour and the elimination of discrimination in the workplace.

It sounds a lot like the same labour standards that we uphold in this great country of Canada. However, it also demonstrates the government's belief that prosperity cannot come at the expense of workers' rights.

In the Canada-Panama labour co-operation agreement, both countries have committed to protect workers' health and safety on the job, as well as to provide compensation in cases of work -related injuries or illnesses. Both countries have also committed to establishing and maintaining minimum employment standards.

The fact that the Government of Canada is helping Panama address these issues speaks well of Canada. We are recognized as a country that is compassionate. We do what we say we will do and we trade with honest intent.

Businesses that treat their workers decently are more likely to attract skilled and productive employees, just like businesses that treat their customers well are likely to have better sales.

We have a reputation for honesty, integrity and reliability. We keep our promises and we play by the rules. We want to help build a Canada-Panama relationship to that same extent.

, I would encourage the members opposite to support Bill C-24, not only for Canada but also to help build a strong partnership with our colleagues in Panama. We want to strengthen Canada's economy, a foundation for future trade and opportunities to promote and ensure fair, productive and safe workplaces that will benefit both countries.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for pointing out at least some effort to address labour and environmental issues in this proposed trade agreement with Panama.

What is so regrettable is that supposedly this agreement is premised on what was learned from our negotiations and implementation of the NAFTA. I want to share with members a provision in NAFTA that says, “it is inappropriate to encourage investment by relaxing domestic health, safety and environmental measures”.

What kind of measures are we suggesting to Panama about how seriously we treat our trade agreements formed with other nations? We already violated that agreement in this House yesterday by downgrading Canadian environmental laws for an economic advantage.

Therefore, can the member give assurances to this House that this time around, in this agreement, we will provide the language and we will live up to our obligations and commitments in the trade agreement to protect the environment?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, we all need to understand how important the environment is, not only to Canada but also to the people in Panama. When we have businesses going there, they must not only follow the labour agreements that both countries have signed but they must also help to raise the bar to ensure, in the environmental aspects of what they are doing, whether it is in mining or in agriculture initiatives, that they become better environmentalists and hopefully reach the high standards that we have in Canada. I do not believe those agreements will be violated, not when they have been signed and agreed to by both Panama and Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech on this proposed agreement with Panama and I was encouraged to hear him talk about the importance of labour laws and the importance of respecting those laws in other countries.

There has been a considerable amount of criticism that for the labour unions in other countries these laws are not respected. Could the member just elaborate and tell this House the importance of that to this government and why we will continue to move in that direction?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, part of why the whole Canada–Panama labour co-operation agreement has been signed between both countries is that we recognized that, while there will likely continue to be some issues around corruption and around the labour issues, the intent of any agreement is to help build a country's economic strength, its rule of law and its respect for workers so we do not have child labour and workers have the right of association to form unions. We agree with that. It has been found that when we come alongside those countries and give them open opportunity in those areas where they are weak, they then become better stewards of those areas.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, if it is the case that there are some data that trade agreements do have the effect of raising labour and environmental standards, why did the member's government refuse to put in those kinds of evaluation efforts in agreements like the recent Jordan agreement? Could the member share with this House the data he has seen that show that trade agreements do have that positive effect? I think all members would agree that is a good objective but I am not so sure that the data are clear to support him.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I sit on the international trade committee, and I have great respect for him.

Even in Canada, if we have people in dire straits in poverty, if we give them the opportunity for a job, to raise their social status or to provide better for their family, then those relationships become stronger. I do not think that relationship with families is any different than when we deal with other countries on trade agreements.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to highlight the benefits of the free trade agreement with Panama.

With one in five Canadian jobs generated through international trade, our government's pro-trade plan is essential to bringing continued prosperity to Canadians. At the same time, when Canadian businesses are faced with tough global economic challenges, the benefits that the Canada-Panama free trade agreement will provide are tremendously important for our economy.

Our government is consistently demonstrating that its top priorities are jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. That is why we embarked upon the most ambitious trade plan in Canadian history.

To this end, since 2006, Canada has concluded new free trade agreements with nine countries: Colombia, Jordan, Peru, the European Free Trade Association member states of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, most recently with Honduras and Panama. We are negotiating with many more, including the European Union.

Our government understands, as do Canadians, that expanding our trade and investment ties around the world will help create new jobs and opportunities for hard-working Canadians from every region of our country.

Today I would like to focus on how Panama fits within our Americas strategy as part of discussions on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

Panama is already a significant trading partner for Canada, with two-way trade totalling over $235 million in 2011. In addition, it is an established market for our country's exporters and presents significant opportunities for Canadian businesses. Canada's exporters, investors and service providers are calling for these kinds of opportunities. Entrepreneurs want access to global markets and Canada's businesses can compete and win against the very best in the world.

Let me now turn to how this agreement fits within our government's Americas strategy, which was announced as a government priority in 2007 and was renewed in March, 2012.

The renewal seeks to maximize Canada's engagement by aligning priorities and leveraging Canadian strengths in areas where Canada can have the highest impact. The three goals of the renewed strategy are: first, increase Canadian and hemispheric economic opportunity; second, address security issues and advance freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law through capacity building; and third, build a stable foundation for Canada's engagement and increased influence in the hemisphere.

As a member of the international trade committee, it is clear to me that stronger economic ties are becoming increasingly important with the uncertainty in the global economy. Expanding Canada's trade and investment in the Americas will help protect existing jobs and create new jobs and increased prosperity for Canadians. Canada's efforts to increase economic opportunities centre on deepening commercial ties by advancing our trade agreements.

The Americas is the most successful region for recent Canadian bilateral trade initiatives, with 7 of Canada's 10 concluded free trade agreements being with countries in the Americas. To maximize the benefits flowing from these agreements, the Americas strategy recognizes the need to make Canadian companies aware of the advantages and opportunities that they create. Increased engagement through trade and commercial economic ties is one of the best ways to support positive change and growth in the Americas. Advancing freer trade in the Americas opens new doors of opportunity for Canadian companies, increasing economic benefits for Canadians, including increased jobs and prosperity.

Canada's strategic push to liberalize trade with the Americas is working. We are removing barriers and facilitating two-way commerce. The Americas offer great potential. Total trade growth between countries in the Americas and Canada has increased by 39.5%, from 2005 to 2010. In order to continue to increase economic opportunity, the renewed Americas strategy will focus on intensifying trade promotion and relationship building efforts to ensure that the Canadian private sector is taking full advantage of the trade and economic agreements that are and continue to be put in place.

As part of increasing economic opportunity with Panama, Canada is committed to a strong economic partnership that will contribute to enhanced prosperity in both our countries.

Tools, such as this free trade agreement and its parallel labour and environment agreements, will promote commercial exchange, while building a winning advantage for our companies, especially in natural resource management.

I want to take a moment to pay special tribute to His Excellency Francisco Carlo Escobar Pedreschi, the former Panamanian ambassador to Canada, for all of his efforts and his strong support of this renewed and expanded free trade agreement.

To enable and protect Canadian trade and commercial investments, the security situation in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean must be taken into consideration and has rightly been made a core focus in the renewed Americas strategy.

In recognizing its security challenges, Panama has significantly increased spending on public security and has committed to the reform of security institutions. Panama continues to foster strong security co-operation with the United States and has demonstrated a willingness to co-operate with Central American neighbours under the Central American integration system regional security strategy.

Canada is pleased with the significant efforts that Panama is making to meet the challenges posed by organized crime and its efforts to exercise leadership in confronting the public security threats facing Central America.

In a region where relationships are fundamental to success, long-term and multi-faceted engagement is a vital part of Canada's Americas strategy. Competition for market share is on the rise and Canada must demonstrate that it is a serious and committed partner.

The engagement of the Prime Minister, our ministers and seniors officials has been central to this effort. While sustaining high level engagement will be essential, Canada will benefit from building relationships more broadly across the private sector, government, academia, civil society and people to people.

All countries in the region have a vested interest in prosperity, security and stability. That is why it is so important for us to build and sustain relationships with our like-minded hemisphere neighbours.

Through our strong bilateral relationships and the increasing people-to-people networks generated through educational exchanges, increased tourism and business links, our ties with Panama are growing stronger every day and we are seeing an increase in the opportunities for Canadian companies.

With 60% of our GDP dependent on trade, it is clear that jobs and communities across Canada depend on trade with other countries. Through increased access to export markets for Canadian businesses, we are supporting economic growth in Canada and creating new opportunities, jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement and the parallel labour co-operation and environment agreements are key components to advancing the goals of the Americas strategy. I ask all members for their support.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my Conservative colleague why the members of his party voted against the amendment moved by my NDP colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, who was trying to include the concept of sustainable development in the free trade agreement with Panama.

The NDP believes that economic development can go hand in hand with environmental protection and workers' right to live in safety and have well-paid jobs. That is partly what sustainable development is about.

Why did my Conservative colleagues vote against this very reasonable amendment moved by my NDP colleague?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite raises a question related to the environment. I want to ensure he is aware of the provisions within the environment sub-agreement that relate to his concern.

The agreement on the environment commits both countries to pursue high levels of environmental protection to improve and enforce their environmental laws effectively and to maintain appropriate environmental assessment procedures. It also has provisions encouraging the use of voluntary best practices for corporate social responsibility and a commitment to promote public awareness.

One last point about the environment is that it reaffirms the country's international commitment under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to promote the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and to respect, preserve and maintain traditional knowledge, innovation and practice of indigenous and local communities.

It is my opinion that this side agreement goes a long way to promoting and protecting the environment.

The member also raises the concern about labour. As a member of a party which is always very concerned about labour, I want to highlight the provisions within the agreement that state that the labour co-operation agreement contains strong and enforceable provisions to protect and promote internationally recognized labour. We are talking about things like occupational health and safety, including compensation for injuries, employment standards, minimum wage—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I see other members rising for questions and I would like to give others some opportunities for questions.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want thank my colleague for his work on international trade issues in the committee.

My question is relatively simple. The member is from British Columbia and his activity on the international trade file has been extensive. I would like to know, from the member's perspective, what trade and international trade and free trade agreements mean to British Columbia and his community?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Madam Speaker, it has been a pleasure to serve with the member in the past.

There are two ways to look at this. We can look at the national benefits and then I will get to the regional benefits for British Columbia.

Nationally, let us not move past the point that this creates opportunities for Canadians across the country. By eliminating tariffs on non-agricultural imports, there is a huge opportunity for Canadian companies to get involved in the markets. Service providers will have expanded opportunities in the areas of information and communication technology, energy and financial services. There are rules for governing foreign investment. Canadian businesses can invest in Panama as well.

Let us keep in mind that Panama is about to expand the canal with, I believe, a $5 billion investment. I want to ensure that Canada has an opportunity to participate in that.

The member's specific question was how this would benefit the west, in beautiful British Columbia. Looking at the specifics, the tariffs that are eliminated address issues around paper and paper board, so there is the forestry industry, processed food products, milling products, machinery, pulses from other Prairie provinces and precious stones and metals of which we have a lot in British Columbia.

We can see that the spectrum with which this will impact our province is pretty large.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues from all parties who have already spoken in the course of this debate for letting us know their views.

We are debating another free trade agreement signed by this government in Central America, this time with Panama. So Panama is joining Colombia, Peru and Honduras, which have all negotiated or signed agreements with this Conservative government.

This agreement is just one more step in the Canada-United States strategy of prioritizing sequential bilateralism in the form of a NAFTA-style trade agreement. In my opinion, bilateralism is a very bad strategy. As was the case for the other agreements I have mentioned, this agreement presents problems, and that means we have a number of reasons for opposing the bill that has been introduced in this House.

This agreement presents a significant problem in terms of workers’ rights in Panama, and in fact there are no provisions in this trade agreement to ensure that Panamanian workers will not be denied their rights as they have been in the past. Two of the amendments proposed in committee by my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster would have protected unionized workers in Panama by guaranteeing them the right to bargain collectively and by forcing the Minister of International Trade, the principal representative of Canada on the joint Canada-Panama commission, to consult regularly with representatives of Canadian workers and Canadian unions.

Those amendments, like all the others, were rejected by the Conservatives and the Liberals. Unfortunately, the result is a free trade zone where workers’ rights are cheapened, something that is already a serious problem in Panama.

The fact that these reasonable amendments were rejected by both the Conservatives and the Liberals reminded me of one of the last times we saw the two parties come together on an FTA in this region. I am referring to the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. It was during the last Parliament that many of my colleagues discussed and debated that agreement, eventually seeing its passage as the Liberals supported the Conservatives. However, that support came with a condition at the suggestion of the hon. member for Kings—Hants. Under that condition, each country would have to provide annual reports to their parliaments assessing the impact of the free trade agreement on human rights.

To the Liberals, this was the answer to the grievous human rights concerns that exist in Colombia. To the Liberals, this was the silver bullet, or as put another way by the member for Kings—Hants in a press release dated March 25, 2010, was the “new gold standard” for human rights reporting in free trade agreements.

With that deal in place, the Liberals signed onto the FTA and it went into force. Therefore, maybe it is appropriate timing that just last month the very first report under that agreement was published. Given what the Liberals had agreed to, we should have expected to receive a fulsome report on the human rights situation on the ground in Colombia, but what did we get instead? We got nothing, zero, nada on human rights in Colombia.

What was the excuse for this failure to report? The international trade minister told us, “the government did not have enough information to conduct a full assessment by the time it was required to submit the report to Parliament”. Seriously, that was the answer. He may as well have said that his dog ate his homework. If this is what the new gold standard is supposed to look like, then so far it looks like the Liberals were sold a big piece of fool's gold.

Under this FTA, the government is supposed to produce these reports every 12 months. How is it that it could not produce at least a preliminary report after nine months? Maybe it did not because it knew it would not be the most flattering and would create some political problems for it.

Regardless of the excuses for not reporting, the entire reporting process that was agreed to has major flaws.

First, these reports do not meet the United Nations' standard, which states that nations should complete human rights assessments before signing an FTA rather than after.

Also, this report is coming directly from the government itself, not an independent third party. We are counting on the Government of Colombia to tell us if it is violating the human rights of its own citizens. Throughout history that kind of self-reporting arrangement has never been viewed as the most credible approach, yet we are depending on it here.

But the coup de grâce really comes from the final problem with this approach, which is that under this FTA there are no negative consequences for any negative results that come from that report. So regardless of how bad the reports may be, there is not a single consequence for the Government of Colombia. How does the Conservative government expect the Government of Colombia to be motivated to improve the human rights situation in its country if it faces no consequences for not doing so?

After the Colombia FTA came into force, we saw the violence and the repression of human rights continue. Groups like MiningWatch Canada have brought forward reports from Colombia of incidents involving Canadian mining companies in Colombia, particularly regarding indigenous rights violations.

On September 2 Father José Reinel Restrepo was murdered in Marmato, Colombia. Father Restrepo just happened to be a very vocal opponent of a mining project proposed by a company based in Canada called Gran Colombia Gold Corp. Under this project his home community of Marmato would be obliterated in order to make way for an open-pit mine.

There are other NGOs that have also brought forward stories and reports of human rights violations. Despite all these reports brought forward by reputable NGOs, I remind the House that the Conservative government said it “did not have enough information to conduct a full assessment by the time it was required...”. These reports seem to state otherwise.

I represent a riding where many of these same mining firms work and work well. They work with local communities and aboriginal nations to provide opportunities for the people who call our region home. I have personally negotiated many agreements with many of these companies on behalf of the Grand Council of the Cree in the past 20 years.

I have to ask myself why it is that some of these companies seem to not take this same approach when working in other countries. Maybe it is because under this FTA these companies simply do not have the obligation to do so. The Conservative government, by signing FTAs that do not truly protect human rights in these partner countries, is sending the signal that as long as they act like good corporate citizens at home, we will forget about what they do abroad. This “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas” approach to corporate social responsibility is not only doing harm to communities in these other countries; it is putting a stain on the reputation of our country and the reputations of those Canadian companies that take their corporate social responsibility seriously.

The NDP believes that the federal government should stop following the NAFTA model exclusively, at the expense of other approaches. It should explore different ways of promoting trade. Our trade policy, here in Canada, should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade, trade that builds partnerships with other countries that support the principles of social justice and human rights, while not ignoring the need to expand our trade objectives. It is possible to have a better model, but the political will has to be there, and that is what is sorely lacking on the part of this Conservative government.

The NDP firmly believes that there is another model for trade relations, a better model, one that can be applied to Panama and any other country. That model includes the fundamental principle that all trade agreements must protect and promote human rights. There is a lot of work to be done to improve this free trade agreement with Panama. I hope the government is going to take our suggestions to heart and exchange its free trade model for our fair trade model, which is viable and realistic.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for his remarks. I am glad to know that he, too, cares about the economic agreements that Canada enters into with other countries. He mentioned that it was very important to him that these agreements be sustainable and equitable.

It worries me that Canada may end up exploiting workers who live in Panama under this agreement.

Is my colleague also concerned about the potential exploitation of workers under this free trade agreement?

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his excellent question. We also ask excellent questions on this side of the House.

It is such an important question. In all the agreements that we will have to negotiate in the future, the measures in place in these agreements must be comparable to what we have in Canada, whether in terms of the environment, human rights or labour standards. This is important, and we insist on that.

Only yesterday, I read the United Nations Human Rights Committee report. On the other side of the House, they seem to be saying that there is no problem with human rights in Panama and that there are therefore no concerns to voice in this regard. Yet, in its latest report on Panama, in paragraph 20, the Human Rights Committee, which monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, had the following to say about child labour:

The committee notes with concern that, despite the fact that the Constitution prohibits persons under the age of 14 years from working, including as domestic workers, and despite legislative measures to prohibit the worst forms of child labour, the rate of child labour in the country continues to be high.

That is why we are concerned about this type of free trade agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague. He raised several important and interesting issues for Canadians, including protecting the environment and the rights of workers.

I also want to mention that despite the Canadian government's requests, Panama has consistently refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. This is very troubling because we know that there is currently a very high volume of money laundering activities in Panama, including laundering of money from drug trafficking. We know, therefore, that there is no transparency when it comes to taxation in Panama. Moreover, that is why the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development called Panama a tax haven.

Does my colleague have any comments to make on this issue? Should Canada proceed with a little more care when it negotiates free trade agreements? Is the process too fast?

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, our credibility is at stake when we negotiate free trade agreements with countries like Panama.

The Department of Justice expressed extreme concern with regard to the money laundering situation, which is very well known in that country. Why are we going ahead with this type of free trade agreement without taking care to determine whether what is going on is really going on? What measures are being proposed in our agreements to remedy these situations?

That applies to the issues raised by my NDP colleague, but also to the environmental issues, human rights issues and right of association issues in that country, which is a matter of constant concern. We need to be able to act rigorously each time we negotiate a free trade agreement.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-24 , the Canada–Panama free trade agreement. This is a trade agreement that would help Canadians from all regions of the country, including the hard-working people of Calgary Northeast.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement would level the playing field for Canadian businesses in Panama. As we all know, healthy Canadian businesses produce jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. Seeing as how Panama has negotiated a few free trade agreements in recent years, Canadian companies are currently at a disadvantage in Panama because many of their competitors have better market access under one of Panama's recent free trade agreements.

In March 2011, six Central American countries, including Panama, initialled an association agreement with the European Union. The agreement includes a section on trade, which will reduce tariffs on European goods such as machinery and transport equipment, goods that are also key Canadian exports to Panama.

In addition, since 2003, Panama has signed and implemented free trade agreements with Chile, Peru, Singapore and Taiwan. However, it is not just these trade agreements against which we are competing.

The United States is our friend but it is also a competitor. The U.S. signed a comprehensive free trade agreement with Panama in 2007. It has been ratified by both Panama and the U.S. and it is expected to come into force before the end of 2012. Once that agreement is brought into force, over 87% of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods and nearly 56% of American agriculture exports to Panama will become duty-free immediately. Canadian producers of pork, potatoes and other goods will be hard pressed to succeed in the Panamanian market if their American competitors enjoy such duty-free access while we do not.

I am sure my hon. colleagues will agree that we must take steps to maintain Canada's competitiveness in Panama. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement would do just that. By removing the majority of tariff barriers faced by Canadians goods exported to Panama, this agreement would help Canadians succeed in one of Latin America's most dynamic and rapidly growing economies.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement would also help Canadian companies bid competitively on major government procurement contracts, including projects related to the $5.3 billion U.S. expansion of the Panama Canal. If we in the House believe that Canadian exporters and investors are among the best in the world, we must help them prosper by ensuring that they are not disadvantaged in the Panamanian market. The opportunities are there and it is our job to help Canadians take advantage of them.

Now I will turn to the second set of benefits that the Canada-Panama free trade agreement would provide. As members know, Canada is a country of many regions. Tariff concessions under the Canada-Panama free trade agreement would make Canadian goods from every region more competitive in Panama's market, bringing economic benefits to every province.

Permit me to briefly remind the House of a few specific benefits that this agreement would have for exporters across Canada.

When I migrated to Canada, Quebec was my first home. That is where I met my wife Neetu. Our first son Jatin was born in Montreal on January 15, 1991. It is a beautiful part of Canada and a province that would benefit from this trade agreement. Quebec pork producers would enjoy immediate duty-free access to the Panamanian market. Panama's tariffs on pork currently range up to 70%.

Quebec producers of industrial and construction machinery would benefit from the immediate elimination of Panama's current tariffs, which are as high as 15%. Quebec firms in the pharmaceutical and aerospace sectors would also enjoy duty-free access to Panama. Panamanian tariffs in these sectors currently range up to 11% for pharmaceuticals, and up to 15% in the aerospace sector.

Therefore, I urge all Quebec members to stand up for Quebec producers and to vote in favour of this agreement.

In Ontario, the free trade agreement would benefit exporters through the elimination of Panama's tariffs on industrial and construction machinery. Ontario exporters of electrical and electronic equipment which currently face tariffs of up to 15% would also enjoy immediate duty-free access to the Panamanian market. Other sectors of export interest for Ontario include pharmaceuticals, chemicals and furniture. In all of these sectors, Panama will immediately eliminate its current tariffs when the free trade agreement comes into force. I know that the Leader of the Opposition likes to blame all manufacturing slowdowns on other provinces, but supporting this agreement is one real way, an easy, honest way, that the NDP can stand up for Ontario manufacturers and exporters.

In B.C., where I also lived before settling in Alberta, exporters would benefit from the immediate elimination of tariffs on goods such as paper and paperboard, processed food products and wine. Exporters in my home province of Alberta would enjoy duty-free access for industrial and construction machinery, and power-generating machinery.

In grain-growing provinces like Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, farmers of oilseeds, pulses and cereals would benefit from the immediate elimination of Panama's tariffs, some as high as 40%, on their products.

Let us jump back east. In Atlantic Canada, exporters would benefit from the immediate reduction of Panama's tariffs on paper and paperboard. Current tariffs on these products range as high as 15%.

Panama would also eliminate its tariffs on fish and seafood, which range up to 15%, and frozen french fries, which range up to 20%. As we know, french fry superstar McCain Foods is fast becoming a global player, and recently I had the pleasure of touring one of its facilities in Gujarat, India with our hard-working Minister of International Trade. Let us not stand in its path to success with Panama.

Other sectors of interest for Atlantic Canadian exporters that would receive duty-free access under the Canada-Panama free trade agreement include plastic, electrical and electronic equipment, and information and communication technology.

These represent just a few of the ways that Canadians would benefit from this free trade agreement, but before workers and businesses across Canada can take advantage of these new opportunities, we must do our part and pass Bill C-24. We live in challenging economic times, and we cannot allow Canada's competitiveness to diminish. By pursuing an aggressive bilateral trade agenda, this government is helping Canadians to compete and win in markets beyond our borders.

International trade plays a critical role in the success of our nation; 60% of our GDP and 1 in 5 jobs depend on trade. Free trade agreements, including this agreement with Panama, are necessary to help Canada maintain its current economic strength and prosperity. That is why I hope that my hon. colleagues here in the House will join me in supporting the passage of Bill C-24. It is good for constituents, it helps produce jobs and growth, and it is good for Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I find that quite unbelievable. The Conservative member opposite is saying that the agreement between Panama and Canada will be good for the Quebec economy and that we need to trust the Conservative government. What I would like to ask that hon. member is whether he is trying to make me laugh.

The Conservative government negotiated a free trade agreement on softwood lumber with the United States, and regions like mine—Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean—have still not recovered from that forestry crisis. The wonderful forestry resources of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean are being exported for peanuts, which is killing the regional economy when it comes to secondary and tertiary processing.

Government MPs were the ones who voted in favour of the softwood lumber free trade agreement with the United States. Now, the government wants us to trust it on the agreement with Panama. The government thinks that Quebec will come out the big winner, as will the Maritimes, Alberta, British Columbia and all Canadian provinces. Are you trying to make me laugh? Does the Conservative government think Canadians just fell off the turnip truck?

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I would like to thank the hon. member for correcting himself and addressing his comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not kidding. I am serious that this agreement would benefit all provinces. Quebec would benefit from the elimination of Panama's tariffs on key exports such as pork, industrial and construction machinery, pharmaceuticals and aerospace products. Investment and services provisions would benefit the engineering, construction and transportation sectors in Quebec.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course we constantly hear the opposition opposing any kind of free trade agreement, going back to NAFTA . We in our ridings listened to the businesspeople and the workers who are employed at those businesses to find out what the real issues are on the ground. Those issues are about expanding their businesses, creating more work, getting better bonuses as a result of hard work and perseverance in terms of their ability to make contributions to Canada. Of course, free trade and expanding our markets do all that. It is totally what the opposition members are against.

In your comments today, your being from Alberta, I know you have seen many of the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. Could I ask this hon. member as well to direct his comments toward the Chair? And could you conclude?

[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.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments about reaching out to other jurisdictions and giving them a helping hand. I wonder if he would support my view that we should be bringing forward the best possible agreements.

The government talks about sidebar agreements on the environment and labour. I happen to have worked under the side agreement under NAFTA, and it was a very fulsome agreement. I wonder if the member has a view on whether or not it is advisable for the government to be downgrading these agreements.

If we are going to have a useful dialogue, surely we should have the independent secretariat and an independent commission between Panama and Canada, as we had with the U.S. and Mexico.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member asking about beef.

In fact, the BSE-related beef tariffs in Panama have actually been lifted. I can tell members that believe it not, the tariffs were 25% to 30% on Canadian beef and on all of Canada's high-quality beef cuts. Panama will also eliminate its 15% tariff on fresh or chilled offal with the implementation of the free trade agreement.

I will say, in relation to what the member did say, that I do not think there is any possibility of reaching perfection in anything. To suggest that we should hold out until we reach perfection, which I think is the NDP position, admirable as it is, is not reality.

We deal with real life here on this planet. We deal with real life in the Conservative caucus. We are going to continue to stand up for workers, the Canadian economy and families.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, here is a country with a history.

When we talk about these things, we often have the feeling we are discussing them with people who have little or no history. Panama has a very long history. Denial of human rights in Panama also has a very long history.

The first time in my life that I heard of Panama, it was for an unfortunate reason: our Prime Minister at the time was registering the ships owned by his company, Canada Steamship Lines, in Panama so as not to pay taxes in Canada. That is the kind of prime minister we had.

I do not remember exactly where I was working at the time, but I found it truly despicable that a prime minister would actually register his ships in Panama in order avoid taxes. I wondered what was happening in that country and why we did not have a reciprocal agreement for income tax. Then I delved into the question a little, and discovered it was a tax haven. Companies that did not want to pay their taxes or did not want governments to be looking into their business went there to register, and that enabled them to engage in multiple transactions all over the world, without being too bothered by financial regulations and laws.

The second time that we heard about Panama in recent years was because of Noriega. Initially, he was a CIA agent and he eventually became the country's leader by relying on narco-dollars, the drug trade, and the sale of arms to the FARC and other guerrilla movements throughout the world. He remained in Panama for a little over 10 years before he was ultimately toppled by the U.S. Army—during the presidency of George Bush—which set up puppet governments—more or less—until the arrival of Mr. Martinelli.

Why have I mentioned Mr. Martinelli? When a contract is signed, people assume that it is signed with another country, when in fact, it is an agreement between two individuals. When I sign a contract, I want to know who I am signing it with. So, I did a bit of research on Mr. Martinelli. At the precise moment that the Conservatives introduced the first bill on a free-trade agreement with Panama in this House, in Panama, Mr. Martinelli introduced and adopted without debate his Bill 30, framework legislation to promote foreign investment in Panama.

I am going to speak a little about the various sections of Bill 30 to demonstrate what sort of person Mr. Martinelli is, and to show that there is a similarity between the Conservatives and Mr. Martinelli, and that the Conservatives like the measures that he passed.

Bill 30 has been caricatured as the lobster act, or the prawn act. There are nine sections in this act that are quite problematic. Among them, there is the suspension of workers who support strikes within an affected institution or trade. That is one of the measures in Bill 30, introduced at the same time that the Conservatives wanted Canada to enter into a free trade agreement with Panama.

Bill 30 also provided that once a strike was initiated, the regional labour directorate would immediately give the order to law-enforcement authorities to guarantee and protect people and property. This signified, therefore, the abolition of the right to strike in Panama. I know that these are measures that the Conservatives favour hugely. Then, there was the immediate suspension of the contracts of workers who called a strike. There was also a ban on union dues deducted at source. That is another provision that seems tailor-made for the Conservative government.

When Mr. Martinelli introduced this bill, he flatly lied to Panamanians, saying that the International Labour Organization had proposed these measures. In fact, Panama has never respected the agreement it signed in 1998 with the International Labour Organization.

I listened to one of our colleagues across the way rattle off the list of rights that would be respected under this agreement.

Panama signed the accord, but it has never complied with the content. Let us put that out of our minds.

There were other sections on the environment in Law 30. State projects that the executive considers to be in the public interest are exempt from the major impact studies. As I read that, I cannot stop laughing, because it is the exact same thing as was served up to us this week. They are exempt from the impact studies.

Now let us talk about the open-pit mining in areas that are designated human ecological reserves. Law 30 was introduced at the same time as we wanted to negotiate free trade with Panama. There will be no more impact studies on environmental projects in Panama. That is something else that must please our Conservative friends a great deal.

As for human rights violations, the ultimate outrage in the law—which has really set the cat among the pigeons in Panama, as I will discuss later—is that immunity is being provided to the members of Panama's national police force. I will read section 27 of the law:

When a member of the national police force is the subject of a report or a complaint or when he is accused of or charged with committing an alleged offence while on duty or in the performance of his duties, for excessive and unjustified use of force, preventive arrest shall be neither ordered nor prescribed…

Basically, any police officer using excessive or unjustified force will not be arrested or suspended until the courts rule.

This is another measure endorsing the fact that the government is denying workers the right to strike and suspending the collection of union dues. If anyone protests these measures, the government sends in the police, and the police can do whatever they want. What a wonderful world.

Mr. Martinelli revealed the main purpose of his legislation in a conversation with the President of South Korea. Speaking about the new law, Mr. Martinelli said:

...[this legislation] will enable multinationals to become established in the country and to feel at home. With the facilities...in any of the country's tax-free zones, business people from around the world can come here to find the social and economic stability they want for their business.

In other words, he has workers under his thumb and the police in his back pocket and he wants foreigners to invest. His law went through at exactly the same time as this free trade agreement was introduced.

Of course, the law did not go through smoothly. There were strikes. A major strike movement began building. Thousands of workers across the country went on strike. Unfortunately, people died. The police were given the power to do whatever they wanted without worrying about the courts or human rights. People died; people were threatened and arrested. Terror still reigns.

Mr. Martinelli backed down from some parts of his law. Nevertheless, the basis of it, the purpose, was to enable foreign capital to get its hands on Panama.

One of the important aspects involving Canada is the presence of Canadian companies in Panama. In fact, at this time, there are significant disputes involving three Canadian mining companies and ancestral lands in part of Panama. Three big mining companies—Inmet Mining Corporation, Corriente Resources Inc. and Petaquilla Mining—are working on projects in Panama. The indigenous people who live on the lands where those companies are carrying out their projects are opposed to the projects and are trying to renegotiate the bases of the projects.

In April of this year, three men were killed in the Ngöbe-Buglé reserve. There were men killed, there were a dozen men injured and there were a hundred others arrested when the police were sent to put an end to the occupations of the lands where the Canadian mines are located.

If anyone would like to have more information about what is going on in Panama, about the position of our companies that are currently in Panama, about how rights are being flouted, in particular the rights of the indigenous people, ask me questions; I have a lot of information in my document.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, since I have been here in Parliament, it has been obvious that the NDP is not in favour of expanding our markets to other parts of the world.

We need to remind Canadians that Canada currently does export a lot of goods to Panama, such as machinery, precious stones, wheat, aerospace products, minerals, fuel and oil.

However, the part that is most troubling for me is that within this trade agreement, Canadian farmers will have increased access to the beef and pork markets in Panama. I am from a riding that has a large number of farmers, and a lot of agricultural products are produced and processed. I am just wondering if my NDP colleague and his party are not interested in supporting our farmers in Canada. What is their reason for being against increasing the opportunity for trade in our agricultural products?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, in spite of what my colleague thinks, Canada’s real interest has nothing to do with the marginal market for Canadian beef in Panama; it has to do with the gigantic market for the Canadian mining companies that are there.

For example, Corriente Resources Inc., a Canadian mining company, holds information sessions with the Ngöbe-Buglé people who live in that region. It has the people sign documents in order to receive training sessions and other benefits. In fact, what the people did not know was that they were signing papers saying they agreed to the open-pit mining project on their lands.