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

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about the importance of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. As the hon. members of the House may know, negotiations for this agreement were concluded and announced in August 2009 when the Prime Minister travelled to Panama City. In May 2010, the agreement was signed and it was first tabled in Parliament later that year.

Nearly two and a half years later, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement is still in Parliament pending ratification. In fact, members may recall that former ambassador Francisco Escobar had taken a keen interest in this file. He had his term extended with the prospect of getting this deal done before he left Canada and returned to Panama. Unfortunately, that did not happen because of delays caused by the opposition members, specifically the New Democrats who, as we know, are anti-trade and anti-investment.

The New Democrats have accused our government of trying to fast-track the Canada-Panama free trade agreement through Parliament. We are talking about two and a half years and it is still not done because of all kinds of delays and obstacles presented by the New Democrats. To date, we have spent almost 60 hours debating the merits of this agreement.

What the opposition members do not realize is that trade and investment drive economic growth and job creation here at home in Canada. As members know, Canada's economic fundamentals lead much of the developed world. Our growth rates and our job creation record are the best among the G7. Yet, these are very fragile times for the global economy and that is why we are using trade and investment to open up new opportunities for Canadian companies around the world. We need to provide them with opportunities to be successful, to grow their businesses and to take advantage of some of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Latin America is one of those areas and Panama has been a special target for us. We have a very good relationship with the Panamanian government, which also recognizes that expanded trade is important for its long-term prosperity.

The fact of the matter is that reaching a trade agreement with a key hemispheric partner such as Panama is a logical step in our policy of pursuing deeper integration and closer co-operation throughout the Americas. In fact, we have an ambitious plan to expand Canada's footprint in Latin America. Our Conservative government recognizes that protectionist restrictions stifle our exporters and undermine Canada's competitiveness. On the world stage, Canada has been a champion in the fight against protectionism. We promote free and open trade around the world. We have collaborated with some of our key partners around the world to drive home the message that protectionism is toxic to the global economic recovery. We also understand that in order for our companies to succeed, we need to create the right conditions for their success through freer and more open trade.

This agreement with Panama would help do this by providing Canadian businesses with improved market access for goods and services and a stable and predictable investment environment. We want to ensure that when Canadian investors look to Panama as a place for investment, there are clear sets of rules in place to address the investment and also the dispute resolution process. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement would also eliminate tariffs in a range of sectors, including industrial, agricultural, forestry goods and of course fish and seafood. It would also expand market access for Canadian service providers in information and communications technology, in energy and in financial services. Something a lot of Canadians do not recognize is that 71% of Canada's GDP is driven by the services industry. It is the largest industry in Canada.

When we forge new opportunities around the world for Canadian businesses to trade and invest, we also want to provide them with opportunities to build on our strengths in the services sector, strengths in areas such as engineering. A lot of Canadians do not understand that Canada is the fourth largest exporter of engineering services in the world. We are world leaders in that area, but unfortunately there are sometimes barriers to allowing our engineering firms to compete abroad. We are removing those barriers by engaging in free trade negotiations, especially with countries such as Panama.

Just to provide some context, Panama is a dynamic and fast-growing market for Canadian exports, one that has continued to grow despite a time of global uncertainty. In fact, our bilateral trade with emerging economies such as Panama is growing very rapidly. Those are our growth opportunities around the world. Over the past five years, bilateral merchandise trade between Canada and Panama has increased by 105%. That is a staggering figure and it really frames how important it is for us to deepen our trade and investment relationship with Panama.

To ensure that Canada's economy continues to grow, we must forge closer economic ties and seize new opportunities with thriving and emerging economies such as Panama. Our bilateral trade with Panama has been growing rapidly because the Panamanian economy is in the midst of a period of impressive economic expansion. In 2011, Panama's real gross domestic product growth was a stunning 10.6%. That is just in one year. According to the International Monetary Fund, Panama's GDP will continue to grow at over 6% per year over the next five years. By any standard, that is remarkable growth in these very difficult global economic times.

Where there is rapid growth, there are also significant commercial opportunities, especially for Canadian businesses, which are world leaders in many different sectors. Sadly, the New Democrats do not believe that Canadian businesses and workers should have these opportunities. They do not believe that our businesses can compete. They do not believe that trade creates jobs and economic prosperity for Canadians and our international partners. In fact, the NDP believes in an inward-looking Canada, a Canada that cowers in the face of competition.

Our Conservative government categorically rejects that view and vision for Canada. We believe that Canadians have proven time and time again that we can compete with the very best and win, and we will continue to do so as our government opens up new markets.

However, we see efforts in the House by New Democrats to characterize themselves as pro-trade. They refer to it as fair trade and we all know across Canada that fair trade, when it is defined by the NDP, means no trade. There is not one trade agreement that they do not criticize. There is not one trade agreement that they see as moving Canada's trade objectives forward.

When they speak of being born-again free traders, it belies the fact that, for example, the NDP member for Ottawa Centre asked dismissively, “Does anyone really think that signing a free trade agreement with Panama will lead to the economic prosperity of Canada?” There are others. For instance, the NDP member for British Columbia Southern Interior recently wrote that trade agreements “threaten the very existence of our nation”.

Can anyone imagine that trade agreements are threatening our very existence as a nation? Quite the opposite is true. Trade is a key driver of economic growth and prosperity in Canada. In fact, Canada is one of the great free trading nations of the world and we benefit from more open and freer trade.

Then there is the former NDP trade critic, the member for Windsor West, who supported the Canadian auto workers' call to abandon our current negotiations for free trade agreements with countries such as Japan and the European Union. That is pretty sad. We reject that approach to trade. We also reject the New Democrats' approach to investment, which is to say no, and they have done that again in recent weeks.

According to the International Monetary Fund, Panama's GDP is recording very significant growth. It opens up new opportunities for Canadians to sell their products and their expertise into the Panamanian market. For example, Canada's agricultural exporters, on whose products Panama currently maintains tariffs reaching peaks of as high as 260%, those tariffs would be eliminated under this agreement.

Our government is proud to be promoting an ambitious pro-trade plan that is opening up these markets, removing those tariff and non-tariff barriers to ensure we can compete effectively and drive economic growth right here at home.

The opportunities for Canada are not limited to exporters. It has been widely reported that Panama is undertaking an ambitious $5.3 billion project to expand the Panama Canal. In fact, the canal's expansion project is already under way. The ongoing operation and maintenance of the canal is expected to generate significant opportunities for Canada's investment community in the years to come.

Furthermore, Panama has announced an infrastructure plan valued at $13.6 billion over five years in its effort to become a trade and logistical hub in the region. Canada is one of the leaders in infrastructure and related technology. We have some of the top firms in the world that are experts in infrastructure, construction and development.

The more that time passes by, the more that opportunities for Canada's exporters and investors are placed at risk. That is why the House must act quickly to ensure that Canadian companies have the competitive advantage to see some of the growing commercial opportunities in Latin America, and specifically in Panama.

I would remind the House that Panama has already concluded free trade agreements with the United States and the European Union, two of our fiercest competitors. Panama's free trade agreement with the European Union could enter into force as early as the end of this year. More pressing is the fact that the United States-Panama trade agreement entered into force on October 31, 2012, just two days ago.

What does that mean to Canadians? We have lost first mover advantage. We had an opportunity to get this done sooner but because of the opposition parties and the obstacles raised by the NDP, the anti-traders, the anti-investment folks on the other side of this House, we have lost that first mover advantage. Now, the United States and its exporters and its investors will have a leg up on Canada. What a shame.

While Canadian companies continue to face duties, our American counterparts are already seizing the excellent opportunities freer and open trade has brought to their workers and businesses. Now, of course, Canadian products are at a competitive disadvantage due to prohibitive duties, while 87% of products from the United States now enjoy duty-free access.

We have missed that window of opportunity to take the lead. This will adversely impact the Canadian manufacturers, producers and exporters who want to grow and expand their commercial ties with Panama. It is absolutely imperative that we implement this agreement to defend the competitiveness of Canadian firms in Panama and solidify our Canadian presence in a growing and strategic market.

Our Conservative government clearly understands that our standard our living and Canadians' future prosperity will be generated by deepening and broadening our trade and investment relationships around the world, especially in the highest and fastest growing markets of the world.

Opening up new markets in Panama and increasing Canadian exports will benefit workers and businesses in every region of our country. We have already lost tremendous opportunities in Panama by waiting to implement this agreement. It is time to get this bill through the House.

I ask that all hon. members of this House, on both sides of this House, support the swift ratification of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for quoting me. I was going to make that point but he has done it for me.

When we see the trade deals that the government has brought forward, does it really think that free trade agreements with Iceland, Jordan and Panama will actually open up our economy to the extent that we will lift all boats up? Unemployment is stubbornly at 7% in this country. We just heard the job numbers.

The government has done nothing to focus on a job strategy and yet it puts out these pithy agreements that make us vulnerable because of the way they are negotiated. We put forward many amendments on this trade deal. We believe in trade but we need to ensure it is for Canadians as well as the people we are trading with.

Exactly how many good jobs will be created for Canadians, jobs we can count on because we will put this on the record for later? Why did the Conservatives reject the amendments we put forward which would protect the labour rights of those who we are trading with, in this case Panama, as well as the environmental protections? Why did they reject those amendments which were reasonable?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, due to our government's economic action plan, our global commerce strategy, under which we have created the most ambitious trade plan in Canada's history, we have seen tremendous growth in very difficult economic times around the world.

At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned that Canada's economic fundamentals lead most of the developed world. Our job creation numbers lead the G7. In fact, I would remind the member that since 2009 and the depths of the recession, Canada has created 820,000 net new jobs. Much of that is due to the fact that we have had this ambitious investment strategy that is opening up new opportunities around the world for Canadian companies to be successful.

I also would remind the member that this free trade agreement also has a parallel agreement on labour protections. He must have missed that as he read the agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister for the hard work that he has done. I mean that in all sincerity. It is incredible the amount of trade and the work that we are continuing to do. We are not stopping.

In my riding of Chatham—Kent Essex, a largely agricultural riding, what will it mean for the people who are involved in the agricultural business and trading and some of those aspects? What will it mean for trade for those farmers?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend and I have become very close friends over the years. He is someone who really cares about Canada's economic health and he has intervened on many occasions to express how important it is for Canada to grow its economy through using trade and investment.

In trade agreements, we focus on eliminating two things, one being tariff barriers. In other words, the duties that are imposed when Canadians want to export agricultural products abroad, whether it is wheat, pulses, fruits, pork or cattle. When we are exporting these products abroad there are usually very heavy tariffs on them because other countries are trying to protect their economy. What they do not understand is that free and open trade actually builds a much bigger overall pie.

When we negotiate these agreements, we are negotiating market access, the elimination of these tariffs, and beyond that we are also negotiating the elimination of non-tariff barriers which are all the rules and standards that are behind the border that prevent Canadian farmers from being successful when they export their products abroad.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to let it be known for the record that on this side we agree with fair trade, not free trade at the expense of everything else. I am also a bit tired of the gibberish that I hear coming from that side and the words the minister says in his attacks that somehow I am against trade as is my party.

The minister mentioned CETA. Is he willing to sign a free trade agreement with Europe if this allows the European multinational corporations to sue the Canadian government, if the municipalities choose, for example, to give local preference to contracts and hire local workers? Is he willing to sign this agreement if the cost of prescription drugs in Canada goes up by $2.5 billion? Is he willing to sign this agreement if those in the supply management sector see supply management gutted because of the pressure coming from Europe or Japan or in the other agreements with other countries? What if this hampers provincial governments in instituting good green energy policies? Is he willing to sell out Canada because of these so-called free trade agreements?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has just answered his own question. It is very clear that he is anti-trade. It is very obvious from that answer.

I will again quote for the House what that member recently stated. He said, “trade agreements threaten the very existence of our nation”. That is a broad unconditional statement that says that he opposes free trade. His party, the NDP, has consistently opposed our free trade agenda.

I would remind the member that the New Democrats has opposed free trade agreements with countries such as Iceland, Switzerland, Peru and Liechtenstein. The NDP are not born-again free traders over there. It is very clear that the NDP is anti-trade and anti-investment. Its record shows that. It has opposed almost every free trade agreement this government has ever signed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the trade minister and this government on what an excellent job they have done to get out there and try to find new markets.

How exactly would Canada, with some 35 million people, grow our economy if we were to do as the opposition wishes and only trade with ourselves? I do not understand that. What we are trying to do is eliminate barriers and tariffs, things that would create access to markets where,in some cases, our companies are already trading but on an unfair basis.

We are looking at trying to develop rule-based trading where our companies could compete on a fair ground, where they could go out and export our products and do a better job, which means they can employ more people for Canada.

I would like the minister to comment on where exactly we would sell our goods if we could not sell them to other places in the world.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, Canada is the second largest country in terms of land mass in the world. We are a country that is incredibly rich in natural resources but we only have a population of 34 million. That is not a large market. If we want the ability to grow the economy, we need to look outside of Canada. I am not asking the New Democrats to understand that because they have tried to understand it and it has just not gotten through.

We know that Canadians understand that trade is a kitchen table issue and that is critical to their long-term prosperity. As we seek these new markets, we remove barriers to trade around the world. We do exactly as my colleague has suggested. We find new markets. We create new markets for our Canadian businesses to be successful in and to increase their exports, not only in goods but also in services where Canada is a world leader.

I make no apologies for our ambitious trade agenda.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister.

If Canada were to enter into an agreement with the Cayman Islands, would the agreement include an exchange of tax information and banking secrets, or would we simply sign it without even looking at it?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled as to why the member would refer to the Cayman Islands. We are discussing the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

Canada is presently in discussions with Panama to sign a tax information exchange agreement that would make it easier to detect money laundering, to ensure that our tax regimes line up and that the information that flows between two trading partners, Canada and Panama, is sufficient for us to identify when nefarious activities are going on. We have made it very clear that we see that as being part of this ongoing relationship with Panama.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we have heard, yet again, the government talking more about others, casting aspersions on people and making up fictitious policy statements of other parties, as opposed to talking about the merits of this trade deal. That is unfortunate. A responsible government model would be to bring forward one's best ideas, talk about the benefits, make sure they are understood and that Canadians are aware of the benefits.

Alas, this government is more interested in throwing political mud as opposed to promoting its ideas. I guess it is nothing new. We hear it every day in the House. The Conservatives like to throw mud even more than talking about their own ridings. I guess it is not a surprise that again today we have the minister spending more than a third of his speech attacking our party and trying to in some way paraphrase us. It was fiction, indeed.

We really need to take these trade deals seriously. For most of his career in the public service, my father worked on negotiating GATT agreements. One of the things he was very clear about was that in getting involved in trade agreements, Canada has to make sure it understands all of the issues on the table. He used to negotiate the GATT agreements in Brussels on behalf of our country. He was very proud of our country's ability to take away barriers where we could, but also make sure we had a balance.

The government does not seem to understand that; it is in such a hurry to sign a free trade agreement with whomever. This is a problem, because once these free trade agreements are stacked up, they actually have to be monitored. People have to be in place to follow them.

The minister was bragging about the great robust global trade strategy. Then, who did he cite? Liechtenstein. I have nothing against the good people there, but it does not amount to lifting all boats up.

We should also note that the government has had free trade agreements with countries like Honduras, for instance. With regard to the amount of value recently concluded for the free trade agreement in Honduras, in a full year, our trade with Honduras is equal to 71 minutes of the trade we do with the United States. It is interesting that the government brags that the equivalent of 71 minutes of trade with one of our bigger trading partners is somehow going to lift all boats up

The government has not been able to sign one agreement with a major Asian economy. It has stumbled around trying to figure out how to deal with China. It has members who still do not believe we should even have a relationship with China. I cite some of the members who have spoken for themselves. I will not quote them.

We have a problem here in terms of the government's credibility on trade. It says one thing and it talks about this robust strategy, but when we add up the list of countries, including Panama, it really does not amount to a comprehensive strategy.

This is a changing world. In the decades ahead, we will see a dramatic shift in global power. Projections indicate that by 2050 only the United States will represent the western nations among the top seven largest economies. China will be first. India, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Indonesia, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany, Nigeria, France, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam will have larger GDPs than Canada. This is a manifestation of a truly multipolar world, which the government does not understand. While the economic power is dispersed, new cultural, diplomatic and military strengths will be asserted that will effect trade.

What will the world look like in 2050? That is something we need to keep in mind when we are talking about these trade agreements. What values will guide our trade agreements in international politics, and how will Canada project and promote our values and interests in the future? The answers to these questions will depend on the choices we make as a country. Will Canada be isolationist, as we have seen lately, in terms of its diplomacy and the notion of signing a trade agreement with whomever and not looking at strategic interests, or will Canada assert itself as a responsible leader, comprehending this ever-changing world?

The reality is there are vital economic and trade interests that we all recognize are important. However, the problem with the current government is that it lacks a coherent strategy and the competence to assert Canada as a responsible leader on the global stage. In doing so, it fails to achieve the very objectives it sets for itself, as I already mentioned.

There is rhetoric in saying that we have a global trade agenda and when we look at the tally sheet, we have Liechtenstein, Iceland and Honduras. There is not one single trade agreement with any of the major Asian economies.

Let me talk about Asia. It was just a month ago that Canada was denied a seat at the East Asia Summit. This adds to our collective embarrassment of losing our seat at the Security Council. I am not sure if many Canadians know this, but the East Asia Summit is where decision-makers and those who want to have a voice in the Asian economies go to meet to assert their interests.

Canada was shut out. Two other countries were allowed in. There are 18 countries around the table. We have not heard that from the government. The government has not even explained why we were shut out.

Why were shut out of the East Asia Summit? This is a table where, as I said, important decisions are made that have major impacts on our country. We all know it is the Pacific powerhouses where trade is going to be. I just listed the 2050 projections in terms of where the GDP growth is going. However, in our absence, we will not have the input at that important table at the East Asia Summit.

I will quote for members the words of the General Secretary of the ASEAN. Mr. Surin Pitsuwan explained that Canada failed to get a seat at the East Asia Summit as a result of a lack of engagement that would project Canada's qualities. He said:

The goodwill is there. The name is there. But you don't see the sustained effort of trying to project it out.

What did he recommend?

What Canada can do is to transform its expertise in those areas of peacekeeping, peace-building into a more mediating role. A country like Norway has been very active and engaged. Canada has been less than Norway, maybe by choice.

He argued that while everyone wants to expand trade in an economic partnership, it comes along with leadership at the same time. Leadership, in Canada's case, is because of our history in conflict resolution.

I will finish with this quote, which he said at the end:

It has to be a package, an integrated approach.

This should have been—sadly, I do not think it has been—a wake-up call for the government. When we are shut out of the most important table when it comes to the Asian economy, it says something.

When we have a bill like the Panama free trade agreement and we have the government suggesting this is a wow moment for us and our economy, we really have to wonder if the government is actually in tune with what is going on in the world. We were shut out of the Security Council.

To my embarrassment, as a representative of this Parliament, we had an opportunity recently, at the General Assembly, to have our Prime Minister come forward to say what our country is about, what our values are and indeed what our trade interests are. Instead, he did not take that opportunity and sent the foreign affairs minister, who then wagged his finger at the UN and many member states and, as an aside, quoted Kahlil Gibran, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, with some of the most misplaced quotes I have heard in a long time.

However, if we are going to take trade seriously, then we have to understand the importance of relationships. When we do not take diplomacy seriously, then it is hard to see how we can further advance trade. That is the point in critiquing our failure to get a seat at the East Asia Summit.

Having a free trade agreement with countries like Honduras and Panama is not going to get the job done. In fact, there is a very interesting critique on trade that was brought out last spring. I know the Prime Minister has read it and, in fact, I think he got most of his front bench to look at it. It is titled,“Winning in a Changing World: Canada and Emerging Markets”. It is an interesting document.

The Conservatives often like to accuse us of having tunnel vision and that we only listen to certain people. Well, in this particular critique, there are some recommendations for the government. For example, it is this document that cites that the free trade with Honduras amounts to 71 minutes of trade with our partner to the south, and the value of it is questioned. It comes up with some different recommendations than the path the Conservative government is following and suggests not just looking at a free trade agreement cookie-cutter approach. Why? It is not strategic.

I remember my father telling me about his work and that when we get into trade, if we just put all-in agreements and language saying we would open up major sectors without understanding the implications, we lose our strategic advantage.

The report suggests, and I applaud the authors on this, to look at the sectors here that we should invest more in to help us trade and make sure we are going to get competitive advantage with the emerging markets that I mentioned. It also points out that we cannot do these free trade agreements with emerging economies like India, China and Brazil.

I was in Brazil when the minister was there a couple of years ago. I was there for a conference on the Global Fund to fight HIV-AIDS. The whole world was there, but I was the only Canadian representative. The minister happened to be in Sao Paulo that day pitching trade, but we would need a search warrant to find evidence of that. There was no evidence in the media and absolutely no indication of what he was doing there.

Meanwhile, the story of the day was how Brazil was reaching out to Africa, looking at making sure we are going to be more connected in the world to helping those who are suffering from HIV-AIDS, malaria and other diseases. This was actually a strategic approach as well as doing the right thing.

Others have criticized the current government on being one dimensional. If all it is worried about are free trade agreements, we can see the results: a total shut-out in Asia. After seven years, the Conservative government has nothing to show for its robust global trade strategic plan other than a couple of pithy agreements, as I have mentioned already.

However, my concern is that we have a minister who travels to one of the most strategic should-be partners in the BRIC, Brazil, but we do not even get noticed. In fact, when we talk to people in the Americas, they scratch their heads and ask what happened to the Americas strategy.

I remember the fanfare when the Conservative government announced there was going to be this great Americas strategy. Well, we had a rescue mission a couple of summers ago with the Prime Minister who, I guess, had to rescue his trade minister. He travelled around South America yet again, but the question is, what do we have to show for it? Where are we with Brazil? Why are we not focusing on a relationship with them? Why does the Conservative government not understand that it is trade diplomacy as well as investment? The debates we are having right now are clear that there is a problem in terms of the government understanding how to layout not only its strategy, but the rules.

The report I mentioned, “Winning in a Changing World: Canada and Emerging Markets”, is written by Derek Burney, as well as a former chief executive officer representative, Thomas d'Aquino. These are clearly not people who would be noted as radical leftists. When speaking about on getting trade right, they said that:

Canada should target markets with significant potential instead of those with which agreements are easy to conclude.

I want to emphasize this because this is where the government's strategy fails. They are saying that in our guiding principles for trade:

Canada should target markets with significant potential instead of those with which agreements are easy to conclude. A smart engagement strategy invests political and negotiating capital in talks that deliver real benefits and clear results. In the long term, the hectic pursuit of “announceables” serves neither public nor private interests.

This report is saying that the strategy of the current Conservative government is not going down the right path. However, as the Conservative backbench and front bench know, their game is to try to set up a narrative where they are in favour of trade; they are good, but the others are not and they are bad.

The fact is that when we have people who know what trade is about, there has to be political investment. The study talks about that. This is diplomacy. This is where the government has been unable to get the job done. It is not just talking about going after “announceables”. The government could be classified as a government by press releases and not results. When I asked the minister exactly how many jobs would be created with the Panama free trade agreement, he attacked me. When we ask how this would enhance our opportunities, there is no response except that the NDP does not like trade. It is bizarre and I do not bother responding to it. I leave his rhetoric alone and people can gauge it.

Let us go further into what the study looked at. It looked at what Canada needed to do, which is to look at emerging markets and negotiate customized trade and investment arrangements with this in mind. It says that we should abandon these free trade agreements and this cookie-cutter approach. I know the Prime Minister has read this and hopefully the trade minister has as well.

Let me explain what the words mean. The authors say, “We must negotiate customized trade and investment arrangements”. Customized trade arrangements, as my father used to say when he negotiated GATT, is ensuring that our producers are not going to be subsumed and played by other producers. Things like nomenclature are important. Allowing a foot in by other economies is not going to mean the abandonment of support for the economies, producers and those creating jobs in Canada. It means doing trade differently.

With due respect, the government is kind of fighting the last war. It thought that just saying free trade and finding a sign-off with anyone was a strategy. It turns out to be political grandstanding. When the media is not around and people talk about diplomacy and trade, they scratch their heads and ask why the government is going down the path of these pithy free trade agreements when the world has changed and moved on.

I will go through the emerging economies that I mentioned earlier, which we know are Brazil, India, Russia and China. What the authors are saying in the report is that we cannot make free trade agreements with these countries because they do things differently. The trade agreements have to be customized. When the government trumpets the free trade approach, we have to question not only the benefits for Canadians but, most important, just like when we sign off on international agreements in diplomacy, where we are going to land in 10, 15, 20 years. How are we going to be locked in?

The FIPA that we have been debating in the House is a classic example. Not many Canadians are aware that we will be locked in to this financial arrangement with China for 31 years. Most financial agreements negotiated in the past provide an option for us to say that after six months' notice, we are out of the deal. Not in this case. On the one hand, the government is signing a free trade agreement with Panama, which has questionable benefits for Canadians. On the other hand, it signs a FIPA with China which locks us in for up to 31 years.

One has to wonder what the government's strategy is, other than “announceables”, as was critiqued in the report that I read, saying the government was able to announce something and that is somehow that is good policy. It is not. In fact, when we look at the countries I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, in 2050 the largest economies will be China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Indonesia, Japan, U.K., Germany, Nigeria, France, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam. When we look at each one of those countries individually, they are very different. We cannot sign one of these free trade agreements, like the government has, with each of these countries.

The nature of a multipolar world means that we have to change our mindset. It is not just about one big trade agreement with one country. The critique of our trade arrangement with the United States was always that it locked us in too much and we needed to ensure we would provide more opportunities for Canadian companies and workers.

At the end of the day, the problem with this agreement is the lack of vision of where we are going with comprehensive free trade. As I mentioned, reports by those who have looked at where Canada is going in trade show it is actually in the past. We need to be looking for tailored, comprehensive free trade agreements and this is not one. That is why we cannot support it.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the world according to the member for Ottawa Centre, who states that people take different views of international free trade agreements. I would imagine there are numerous approaches in people's minds about how trade should be done.

The fact is that our Minister of International Trade has taken a very aggressive, measured and strategic approach. We are signing more trade agreements than the previous government's members ever thought of doing in the 13 years they held a majority. While we are signing trade agreements, the New Democrats are voting against every single trade agreement we bring here for passage in legislation. We are signing them; they are complaining about our signing them and voting against every one.

I suggest that our economic record, given this recent time of global pressures, has indicated to countries around the world that we are on the right path, that we are a leader in the global economy and that our country is stable. We still have pressures coming our way, but we will manage them because we have good government, and that is why we are sitting on this side with a strong, stable majority government.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I could paraphrase, the member says that they are awesome and we are not and this is the way it is.

Let us have a debate on facts here. That is what is often so deadening in this House. I laid out a critique of what is problematic with the government's trade approach. I quoted the Secretary General of the ASEAN who has said that Canada has abandoned diplomacy and that this has affected our trade. That is why we were shut out of the most important trade table in the Pacific region, the East Asia summit. The Conservatives do not want to acknowledge that.

It has been pointed out that the free trade deal with Honduras amounts to the equivalent of just 71 minutes of Canada's daily trade with United States, and yet the former agreement is what the Conservatives want to trumpet. Seventy-one minutes of trade with Honduras compared to our daily trade with the United States is not something to be joyful about. With all due respect, the same applies to Liechtenstein, which is not a global powerhouse.

In contrast, the Conservatives have not signed one trade agreement with a major Pacific-Asian country and they talk about what a great strategy they have. So we have to measure their rhetoric with their results.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of thoughts, followed by a question for the member for Ottawa Centre.

First and foremost, the Liberal Party has been fairly clear in its support for freer trade with other countries around the world. As much as we respect the economy and the environment and labour laws, we do believe it is important when we are living in a global economy that we explore the opportunities for freer trade when they arise and where we can sign something that is in Canada's best interest.

Having said that, we are concerned that the government has been somewhat negligent on probably the most important file and that is with the U.S.A. Canada is very dependent on the U.S.A. and has not given it the attention necessary to provide and guarantee the types of jobs that we need to maintain and grow our jobs.

My question for the member for Ottawa Centre is something that many Canadians wonder about. Has the NDP ever stood inside in the House of Commons and actually voted in favour of a trade agreement? Have the New Democrats actually stood and recorded a vote where they said yes to any trade agreement in the history of our country?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Liberals on one day are all in favour of trade agreements, then on another day they do not like them any more, and then they go back to saying yes again. We have seen this a bit with FIPA. The Liberals just do not know where they stand. It gives us whiplash wondering what they believe in. It is really hard to know.

Yes, we did support the trade agreement with Jordan, as was pointed out already. In terms of the approach that we need to take, it needs to be combined with diplomacy and an effort to make sure that we are not one just dimensional. When we see the hollowing out of our diplomacy, we lose on trade. That is why the Secretary-General of ASEAN said the following:

The goodwill is there. The name is there. But you don't see the a sustained effort of trying to project it out.

He continued:

What Canada can do is to transform its expertise in those areas of peacekeeping, peace-building into a more mediating role. A country like Norway has been very active and engaged.

I could not agree with him more. We were shut out of East Asia Pacific table. Others are in, we are out. The government claims that it is great because we are signing deals with Lichtenstein. It is very sad.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. I paid special attention to his comments about strategy, and I would like him to elaborate further.

Our goal should not be to simply sign agreements here and there, with this or that country, without any real plan. We need to identify areas where Canada performs well. We also need to look at our economy, identify strengths and weaknesses and conduct an analysis. Then we will be in a position to enter into agreements that will benefit both parties.

That is not what is happening right now. Instead, we see the government blindly signing agreement upon agreement. It is a very pleasant activity, for sure, a great opportunity to have fun, travel and make new friends all around the world. It is all very nice.

But does it really serve the interests of our economy and of Canadians to have agreements like those, which will amount to 70 minutes worth of trade with the Americans? The Government of Canada is unable to take a stand and negotiate profitable agreements with major countries. We must enter into agreements not only with developing countries that need our help, but also with major nations that provide greater opportunities for Canadian exports.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question because it goes to the essence of the issue. Just going around and signing anywhere is like someone putting a piece of paper down and saying “Sign here” and then they make a grand announcement. That is not where we need to go.

As I asked at the beginning of my speech, where are we going to be in 2050? The countries that I listed are going to be the top countries. I reiterate that the United States will be the only top western country. We will have China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Indonesia, Japan, U.K., Germany, Nigeria, France, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam. They will all have larger GDPs than Canada.

The government is in the past. It needs to wake up, and it needs to have a comprehensive free trade strategy.

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 third time and passed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to support the bill. Liberals see the bill as an important piece of legislation. If history demonstrates anything, it is that over the years the Liberal Party has recognized the value of freer trade with nations around the world, though we are a little disappointed that the government has not put more of an emphasis on what is happening with our largest trading partner, the United States of America. Having said that, I want to recognize just how important it is. At the end of the day, Canada is a trading nation. The amount that trade contributes to our national GDP is virtually second to no other G7 country, or we would definitely be in the top three in terms of being a trading nation.

As a whole, it behooves us to look at ways to increase our markets. We can go back for decades. One of the first real tangible trade agreements that I can think of offhand was in our automobile industry. That played a critical role in the development of hundreds of thousands of jobs over the years in Canada. When we talk about the principle of trade, people have a good understanding of the auto pact and how Canada has benefited over the years. Not only has it provided, as I said, hundreds of thousands of jobs, it has provided some of the best cars ever made anywhere in the world.

The principle of free trade and freer trade is something Liberals believe in. We recognize that the government has been negotiating this agreement for the last few years. It was back in August 2009 that an agreement was reached. The government has not been successful in getting the bill through committee. It has had significant support, though not from the New Democratic Party, in terms of the bill being passed.

As I commented at the beginning of my remarks, we are concerned that the government has not been as aggressive in looking at the larger markets. We look to the government to do what it can to expand trade and secure the markets that are of critical importance. I will point out a couple of them, but before I do, I will briefly comment on the Panama agreement.

Central America is a very important region in the world. My understanding is that today Panama is the number one country in that region in terms of imports and exports. There are many benefits with regard to this agreement setting some ground rules and assisting us in being able to grow in the future.

From a Manitoban perspective, a province for which I have a very strong bias and preference, it produces a great deal of potatoes and potato products. One of the largest consumers of those potato products is the country of Panama. I suspect going forward there will be more potato products being consumed in Panama that, hopefully, will be from the province of Manitoba. If we take a look at the potato industry in the province of Manitoba, we will find that it generates and creates hundreds of relatively good-quality jobs, such as the farmers who plant the seeds and ensure there is a crop in the ground.

There are hundreds of acres of potato farms in rural Manitoba. Our farmers do a phenomenal job. I would argue, although some of my Atlantic colleagues might question it, that the best potatoes not only in North America but anywhere are found right in the province of Manitoba. Of course, we give the credit for that production to our prairie farmers.

There are also jobs in the processing plants. For example, we have french fry plants in the province of Manitoba that create hundreds of jobs. Whether it is the farmer or the person on the line who is cutting up potatoes or producing the many different potato products, those are all good-quality, valuable jobs. A good percentage of those potato products ultimately end up in Panama.

The potato industry is just one industry. I think during second reading I was able to make reference to it, but there are other things.

Manitoba Hydro is one of Manitoba's, and ultimately one of Canada's, largest corporations. Manitoba Hydro has been around the province for a good number of years. It ensures that we have, if not the cheapest, very close to the cheapest utility rates in North America. Manitoba Hydro also explores the world and provides consulting and professional services. The country of Panama has recognized that and has turned to Manitoba Hydro for consultation and advice on the type of technology we use in the province of Manitoba, to ultimately help grow hydro development, electrical grid lines and so forth in the country of Panama.

I suspect we could go from province to province throughout Canada and find there are different connections that allow each province to see the benefits of having freer trade in the flow of commodities and other forms of trade, whether that is tourism or contracting, that generate economic opportunities for Canadians in each of the different provinces.

Obviously, there is benefit for Panama at the same time. That is why I started off by saying Canada is indeed a trading nation.

I listened to many members of the New Democratic Party try to play down Panama, saying it is a small country and very little trade actually comes to Canada or that it is a very small percentage of the overall trade.

One of the things that we should always be cognizant of is that every country in the world is an important country and has something to offer. I believe that Canada also has an obligation to work with countries, big and small. There are challenges in the country of Panama, as there are challenges here. Do we have concerns within the Liberal Party? Sure, we have concerns. I think all people have concerns.

However, given the importance of recognizing Panama, the country we trade with more than any other in Central America, there is great value in terms of having this agreement.

Earlier today, in talking about Panama, I posed the question to the member for Ottawa Centre in regard to whether the NDP has actually supported any free trade agreement. I was quite specific in my comments, asking if NDP members had ever literally stood up inside the House to support a free trade agreement with any country throughout the world.

After a while, the only thing the member could come up was that he somewhat implied the Jordan agreement. From what I can recall, there was no standing vote on the Jordan agreement. To the best of my knowledge, I do not believe the NDP has ever supported or stood in their place to vote in favour of a trade agreement in the history of our country.

I believe that to be factual, and would look to the NDP members to correct that if that is not the case, to show me where, within Hansard, that they support or have supported a trade agreement.

Why is it important to recognize that? It is because consistency is important. At the end of the day—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to assist my hon. colleague in making sure he always seeks the highest principles in this place, which is to tell the truth. A number of times in his speech he repeated something that the record shows not to be truthful.

On June 4, 2012, the NDP did in fact support a trade deal.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order but rather a point of debate. The House leader knows full well there will be other opportunities for members of the official opposition to respond to this matter according to the facts as they see them.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to be very factual, and I look forward to a question from the member. Prior to the member posing a question, I would suggest that he go back to that particular date so he could tell us whether all members stood in their places and voted for that bill. I look forward to hearing the question from the opposition House leader on that particular point.

He raised, through a point of order, a very important issue. The NDP, as official opposition, is trying to fool Canadians. It is trying to give the impression that it is open to free trade agreements. Yet, on the other hand, it has never supported a free trade agreement.

The member points out Jordan. During his question, he could point out which members of his caucus actually stood in their place and voted for the Jordan agreement. If they did speak for Jordan, I am sure he will correct me, if that is the case.

Having said that, it is also very important for us to recognize that consistency is important. When I raised the issue of freer trade among different nations the last time I had the opportunity to speak, I made reference to other countries. There are many countries throughout the world on which we need to focus attention, not just the small countries.

I made reference to the United States and how important it is, as our trading partner, that we invest more time and energy to secure the markets that are so critically important to Canada. We have found that it is roughly 75% in trade. I believe it is just under 75% now, but that is fairly recent. Basically since the Conservatives have been in government, we have dropped below 75% in terms of the overall share in trade between Canada and the U.S. However, at just under 75% of our overall import and export, I would suggest it is of critical importance. That is why we believe the government needs to do more to secure those markets for Canada.

There are other countries. We talk about the big ten, or the ten countries in the world that have these huge economies, such as China. There has been a lot of discussion about China, but it has been more from a regulation point of view. I do not see any grand vision. The last time we saw something coming out of the Government of Canada that was of great significance in relation to China—and China is number two, I believe, as an economy in the world—we would have to go back to the years when Jean Chrétien was Prime Minister. He said the Liberals would take the Team Canada approach in going in to China. There were invitations for a wide variety of stakeholders here in Canada, who ultimately went to China to try to create and enhance connections so we could improve upon trade relations with China.

We often make reference to Japan. India is another huge country. India has grown at a rapid rate. Many, myself included, think the future of India in terms of its economic importance in the world is incredibly positive. It will become a significant powerhouse economically. Canada is in an excellent position because of the size of our Indo-Canadian communities from coast to coast and the potential opportunities that could be had if we took advantage of that.

That same principle would apply for many other communities. Ultimately, I would argue, one of the greatest natural advantages that Canada has over virtually any other country in the world is our ethnic diversity.

A good example of that is India. Here there is an economic powerhouse that will continue to grow well into the future. Moreover, we have a strong, vibrant, wealthy, well motivated Indo-Canadian community that is in an excellent position to be able to capitalize on that growth.

We can talk about Germany, Russia, Brazil, U.K., France or Italy. Those are really the major players in the world economy and we need to see the government aggressively dealing with these countries.

However, I want to talk about a country I have talked about in the past because I feel very passionate about the Philippines. It is a country that I have had the opportunity to visit on numerous occasions. I came back from the Philippines recently where I met with Governor Garcia from Cebu and Governor Pineda from Pampanga. I have also had the opportunity to meet with Mayor Lim from Manilla and many different congressmen.

When I meet with elected officials I talk about the relationship between Canada and the Philippines needing to go beyond immigration. Yes, the Philippines is Canada's number one source country for immigrants. There is no doubt about that. It has been the number one source of immigrants for the province of Manitoba for many years, but I believe there is a very real opportunity today to go well beyond that.

I understand that the Prime Minister is going to India and the Philippines in a couple of weeks. I hope he will take my advice and the advice of others by looking at the Philippines as more than just a country for immigration. Let us look at ways in which we can have freer trade with the Philippines. Yes, there are large countries with large economies and some with smaller economies, but they are still worthwhile for Canada as a nation to reach out to and build economic ties with, ties that will ultimately allow for more trade.

With the exception of the New Democrats, who do not support freer trade, I believe it is important that we recognize the value of how that is going to generate jobs in the future. If we recognize that value, then I think that actions ultimately speak louder than words. I anticipate and would like to see ongoing agreements into the future that will enhance the opportunities for people to gain employment and to participate and engage with many other countries throughout the world.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with some concern for my friend, who seems to have cribbed much of his notes from the Conservative Party's talking points regarding the NDP and trade. The fact is that under previous Liberal regimes, 13,000 consecutive foreign takeovers were approved without one single rejection. Not once in all of those years and all of those takeovers did the Liberal Party think that standing up on Canadian sovereignty issues and the rest was important.

To clarify the record, because I know my friend is very keen on records, I would point out that when the motion was presented by the members for Calgary Northeast and Wild Rose with respect to some trade negotiations and trade legislation, particularly around Bill C-23, the act with Jordan, that act was passed by this place.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

But the member himself did not vote.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

My friend now heckles me to say that we did not vote for it. However, neither did he. How this place actually works is that from time to time, it gets along and Parliament decides to pass legislation by voice votes. Parliament decides to pass legislation together.

My friend would like to make a distinction without a difference. He did not stand in his place and vote for this trade deal. In fact, no member of Parliament stood in this place and made the trade deal. He would like to present that as somehow true, that we did not stand and support this particular trade deal. He knows it to be false. He spends enough time in this place to know how it works and he knows that the NDP supported this trade deal at committee stage and then finally at the last stage in Parliament. If that were not the case, then we would have opposed it like we have opposed other bad trade deals, like we are opposing the China foreign investor protection agreement that is selling out Canadian resources.

To my friend, he might wish to stand and correct the record and be honest with all of us here about how it works and what the NDP's intentions and actions actually were with respect to trade. We seek fair trade, not this ridiculous neo-con free trade that the member so much promotes and that his government did when the Liberals were in office, allowing 13,000 consecutive foreign takeovers to happen without once—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader is daydreaming. The member says that out of all the free trade agreements in the history of Canada, the NDP members found one, sat on their hands, and we have to believe them members because there was no recorded vote. Apparently, they say that they voted in favour of it.

The record is very clear. We know there are a lot of bills, probably more than 50%, where there are votes. The NDP members knew this was important legislation. If they wanted to send a message to Canadians that they were prepared to vote in favour of legislation, they had the opportunity to stand in their place. I suspect it is because the vast majority of their caucus would not have supported having a recorded vote. They were quite content to let it be just a voice vote. Therefore, we do not know how they would have voted.

The member made reference to the 13,000 takeovers. What the member does not recognize is that a vast majority of that investment was the creation of new jobs. It was new companies being established. I would challenge the opposition House leader to tell me which ones out of the 13,000 he would not have supported if he were in government, Heaven forbid? At the end of the day, which one would he have opposed? That is even with the ability of having hindsight. I look forward to having a response from the member on that question.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of focus on our party and not a lot on what we are debating, which is trade. I guess it is a difficult issue for the member and for the Liberal Party because there is difficulty in establishing exactly what their criteria is on trade at times. When there is an option to amend things like this trade deal, where we wanted to have better transparency and more accountability for Canadian workers and for the environment, we put forward amendments. Maybe not to our surprise, the government voted against them. However, his party, which claims to want to protect the rights of workers and the environment, did not. It decided that it would vote with the government on this.

Therefore, if we are going to talk about doing trade and doing it smart and well, we need to have some protections. We cannot give away the store. These free trade agreements are problematic because they are cookie cutter approaches. We need to look at the details and ensure there are provisions in them that have teeth and not these side agreements. Side agreements are just what the language would suggest. They are on the side, there is no teeth in enforcement.

Why did the member did not even think of mentioning that and why his party rejected amendments to have accountability?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I did talk quite a bit about the Panama agreement and the benefits. I used the province of Manitoba as an example, whether Manitoba Hydro, or potatoes that are produced in the province and how Manitoba would benefit through this agreement. It will not create hundreds of thousands of jobs, but there are jobs there as a result of free trade with Panama. In general, free trade with other nations is what has allowed Canada to do as well as it has as a nation.

I appreciate the member's comments. He is probably more true to form in terms of why the NDP never really votes for or supports free trade agreements. It is because of things which he has listed. However, that same principle could be applied on virtually any agreement that is out there. That is the reason why the NDP does not support free trade agreements, and I respect that.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the international trade committee and it has been my privilege to do that since I was elected some four and a bit years ago. Throughout that time, I am proud to say, our Conservative government passed a number of free trade agreements. I am really proud of that accomplishment so I would like to share some of those with members. We passed the European free trade agreement with Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. We passed free trade agreements with Peru, with Colombia and with Panama. Members also know that we passed a free trade agreement with Jordan, with all-party support.

However, the issue is not whether it was Jordan. Sitting in my committee, it has struck me that, while the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition are not members of that committee, but certainly have opinions on it and that is their entitlement, Her Majesty's loyal opposition has been constantly and consistently negatively criticizing these deals, notwithstanding that we have labour and environment protection.

Do members know what businesses want? They want a rules-based system because we do business with every country in the world, including China.

Because I appreciate that the Liberal Party has been supportive, why does the member think there has been such vehement objection from Her Majesty's loyal opposition to every effective trade deal that we have put in place? I have made the comment about Jordan already.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect it probably has more to do with a historical perspective of the New Democratic Party. I understand that the New Democrats are being more challenged in the last year or so in regard to trying to change some of their party policy. They have a history in which they have been very clear that they do not support free trade agreements and I think they have been challenged to come up with a better approach.

I recognize the number of agreements that the member has talked about and I do believe we need to start making it higher a priority, not only of the smaller economies but also to do more in larger economies. That is where ultimately there is a lot we could do, and I use India as a great example, just given the size and diversity of our ethnic—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not a procedural expert, but I believe we are discussing a bill. It seems to me that the other two parties, who have always gotten along well, are now putting the official opposition on trial. I also get the impression that we are wasting our time and going around in circles. We need to get back to today's discussion topic.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is being very touchy. The NDP has often voted with the conservatives.

The hon. member has missed a few years of debate since he is new to the House, but I understand his point of view.

When we discuss the ins and outs of a bill, it is normal to also speak about its pros and cons; I think that is good. That being said, I do not believe the hon. member's remarks constitute a point of order.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I agree with the hon. member for Bourassa. This is not a point of order.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has about 25 seconds.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize how important it is for us to be more aggressive at looking at countries like India. Our greatest asset is our ethnic diversity. The Indo-Canadian community is one of great proportions, so much talent and amazing resources. If we tap into that, we could have additional and more trade and more jobs being created between India and Canada. The same principle would apply for any other country throughout the world, if we tap into the expertise and diversity of our ethnic country.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I do not think the hon. member on the Liberal side will be disappointed. In the coming years we will be working on these deals. There will be many more in the making.

It is a pleasure to rise today to talk about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the concrete benefits that this trade agreement will provide to Canadian businesses exporting to Panama.

The member for Malpeque has criticized this agreement, saying that trade with Panama is in insignificant and accuses the government of exaggerating its benefits to Canadians. Apparently the $111 million worth of exports that went to Panama last year is insignificant. What that member fails to realize is that every one of those dollars directly supports our economy and Canadian jobs and that is in no way insignificant.

During the 13 years in office, the Liberals signed 3 trade deals, but in less than 6 years this Conservative government has signed agreements with 9 countries and we are negotiating with many more.

This is why I would like to share with the House the impact that this agreement will have on Canadian companies and exporters.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is a high-quality, comprehensive agreement that will bring tremendous benefit to our economy. A free trade agreement with Panama will give Canadian exporters, investors and service providers preferential access to a dynamic and fast-growing economy that recorded a GDP growth of 10.6% in 2011.

Once implemented, the agreement will improve market access for Canadian exports in the Panamanian market by lowering trade barriers. The elimination of tariffs will create tremendous opportunities for increased Canadian exports to Panama.

Once the Canada-Panama free trade agreement is in place, Panama will eliminate tariffs on 95% of recent non-agricultural imports from Canada. The remaining tariffs will be phased out over 5 to 15 years. This is significant considering that Canadian exports on non-agricultural products are currently facing tariff peaks of up to 81% of Panama, while the average most favoured nation tariff rate for non-agricultural products stands at 6.2%.

The elimination of the vast majority of tariffs will benefit Canadian workers from coast to coast to coast, including producers of forest products, pharmaceuticals, machinery, automotive, vehicles and parts, information and communication technology and aerospace products.

Let us look at the impact of the agreement on some specific sectors of our economy.

The pulp and paperboard producers of British Columbia will certainly benefit from this agreement. In 2011 Canada exported $5.3 million of pulp and paper board products to Panama. Though many of these products were not subject to custom duties, tariffs ranging from 5% to 15% are levied by Panama on a range of paper products. Obviously market access is not optimal. This agreement will eliminate those tariffs, which will consequently offer new commercial opportunities to Canadian exporters of goods, such as wallpaper, packaging materials, boxes and corrugated cardboard.

Another sector that will see benefits is the pharmaceutical industry, which saw Canadian businesses export $5.1 million of pharmaceutical products to Panama in 2011. According to the terms of this free trade agreement, Panamanian tariffs ranging from 5% to 8% on certain pharmaceutical products will be eliminated.

This trade deal with also benefit Canadian exports of industrial machinery and certain electronics. In 2011 Canada exported $12.8 million worth of machinery and equipment to Panama. These Canadian exporters will benefit from the elimination of Panamanian tariffs ranging from 5% to 15% on a variety of current and potential Canadian machinery exports. If Canadian businesses are able to sell their products in Panama despite these tariffs, imagine how much more successful they will be when their products have gained preferential access.

Another sector that stands to benefit from this agreement is the aerospace industry. Members of Parliament are likely aware that Canada's aerospace sector is highly competitive and has acquired a worldwide reputation for outstanding quality and performance. It is also important to note that it is a highly export-orientated sector. In fact, 80% of this sector's annual revenues are generated through exports. Panama imports some of these products.

In 2011, Canada exported $8.1 million worth of aerospace products, including various ground flying trainers, turbo propellers and airplane and helicopter parts. The implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement would further those export opportunities by eliminating Panama's tariffs on aerospace products that are currently as high as 15%.

It is undeniable that by creating new export opportunities in these sectors, this agreement will help foster economic growth. However, that is not all.

One additional sector that would particularly benefit from this agreement is the Canadian agricultural sector. Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector is innovative and competitive and is becoming increasingly focused on international markets.

In 2011, Canada exported nearly $25 million worth of agriculture and agri-food products to Panama. In agricultural products, Panama currently maintains tariffs reaching peaks as high as 260%. Upon implementation of our trade agreement with Panama, tariffs will also be lifted completely on 78% of Canada's agricultural exports to Panama.

Canada's high quality agriculture and agri-food products, such as beef, pork, frozen potatoes, malt, maple syrup, pulses, canola and sunflower seeds, will benefit from immediate duty-free access to Panama. For example, producers of frozen french fries in P.E.I. and New Brunswick would no longer face Panamanian tariffs of up to 20%. Canada's exporters of frozen french fries would benefit from the immediate elimination of Panama's tariffs on this product. Between 2009-11, Canada exported an annual average of $2.7 million worth of frozen french fries to Panama.

Our pulse and cereal exporters in Saskatchewan will also benefit from immediate tariff elimination with the implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Tariffs currently amounting to 10% to 40% respectively will be gradually eliminated with the implementation of the FTA.

Another sector that would benefit from the free trade agreement with Panama is our pork sector. Pork producers of fresh and chilled pork cuts and sausages would gain preferential access. In 2011, Canada exported about $5 million of pork products to Panama.

Canadian beef exporters would also benefit form this agreement. The FTA would result in the immediate elimination of Panamanian tariffs ranging from 25% to 30% on all of Canada's high quality beef cuts within a 200 ton tariff rate quota.

This agreement would provide significant benefits for our Canadians farmers. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement being debated here today would ensure that our Canadian agriculture and agri-food producers and exporters are fully able to compete with other preferential suppliers to Panama.

There are many more examples that I could cite but the fundamental point is that the tariff elimination driven by this agreement would create the potential for increased Canadian exports to Panama, and that is a good thing for Canadians.

Pursuing new trade opportunity is a win-win for Canada and its trading partners. Canada benefits from the jobs, prosperity and consumer benefits that come from increased trade. That is why it should not come as a surprise to the members of this House that Canadian companies are in support of this agreement. Throughout the negotiations, Canadian officials consulted with the private sector and the message was consistent and clear: Canadian companies want this deal. If Canadian companies are telling us that they want their government to implement this agreement, why should we, as elected officials, deny them those benefits?

Canadians value the real and tangible benefits that trade brings to our country and that is why Canadian companies support our government's efforts to forge new trade 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. By eliminating tariffs on these goods, Canadian exporters and producers will be able to compete on a level playing field against competitors from other countries, such as the United States or the European Union, that have or will soon have preferential access to Panamanian markets in the near future.

For all those reasons, I ask all hon. members to support the implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague why the government defeated the amendment we proposed in committee, which stated that before entering into an agreement with Panama, Canada would require a tax information exchange agreement, like the U.S. did. Indeed, the U.S. required Panama to sign such an exchange agreement before the U.S.-Panama free trade agreement could be signed.

Why will Canada not do the same? Was there no time to think about it, despite all the years we spent working on the agreement?

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I heard the question correctly, the member made reference to the American free trade agreement with Panama. He is correct that there are ongoing discussions and, more than that, Canada and Panama are currently engaged in negotiations for a tax information exchange agreement. However, the Americans have ratified their agreement. His premise that the Americans were in the act of doing this and, therefore, we should too, does not exactly add up since the Americans have already ratified their agreement. We feel it is also imperative and important. Those negotiations will take place, as well as the tax ramifications.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for all the work he has done on the international trade files working with the minister.

I want to make a comment and get my colleague's opinion. History shows that Canada is and always has been a trading nation simply because we can produce far more goods and services than we could ever consume in this country. Therefore, it has always been in our best interest to be a trading nation and to aggressively seek trade arrangements with other countries around the world. Canada has built itself through trade with other countries.

As time goes on, there is more competition for the trading dollar and, therefore,Canada needs to stay current and to always be seeking ways to improve trade arrangements with other countries. Maybe the member could give us some reinforcement on how this global trade continues to enhance our economy and how important it is to creating jobs and benefiting our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the hon. member for his fine work and for his tutoring as well. I might add that, since I arrived here, the hon. member has been my neighbour and many times we have had discussions.

It is fairly obvious, as he correctly stated, that as a nation we need to trade and we are good at it. The other thing we need that is absolutely essential is a level trading field. I believe that if Canadian companies, manufacturers or those involved in the service sector, whatever area in which they are involved, including farmers with their produce, can trade on a level trading field, we will be able to trade with any nation. Canadians will always rise to the occasion and be able to compete. The end result is that there will be more employment in this country and more products produced. It is the spinoff to the rest of Canadian society that will benefit us all.

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

Mr. Speaker, almost 100 per cent of my Conservative colleague's speech was about the financial side of the agreement. He briefly mentioned Canadian workers but did not say anything about the rights of Panamanian workers or measures to protect Panama's environment. But that is what fair trade is all about.

Do the Conservatives not know what fair trade looks like? Or is it that they have no intention of going that route?

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

Mr. Speaker, free trade is fair trade. With respect to the member's concern about labour co-operation, there is a labour co-operation agreement that contains strong and enforceable provisions to protect and promote internationally recognized labour rights. These measures are entrenched in this as well too.

Is it perfect? No, it is not perfect. If we look at what labour laws are in a lot of the developing countries, they have a long way to come. The way to do that is to encourage them, trade with them and, through the labour unions here, show them how by exchanging ideas. Ultimately, when we continue to grow that trade flow and as economies continue to grow, then we can continue to better the lives of those very people who the hon. member is talking about. Those opportunities would be gained as they have opportunities as well to trade with us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

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

The House resumed from November 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the third time and passed.

Third reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we do see the value of this particular agreement. As my colleague from the Atlantic region indicated earlier, the Liberal Party is quite supportive of the agreement. However, we also want to recognize that we have other trading partners, in particular the United States, which represents well over 70% of our economic trade and is responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada.

It is important that we pass this particular agreement, and it will get passed now, but the question is, to what degree does my colleague believe we could be doing more with our trading partner just south of our border?

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

Mr. Speaker, we do not live on a Pacific island. We have important neighbours on whom we already depend too much. We must not become a sort of Kazakhstan by taking care of border security for the Americans. Nor should we become a bottomless pit of natural resources and export our jobs south of the border. We must have a comprehensive trade strategy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle for his very enlightening speech about the possible negative effects of these agreements.

One very important aspect to consider involves Panama's labour laws. President Ricardo Martinelli announced unilateral changes to labour law in the summer of 2010. These changes prohibited the collection of mandatory union dues, allowed employers to dismiss workers who were on strike and replace them with strikebreakers, allowed roadblocks and criminal acts, and even sheltered the police from legal action. This labour relations regime is completely unbalanced and harms workers.

I would like to my colleague to comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues we discussed in parliamentary committee was protecting human rights and the environment. I think that this aspect was left out of this agreement. There are agreements in principle and a bunch of good intentions, but if someone violates these rules, there are no sanctions, or if there are, they are ridiculous.

If the members opposite were sincere and truly wanted this free trade agreement to benefit all the parties, they would have ensured that there were some legitimate rules. For example, they would have required that the tax information issue be resolved before ratification, as the Americans did. They are showing the same negligence with respect to labour and environment bills. There is all kinds of lip service and plenty of fine promises, but there are no sanctions or oversight mechanisms. It was the same thing with Colombia, and if we allow it to happen, it will be the same thing with China and other countries.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to share how this government's free trade agreement with Panama complements our government's Americas strategy.

First, I would like to speak about how our government's ambitious pro-trade plan and our global commerce strategy are creating new opportunities around the world for Canadian exporters.

Our government's global commerce strategy, developed in close consultations with the Canadian business community, was our strategy to respond to the changes in the global economy and to position Canada for long-term prosperity. The global commerce strategy identifies 13 priority markets around the world where Canadian opportunities and interests have the greatest potential for growth. The strategy also sparked the most ambitious pro-trade plan in Canadian history. It has driven Canadian leadership on the world stage in support of trade, job creation, economic growth and prosperity for hard-working Canadians and their families.

The results have been very impressive. Under the global commerce strategy, Canada has concluded a free trade agreement with nine countries, representing combined markets of $1.5 trillion. We have begun to deepen trade and investment ties with the largest, most dynamic and fastest-growing countries in the world, including Brazil, India, Japan and the European Union. There are also new foreign investment promotions and protection agreements with 14 additional countries.

The Americas are a priority market for our government. In fact, just this past year our government announced plans to strengthen our engagement in the region to ensure our efforts are focused where the impact will be the greatest.

Actually, a lot of members were at a function of ParlAmericas last night, meeting with different ambassadors from the Americas. I had many ambassadors say to me that it is nice to see Canada on their radar, to see that Canadians are travelling into their regions to do business and that the government recognizes the potential in both Central and South America and the Caribbean. They appreciate the work we have been doing in foreign trade, and this Panama trade deal will reinforce that.

I would like to share with the House a bit more about how our free trade agreement with Panama fits in with our Americas strategy. The renewed strategy has three goals. One, is to increase Canadian and hemispheric economic opportunity. Two, is to address security issues and advance freedoms, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, through capacity-building. Three, is to build a stable foundation for Canadian engagement and increased influence in the hemisphere. This agreement definitely helps us do that.

Strengthening economic ties is crucial in today's challenging and uncertain global economic climate. Expanding Canada's trade and investment in the Americas will help protect existing jobs and create new jobs and increased prosperity for all Canadians.

Canada's efforts to increase economic opportunity depend on deepening trade and investment ties by advancing our trade agreement. The Americas is a key region for Canadian bilateral trade initiatives. In fact, seven of Canada's ten concluded free trade agreements have been with countries in the Americas.

However, it is not enough simply to sign a trade agreement. In our government's Americas strategy is the need to make Canadian companies aware of the advantages and opportunities of these trade agreements. Our government understands that through engagement, development, trade and commercial ties, that Canada can be in support of change and growth in the Americas.

Promoting freer trade in the Americas opens new doors and creates new opportunities for Canadian companies, increasing economic benefit for Canadians, including new jobs for hard-working Canadians right across this country, from coast to coast to coast.

Canada's efforts to liberalize trade with the Americas is working. We are removing barriers to trade and facilitating two-way commerce. The Americas offer great potential. Total trade growth between the countries in the Americas and Canada has increased by nearly 40% in the 2005 to the 2010 period.

In order to promote economic opportunity, our government's renewed Americas strategy will focus on intensifying trade promotion and trade relationship building efforts to ensure Canadian businesses and exporters are taking full advantage of these new trade regions. As part of increasing economic opportunity with Panama, Canada is growing economic partnerships that will contribute to the long-term prosperity of both countries.

I have had the pleasure of travelling in Panama on numerous occasions, through the ParlAmericas and on personal trips by myself and with my family. Panama is a dynamic country. This country has the Panama Canal going through it, and three-quarters of the world's trade that goes on oceans goes through that canal.

When we look at Panama's situation in the Americas, with airlines such as Copa, it is becoming the hub for transportation going in and out of Central and South America. That is why I think it is very important to this trade deal to make sure we have the ability to travel in and out of Panama, so we can do more business, not only with Panama, but throughout the region. Panama is a key component in that effort.

This agreement and its parallel labour and environmental agreements will promote trade and investments while creating a winning advantage for Canadian businesses and exporters.

To protect Canadian trade and commerce investments, the security situation in Central America must be taken into consideration. It is a core focus in our renewed Americas strategy.

Panama has recognized its security challenges and has significantly increased spending on security. It has also committed to continued reforms to security institutions. Panama continues to build a strong security co-operation with the United States and with its Central American neighbours, under the Central American Integration System, SICA, regional security strategy.

Our government is pleased with the significant efforts that Panama is making to meet the security challenges and confront the public security threats facing Central America.

International relationships are fundamental. Competition for market share is on the rise. Canada must demonstrate that it is a serious and committed trading partner. Our government has continued to deliver on an ambitious pro-trade plan that is creating new opportunities, not only in the Americans but in dynamic high-growth markets around the world. Furthermore, while sustaining high engagements is essential, Canada will continue to benefit by building relationships more broadly across the private sector, government and academia.

Looking back over the last two years, I have had the privilege of travelling in the region with the Prime Minister, reaching out to our trading partners and helping Canadian businesses secure access to opportunities in those countries. We have also had the Governor General, in countries like Brazil, promoting the educational systems we have here in Canada.

In fact, a country like Brazil is spending a large amount of cash to send students abroad. A lot of our Canadian universities are taking advantage of that situation and are attracting them to be educated here in Canada. When we build relationships like that, we are fostering growth between the two countries. If we look at Brazil and how it is growing, that is not a bad country to be aligned with.

All countries in the Americas have a vested interest in prosperity, security and stability. That is why our government is committed to building sustainable relationships with our like-minded neighbours. Through our strong bilateral relationships, increasing people-to-people ties generated through educational exchanges and increased tourism and business links, our links with Panama are growing stronger every day.

Every day we are seeing more and more opportunities for Canadian businesses and exporters. A good example is that just three weeks ago I had a phone call from a colleague in Panama, whom I had met in one of groups, asking about Canadian beef. He asked me how he could get a hold of Canadian beef, and about the process. That is how to build relationships. We can put him in touch with the appropriate people in the Canadian beef federation, and they can go there to make connections and use those new connections to actually sell more Canadian beef. That is just one example of how farmers are going to benefit from this trade agreement.

With regard to another example, if we look at the wheat industry, we are actually going to have preferential access into Panama over the U.S. The U.S. does not yet have its trade agreement done with Panama, so we are going to have access for Canadian companies long before our competition. We can get in there and build those strong relationships before they do.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is a key component to advance the goals of the Americas strategies. When we look at what is going on in the Americas, we see the growth and the growth potential. When we look at the issues they are facing, here is a country that is really reaching out to Canada. This is a country that has been patiently waiting for this agreement.

I know the former ambassador fairly well. He was anxious, as he wanted to see this thing go through the House. Unfortunately, he was recalled, but in the same breath he would always wonder why it took so long, because the people in Panama really want this trade agreement.

During one of my trips to Panama, I had the opportunity to spend some time with one of the diputados in Panama and to visit his riding. I toured some of the needier areas, the poor slum areas, and experienced what he faces in his job as a parliamentarian. It was heartwarming and heartbreaking at the same time. It was heartwarming because what he was doing was making a difference in the individual lives of those people. It was heartbreaking to see the situations the kids were growing up in and the implications of not having a strong economy.

Canada does not go around the world preaching; that is not who we are. What we can do is to help people, assist them, give them an economic opportunity, the ability to help themselves, and give them the tools so they can make their own lives better. How do we do that? One of the best ways is to trade with them, to do business with them and help them learn from us.

We will learn a lot from them because they have a lot to teach us about how to handle business in the region. They know a lot of things that we could learn from their business sector also.

That has been one of the advantages of being with ParlAmericas and something that I promote when I talk to my colleagues in the House. It offers a chance for parliamentarians to travel to different countries within the region in a non-partisan manner. A good example is my travel with a colleague from the Liberal Party to Panama this summer for the AGM of ParlAmericas. We had a chance to talk to parliamentarians from all parties and to build some bridges. This is also what trade agreements do: they allow businesses to get together and build bridges, to seek out opportunities of mutual benefit for companies and partners.

That is what we are doing here. We are just laying out the proper rules for doing this as we move forward and making it easier for our business community and investors to go into different parts of the world, in this case to Panama, and do business. That is nothing but positive, not only for Canada but also for the Panamanians.

When we look down the road to the future and where we are going to leave this country for our kids and how we are moving forward, this trade agreement and others are something that we can do for them. We can give them opportunity, give them market access and let them know that the businesses they work for can export not only to the U.S. or Mexico but also to Panama, Chile, Colombia and, hopefully, Honduras in the future. These are the things we can do for our kids by giving them the opportunities. We cannot give them everything but we can give them chances and opportunities. By promoting a good bill like this, that is what we are doing. We should move this forward and pass it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just spoke about the agreement with Japan and how important it is for Canada to show that it is serious about its international commitment.

I was part of a delegation that went to Japan last June. We have never looked more foolish in our lives. During a meeting on the last day of our visit, a former Japanese diplomat told us that the Canadian embassy in Tokyo no longer offers consular services. We learned that from a Japanese colleague.

I do not think they are taking this very seriously, because if Panama is important, Japan is probably 25 to 30 times more important to Canada. It is the best partner we could sign an agreement with. If the government starts fooling around, we will lose our opportunity to do business with this country and that would be much more serious than losing opportunities with Panama.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a good point and I am glad to hear him talking about the New Democrats supporting a trade agreement with Japan, because that is something we should be considering and doing in the future. As we go across the globe, we should be looking for opportunities like those with Japan.

However, the trade agreement before us today is with Panama. There are some key things that we need to remind ourselves of as to why this agreement is important. First of all, Panama is a strategic hub for the Americas and an important logistical platform. It has the canal. It has airports. It is central in the region as far as transportation or branching out to other countries within the region is concerned. The agreement would generate export and investment opportunities for Canadians by creating preferential and more predictable trade and investments. These are things that Canadian businesses want. Panama is a good environment for investment as an emerging economy. People there are buying their first TV and first microwave. It is a growth economy that we can participate in.

Not only that, but when we provide that growth and see it happen, some of the other things disappear, for example, the drug and human trafficking or smuggling. We would take away the need for people to try to make money by any means. When they can make a dollar fairly and squarely, that is what they will do, thus reducing the amount of crime and violent crime in those regions. That is of benefit to us here in Canada because we are the consumers of some of those drugs coming this way.

This agreement would eliminate tariffs on 89% of non-agricultural imports from Canada. The majority of Panama's remaining non-agricultural tariffs would be eliminate within five and ten years, including certain forest and paper products, certain iron and steel products, paints, soaps and various manufactured goods. I come from a riding with a pulp mill and forestry goods. These can now end up in Panama. That would be great for my riding and all Canadians.

I cannot understand why the New Democrats, the anti-trade group sitting over there, just cannot get it. Can they not understand that Canada is an exporting nation? If we want to seek growth and to give prosperity to our kids, this is what we have to do. We could never consume the resources the gods have enriched us with here in Canada. We have to be willing to trade, to exchange resources for other good of value throughout the world. That is what we would do through a trade agreement like this.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things my colleague talked about is the increased opportunity for trade with Panama in forestry products, plants and trees. Here, I want to break this down to the lowest common denominator, because some of my colleagues in the opposition who are talking about voting against this agreement still have a chance at third reading to change their minds and support this agreement.

The issue here is simple. Right now, with regard to one commodity alone, the Christmas tree industry in Nova Scotia, there is a tariff in Panama of 18%. That may not sound like a lot of money, but it is. Nova Scotia Christmas tree growers are paying an 18% tariff on their trees going into Panama. They have been shipping Christmas trees to Panama from before the 1960s. There has been over 50 years of business between Nova Scotia and Panama in that industry alone, albeit with a punitive tariff of 18% that will now be wiped out overnight. That is an opportunity for a niche market for a small industry in Nova Scotia, but that small industry is worth about $30 million to the province.

Items like these often get overlooked in these trade agreements but are significant for farm families and farm gate profits in rural Nova Scotia.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his hard work and determination in getting this bill through. I think it has been before the committee three times, if I remember correctly. I know he has been doing a lot of the hard work with all committee members in getting this bill to where it is today.

He gives a good example of Christmas trees and the 18% tariff. An 18% tariff for what? It is just a trade restriction. That is all it is. Why the NDP would want a tariff on Canadian companies is beyond me. Why would the NDP say it is okay for farmers to sell their Christmas trees to Panama, but let Panama collect that 18% tariff? That is what New Democrats are doing when they vote against this trade agreement. That is a classic example of the NDP. There is not a tax it does not like, even a tax being collected by another country. That is what is happening in this case.

That is what the Canada-Panama free trade agreement would resolve. It would take away that 18% tariff and give companies stable market access into Panama. It would allow them to fill that niche market and maybe expand it, and not only in Panama. Maybe they could use Panama as a bridge to go to other countries within the region. We do not know what the potential is. That is up to individual investors. All we can do in government is to take away the barriers and allow investors to conduct the business they want to do. That is what this trade agreement would do.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member for Prince Albert said that through its free trade agreements Canada can support change and growth in the Americas.

A few years ago, I signed a petition concerning the free trade area of the Americas (FTAA), which was also signed by people from all across the Americas. Every single country signed the petition. It asked that we put a human face on trade and that human beings be just as important as economics in our trade relations. The petition was effective because we no longer hear about the FTAA today.

However, the Canadian government has started entering into bilateral agreements with countries, agreements that are similar to the FTAA and therefore do not include the human dimension that the people asked for in the petition.

Why enter into agreements that do not fundamentally help promote human rights in another country, such as Panama?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that CAFTA is the trade agreement the member was referring to. There are really good reasons for my answer to her question. Bilateral agreements are very easy to do; we can reach bilateral agreements with countries that want to do business with us. When we get to a multilateral stage or venue, it is very difficult to get all the people to agree on the same topic, suggestions or issues. It is very tough to put together.

We should strive toward multilateral agreements like the TPP and, in a certain way, CETA, but in the same breath we cannot wait for multilateral agreements to come forward like the WTO. We need to be out there, like Chile is. It has something like 60 trade agreements with different partners around the world. Canada needs to be doing the same thing. If we cannot do it through multilateral venues, then we need to be vigilant and do it through the bilateral agreements we are reaching today.

Again, the focus has to be on families, and that is what we are doing by providing Canadian business with access to markets around the globe so that if one country like the U.S. decides not to trade with us, we have 10 more lining up to buy our products. That is what we are doing with our trade policy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one could always pose the question in terms of the time it has taken to get this bill through the legislature. The government has had the support of the Liberal Party throughout the process. Would the member comment on why he believes it has taken so long to get the legislation through?

The Prime Minister is currently in India and I believe he is going to Hong Kong and stopping in the Philippines. Could the member provide his perspective on the Philippines, a country with whom I have always argued it would be great to see more freer trade with. Does he believe that the Government of Canada is prepared to make it a higher priority at this time?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know the answer to that same question, why that has not happened before. I think the NDP is solely responsible for that being delayed at committee and being brought forward the way it has.

In regard to the Prime Minister's trips, it is nice to see a Prime Minister proud of going out on the global stage and actually attracting markets and increasing investment. We can be proud of the fact he is over there right now opening up markets for Canadian families and Canadian businesses.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in the House and speak to Bill C-24, the Canada-Panama trade agreement. The full 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 co-operation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

Before I go too much farther, I will answer the question just raised by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North. The reason this agreement has taken so long to get through the House is that the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister of this country prorogued Parliament twice and this bill that was before the House was killed and parliamentarians were deprived of their opportunity to deal with it. That is why the bill has been delayed, not because of anything New Democrats have done.

It is always nice to add some factual basis to the House, as opposed to the government's general approach of relying on spin and accusation and oversimplification, as opposed to solid evidence-based approaches to government.

I would like to briefly describe to the House what Bill C-24 is about. By this legislation, Canada would eliminate all non-agricultural tariffs as well as most agricultural tariffs upon ratification of this agreement. Overall the bill, if passed, would eliminate 99% of tariffs for imports from Panama, and a limited number of tariffs would be phased out over the next 15 years. Canada would not, by this agreement, eliminate over-quota tariffs on supply managed goods such as dairy, poultry and eggs. Additionally, Canada would not eliminate its tariffs on certain sugar products. Therefore this deal is not comprehensive and it does not deal with certain sensitive agricultural issues that are often so delicately handled in trade agreements.

This agreement would see Panama immediately eliminate all non-agricultural tariffs for imports from Canada, and upon ratification 90% of Canada's exports to Panama would enter the country duty-free, including many agricultural products. Other agricultural tariffs would be phased out within five to ten years. A limited number of Panamanian tariff lines would be unaffected by the implementation of the proposed free trade agreement.

Currently, Panama's average most favoured nation tariff rate, which is the lowest tariff rate Panama offers to countries with which it does not have a free trade agreement, for non-agricultural products is 6.4%. Its average most favoured nation tariff rate for agricultural products is 13.6%. However, some agricultural imports into Panama face tariff rates as high as 70%.

This agreement deals with services as well. It extends liberalization of trade and services beyond that established by the World Trade Organization's general agreement on trade in services in finance, information and communication technology, environmental services and energy services.

This agreement facilitates border entry for service providers and business people. It would provide a framework for the eventual reciprocal recognition of professional licensing qualifications in both countries.

This deal also has a chapter on government procurement. It allows contractors to bid on government contracts in both Panama and Canada. Moreover, contractors from Canada would be eligible to bid on Panama Canal Authority contracts. This agreement would prohibit government contracts with domestic content requirement rules that may impede potential suppliers or subcontractors from the partner country. Panama and Canada would both be required to post contract opportunities in a transparent manner for contractors from the partner country. In other words, this deal would open up procurement in Canada to Panamanian businesses and vice versa.

There is a labour co-operation agreement appended to this agreement that is referred to as a side deal on labour. It would require both parties to respect commitments under the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. It would protect the right to collective bargaining, obligate the parties to work toward abolishing child labour, eliminate compulsory labour and prohibit employment discrimination. Canada and Panama would also agree to minimum employment standards, occupational health and safety standards and compensation for sick and injured workers.

Moreover, either country could request a consultation with respect to the other country's obligations under the proposed agreement. If the countries could not reach an agreement with respect to a complaint, a review panel would or could be established if a country persistently abrogated its obligations under the proposed agreement and if the matter is so-called “trade related”.

This independent review panel could impose monetary penalties, which would be collected pursuant to a domestic court order. Those penalties would be limited to $15 million per year for each country and would be spent on programs in the country that violated the labour co-operation agreement.

There is also a side agreement on the environment in this trade deal. Both Canada and Panama would be required not to weaken their environmental regulations, such as they are, in order to attract investment. Both countries would be required to enforce their existing environmental regulations, again such as they are. To this end, mechanisms would be established to ensure that environmental impact assessments occur for proposed projects. In both countries, interested persons could request that the government investigate alleged violations of environmental rules.

Furthermore, the agreement would provide a framework for environmental co-operation between the countries with respect to environmental enforcement capacity, protection of biodiversity, conserving shared migratory or endangered species and developing mechanisms to protect the environment.

Disputes between the countries would be resolved through consultations and exchanges of information only. If those consultations and exchanges were unable to resolve the dispute, the offended party could request that an individual review panel be established to investigate the dispute.

We are opposing this bill for a number of reasons.

First, Panama has an established clear and absolute long-standing reputation as a tax haven for tax evasion and tax avoidance.

Second, Panama has a history of military dictatorship. It has a poor record of labour and human rights. As well, the deal's side agreements for both labour and the environment are very weak, as I will delineate.

Third, we are also concerned that the agreement provides greater rights and powers to foreign investors. This is worrisome given controversies on the environment and human rights records of some Canadian mining firms in Panama.

There are no penalties for environmental violation of this agreement whatsoever. If there was any single violation or multiple violations of the environmental side agreement, not one penny is provided for in this agreement to be levied in terms of fines or penalties; in other words, the environmental side agreement is only suggested.

I will first deal with the tax haven situation. The amount of money invested in tax havens in the world globally at the moment is at an all-time high. In 2011, almost 25% of Canada's investment was invested in the world's top 12 tax havens.

According to a Tax Justice Network report from 2011, Canada loses an estimated $80 billion per year to all forms of tax evasion. The government does not have a system for estimating and publishing the amount of lost revenues due to offshore non-compliance.

In 2011, there were more than 9,000 CRA employees working on taxpayer compliance. As of May 2012, 510 were assigned to the international audit program. That number has not changed since 2008, even though the use of offshore accounts has skyrocketed.

The CRA's 2010 audit of its own enforcement branch confirms the agency's inability to pursue complex offshore cases worth millions of dollars. Instead, it prefers to chase down the so-called “low-hanging fruit”, such as small business and the self-employed.

Panama, as I said, has a long history of serving as a tax haven. Here is some of the testimony we heard at committee in 2010 by Todd Tucker, who is the research director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He testified that Panama offers foreign banks and firms a special offshore licence to conduct business there. Not only are those businesses not taxed; they are subject to little or no reporting requirements or regulations.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 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.

A recent Cornell University study analyzed all prosecutions of the Internal Revenue Service in the United States over a 10-year period, and it found that Panama was tied as the number one country in the world as a source of drug-laundered money and as a tax haven.

There was some testimony at committee that this situation was so-called “improving”. Recently, Panama was removed from the so-called OECD “grey list” after implementing the standard for exchange of information when it signed a tax information exchange agreement with France. Panama now has 14 such agreements.

In March 2012, Canada and Panama entered into negotiations for a tax information exchange agreement. However, importantly, and critically for the opposition, this agreement has not yet been concluded or signed.

This is very troubling, considering the large amount of money laundering in Panama, which I believe no one in this House disputes, including money from drug trafficking. Panama's lack of taxation transparency has led the OECD to continue to label the nation as a tax haven.

I should point out that the so-called “greyness” is lifted from a country when it signs tax exchange information agreements with 12 countries. Notably, former president Sarkozy of France said that, notwithstanding that Panama had signed more than 12—in other words 14—such agreements, he still did not consider Panama to have entered the legitimate world of open transparent banking systems in the globe.

At committee, I questioned the government officials who testified about what due diligence Canada had done in determining the role of drug money in Panamanian banks and businesses. Astonishingly, they had done no study.

Cameron MacKay, a DFAIT official, on October 2, 2012, testified thus:

...we don't have figures in that regard, and to my knowledge the Canadian government hasn't done particular studies. But we are well aware, of course, that Central America is a region now that's suffering very seriously from the narco-trafficking trade. It's a serious issue across the region, including in Panama.

The U.S. Congress refused to ratify a free trade agreement with Panama before signing a tax information exchange agreement. According to witnesses, this agreement has “a large loophole...that...allows Panama to sidestep tax transparency provisions if they are 'contrary to the public policy' of Panama”.

Analyses of these tax exchange information agreements indicate they are highly ineffective in preventing legal tax avoidance or legal tax evasion unless they are carefully drafted. These agreements typically do not have an automatic information-sharing provision, but rather individual requests must be made.

Furthermore, these tax exchange information agreements generally do not require a partner country to provide information necessary for determining tax compliance in the other nation if it has not been previously created. In particular, it is typically necessary to know the name of the individual suspected of tax evasion to request the overseas tax information. Governments rarely have this information without a whistleblower.

Prior to the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-24, the NDP official opposition proposed to the committee a motion that would stop the implementation of the Canada-Panama trade agreement until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement, as the U.S. Congress did.

My motion was defeated by the Conservatives and the Liberals who argued that progress was being made on this matter with regard to negotiations underway to sign an agreement. However, we do not have a tax exchange information agreement between Canada and Panama today as we sit and vote on this free trade agreement.

In other words, we are dealing with a noted tax haven, one of the most notorious drug laundering centres in the world. The U.S. Congress said it would not be safe or prudent to sign a free trade agreement with such a country until it first had a tax exchange information agreement in place. However, in this House, the government is asking parliamentarians to go ahead and give a most favourable nation status free trade agreement that would allow money and investment to flow with very little barrier between our two countries, when we do not have a tax exchange information agreement in place, but one might happen in the future. That is imprudent. That is irresponsible.

The U.S. Congress would not ratify its FTA with Panama before a tax exchange information agreement was signed. Why are we?

I want to talk a bit about the labour co-operation agreement. It is not as strong as it could be. It has weak enforcement mechanisms. It invokes international labour organizations' core labour standards. However, according to testimony we received at committee, the agreement does not include specific protection for the right to organize and the right to strike. It provides instead for so-called “effective” recognition of the right to collective bargaining, making this deal weaker than others Canada has signed. Enforcement is weak. Fines are small. There are no countervailing duties and there is no provision for abrogation or any other such remedy.

We heard a lot of testimony that what Canadian business wants is a level playing field. I questioned experts and witnesses at committee and asked what the minimum wage was in Panama. The answer I got was between $1 and $2 per hour. How is that a level playing field for Canadian employers who have to pay minimum wages in Canada of at least $9 or $10 an hour, as well as workers' compensation, health benefits and Canada pension plan benefits? As well, they have to comply with a whole bunch of regulations that are part and parcel of a modern industrial economy. How are they supposed to compete on a so-called level playing field with Panamanian employers who are paying their workers $1 to $2 an hour? That is not a level playing field. It is not fair to Canadian business to sign and enact a trade agreement with a country that has such low standards.

The agreement on the environment is a replication of environmental agreements we have signed before and does not provide for a single penny of penalty. What kind of agreement obligates another country to certain environmental standards, but if it violates them we send it a letter and admonish it? That is irresponsible.

I have a quote from Jennifer Moore from MiningWatch. She states:

Although [this agreement] includes an environmental side chapter, this is a non-binding declaration that relies on political will for its implementation, of which sort we have not seen in Panama. On the contrary, we've seen the undermining of environmental protections at the behest of Canadian companies.

The agreement has an investor-state dispute settlement, something that we have heard a lot about in the House over the last two weeks because one is contained in the foreign investment protection agreement with Canada and China. This deal would further entrench the ability of companies to sue governments for policies that are seen to hurt investments. They are administered through tribunals that do not live up to Canadian values of justice, where the judges do not have security of tenure and there is no effective appeal mechanism. In fact, there are about 60 international lawyers around the world who sit on these tribunals. One recently said that he could not believe that any country in the world would give over to an unaccountable panel of three lawyers the power to strike down its domestic democratic legislation. That is exactly what was said.

These investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms are very dangerous. We have seen in the FIPA that they could subject Canadian taxpayers to millions, perhaps billions, of dollars of liabilities simply for the government taking measures to protect Canadian businesses or the environment or social programs. That is wrong.

In terms of the environment, there is a Mesoamerican corridor in Panama that is one of the most important biological and biologically diverse areas of the world. Currently there is a worldwide attempt by mining companies to mine in that area. This is something that is very concerning to many environmentalists. Hundreds of different types of species are at risk through unrestricted mining activities. We heard testimony at committee that this is also of major concern.

Panama accounts for less than 1% of our trade. It is actually 0.03% of Canada's trade. The government always brags about the number of agreements that it has signed. It has signed nine agreements. Who were those agreements with? They were with Panama, Jordan, Colombia, Honduras, Liechtenstein. With great respect to these countries, they are not major economic powers.

What the New Democrat opposition wants is a strategic trade policy where we restart the multilateral negotiations, where we sign trade deals with developed countries that have high standards and developing countries that are on progressive trajectories. These are countries like Japan, India, Brazil, South Africa and the BRIC countries. These are the countries that we should be signing trade agreements with, not countries like Panama that are drug laundering centres, tax havens and have low standards that will hurt Canadian business.

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

Mr. Speaker, I like some of the sentiment in what the member is saying and his concern about the domestic situation in Panama right now. I will make my question very simple because I want to explore how we go about improving the situation.

One of the things I liked about the free trade agreements were the imperatives and standards being set for labour and other issues. However, if every country isolated Panama because of its low wages and other things, how would it better itself?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a thoughtful question. I would turn it around and argue that if one were to make the argument that the only way to raise standards in another country were to engage in trade with it, then we should sign free trade agreements with every single country in the world regardless of their domestic situation. That is clearly absurd.

When Canada is determining whether or not we should give most favoured nation status to a country, we should have some strategic policy framework with which to do so. We should be signing agreements with countries that are showing positive movement and development toward modern civilized standards. Obviously we would not want to sign a trade agreement with a country that had a terrible human rights record or that refused to conform to the norms of civilized society. We would not want to do that.

In the case of Panama it has made some progress toward eliminating its longstanding reputation as a tax haven, but it is not there yet. The U.S. Congress said it would not let investment flow from Panama to the United States, when it knows there is drug laundered money there and Panama is a tax haven, until it has an effective tax information exchange in place to ensure drug money is not going into the United States.

Why are the Liberal Party and the Conservatives not taking the same stand here in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened fairly closely to my hon. colleague's speech and he raises more questions than he actually answers. One of the issues he talked about at length was levelling the playing field. On the one hand, he wants to level the playing field with Panama bringing what many would say is a third world country into the league of manufacturing nations and into more modern society. On the other hand, he says we cannot do that because Panamanians are working for $1 or $2 an hour and we are working for much more than that here. Therefore we cannot somehow compete against them.

The whole point of free trade agreements is to boost the economy in a region, to boost the standard of living of people, to boost their access to education, to boost their access to health care, to improve the overall general climate and ability of those individuals to find work in a modern society. How can we on one hand level the playing field in some areas and not in others?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree in general that trade policy has a number of aims including, hopefully, to boost the standard of living in each country. It is a fair question as to whether or not that actually happens with certain agreements. It depends on the countries involved and it depends on the terms of the agreement. Unlike the Conservatives who take it as an ideological article of faith that simply signing a trade agreement has some magical power to boost the standard of living in both countries, we in the official opposition prefer to deal in the realm of evidence, where that is not necessarily the case.

In the case of Panama, all we can do is deal with the situation that we have before us. Again, most favoured nation status is a very special status that Canada accords to certain countries. We do not just give it to any country in the world. We give it to certain countries and we hopefully have some policy rationale for doing so.

On this side of the House we do not think that signing a free trade deal with a drug laundering tax haven is a good idea. The Conservatives say they are tough on crime and a law and order party. I do not know why they are making it easy for drug laundered profits to come into our country. They should explain to Canadians why they are not listening to the official opposition's wise amendment to hold off on this treaty until we have an effective tax information exchange agreement. That is what we have suggested. Conservatives have said no.

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

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I asked the Minister of International Trade a question. I asked the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons the same question this morning, when he moved time allocation.

He said that, at present, negotiations are under way to conclude a tax information exchange agreement in order to fight tax havens, which we often hear about in Panama. Although there have been improvements, as my colleague pointed out, the U.S. Congress has adopted this same philosophy and waited for taxpayers to be treated fairly before ratifying the free trade agreement. It is important to point that out. Could my colleague comment on that?

Furthermore, my Liberal colleague said earlier that the situation could improve if we treated workers better. Why should we trust this vague political will? Why not first deal with these injustices and then sign a free trade agreement?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I have not even heard any attempt by the government to answer the question of why it would not agree with the official opposition and wait to make sure we have the kind of tax transparency legislation in place that we know is necessary. We are not dealing in a vacuum here. We are dealing with a country that is one of the top two tax havens in the world. I think all Canadians remember the Panamanian dictator, Manuel Noriega. They remember that Panama was used as a base for running drugs with the Contras. This was not terribly long ago.

I understand Panama has recently emerged from dictatorship and is making some progress towards becoming a fully functioning democracy, but the testimony we heard in committee is that they are not there yet. Panama does not yet have a fully independent judiciary. It does not have a fully democratic system.

Until Canadians can be sure that we are not signing an agreement that sees drug laundered profits come into our country, I do not think we should be according most favoured nation status to that country. I think most Canadians would agree with that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what the member for Vancouver Kingsway had to say, but I disagree with holding up the legislation.

What would the cost of waiting be, in terms of those export industries affected? I am thinking of potato exports from my own province. The government did have 38 months in which to deal with the legislation and could have negotiated some of the concerns that the member for Vancouver Kingsway has, but it failed to do that. It blames it on the opposition, but the government had our support and it could have passed the legislation.

The change that has happened is that on October 31 the Panama FTA with the United States kicked into effect. This is the second trade area now where we find ourselves at a disadvantage as Canadians. South Korea being the other one.

Has the member done any economic analysis to see what the impact of waiting might be?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and for his great service to the committee.

My hon. colleague was sitting in committee with me when we were questioning DFAIT officials to get an idea of the economics involved. He, as well as I, heard that total trade between Panama and Canada amounts to 0.03% of our trade. We are not talking about anything significant at all in terms of trade. I think Panama ranks in the high 80s in terms of countries with which we trade around the world.

Again, the difference between the Americans and Canada in this is that the Americans were prudent and made sure that they had the tax haven issue dealt with prior to according most favoured nation status. I think that was a wise move on the Americans' part.

I am not sure why the Liberal Party did not agree with the New Democrats that it would be prudent to do the same thing in Canada. For our part, we are not saying that we are necessarily opposed to a free trade agreement with Panama, but we are opposed to a free trade agreement before we have the necessary checks and balances in place to make sure that we are not extending tax haven status from Panama to Canada. Right now, that cannot be said.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I start the main part of my speech, I would like to take a bit of time to continue my rebuttal of some of the comments made by my hon. colleague from the NDP. I want to lay it out in pretty general terms.

A number of comments were made that simply do not wash. The comment was made that we can hold off on the treaty until we get a tax information exchange agreement. Yes, we can hold off on the treaty forever. We do not ever have to sign it, but we can also negotiate two different areas at the same time.

The reality is that Panama is off the OECD grey list. It is on the so-called white list, because it has improved its tax information sharing with other nations. Therefore, that is no longer an issue for OECD countries. Meanwhile, we are trading with Panama today.

The hon. member does a total disservice to Canadian companies that are trading with Panama now. There is $111 million worth of trade between Canada and Panama, and he shrugs that off as if that is nothing. A good deal of that trade is coming out of Quebec, Atlantic Canada, Ontario, western Canada and British Columbia. It is shared equally among the provinces, and everyone gains. It is an absolute disservice to say that $111 million worth of trade is not important. I frankly disagree.

When we look at the idea of rules-based trading, having a system in which we understand what the tariffs are, going in, and that they will be eliminated to zero, it is all about building capacity in Panama. We cannot do that overnight. Panama has moved light years in the last 20 years, and it has moved in the right direction on every single thing. When the Panamanians took over the Panama Canal, the naysayers, a group the NDP apparently belongs to, said that they would never be able to operate the Panama Canal. They said that the Americans could operate it, because they can do anything. Do you know what? The Panamanians took over the Panama Canal, and not only did they operate it, they did it well.

What has that done for the Panamanian psyche and Panamanian society? It has put hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue into Panama. That hundreds of millions of dollars builds capacity, the very capacity the NDP wants to thwart in Panama. That is the capacity that builds roads and hospitals and sends kids to school. More importantly, when we sign this free trade agreement with Panama, which will enable it to acquire cheaper food because it will be tariff free, kids will be sent to school with food in their bellies. That is a terrible thought, apparently, for the NDP anti-trade group.

I shake my head. I had great hopes for the New Democratic Party in this Parliament. It said that it was going to support trade and look at the trade deals for what they were. New Democrats found a way not to support trade. Whether they like it, whether they do not like it, there are some good things and some bad things. At the end of the day, when the rubber hits the road, the final verdict is what counts. If New Democrats do not support this trade agreement, they do not support trade. They should not try to have it both ways. They should not try to equivocate. Either they support trade or they do not support trade.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for putting up with that. It was important that I get it off my chest. I would like to get into the main part of my speech now.

I am pleased to be here today to talk about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. The free trade agreement would generate increased export and investment opportunities for Canadians by creating a preferential and more predictable trade and investment environment, something I talked about in my opening comments.

When the free trade agreement comes into force, Panamanian tariffs on over 90% of Canadian goods exported to that country will be eliminated immediately. That is good news for Canadian exporters. With $111 million of merchandise traded between Canada and Panama, that is fantastic news.

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. For Canadians looking to invest in Panama, the free trade agreement would include a chapter of comprehensive rules governing investment. These rules would provide greater protection and predictability for Canadian investors and their investments in Panama. At the same time, the labour co-operation agreement would ensure that these economic advances would not be made at the expense of workers' rights. Furthermore, the agreement on the environment would commit both countries to pursuing high levels of environmental protection, to improving and enforcing their environmental laws effectively, to maintaining appropriate environmental assessment procedures and to ensuring that they do not relax their environmental laws to encourage trade and investment.

I will speak for a moment on that, because it is absolutely key to protecting the environment. Not every country in the world has the same standard of environmental protection. That is the reality of the world we live in. Many of the G8 countries and more advanced economies can afford to protect the environment. For growing economies, those dollars are taken from somewhere else to protect the environment. The great thing about this chapter of the investment treaty would be that they could not allow their environmental protection rules to become slacker. They could not be less for a Panamanian company than for a Canadian company. At the end of the day, it would mean that both countries would have to ensure that they did not relax their environmental laws to encourage trade or investment. That would be a step in the right direction, and it is those types of basic rules that would make a difference for the future of Panama.

The same agreement on the environment would also include provisions on encouraging the use of voluntary best practices, corporate social responsibility and a commitment to promote public awareness of the parties' environmental laws.

The free trade agreement would also provide Canadian exporters of goods and services with greater market access to Panama's government procurement opportunities, including those related to the Panama Canal expansion and other infrastructure projects.

The Panama Canal project is one of the largest and most ambitious projects in the region. It is expected to cost an estimated $5.3 billion. This agreement would better enable Canadian suppliers and investors from across the country to participate in this megaproject by ensuring that Canadian goods and services would have access to procurement by the Panama Canal Authority, without discrimination.

However, it is not just about the canal. I will broaden the discussion further to many of the tremendous opportunities this agreement would offer Canadians when it comes to government purchasing. Our government has been at the forefront of efforts to expand and secure access to foreign government procurement markets. According to OECD statistics, government purchasing plays a significant role in the economies of most countries, including Canada. It accounts for approximately 10% to 15% of a country's GDP, amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars annually around the world. These markets present significant opportunities for Canadian suppliers, and our government is working hard to ensure that Canadians have the tools available to take advantage of these opportunities. These obligations would also support the interests of Canadian taxpayers, ensuring increased access, competition and fairness in government procurement in Canada.

What is wrong with the idea of the taxpayer getting the best possible value for his or her hard-earned tax dollars? There is nothing wrong with that principle. These obligations would also support the interests of Canadian taxpayers, ensuring access, competition and fairness in government procurement. I have said that twice, because it is worth repeating. It is worth understanding the basic fairness that can be brought to the procurement market. Ultimately, suppliers, governments and their taxpayers all benefit from these efforts. Our government seeks to accomplish these goals by negotiating agreements such as the World Trade Organization agreement on government procurement and specific chapters in Canada's free trade agreements, such as the one with Panama.

Earlier this year, our government welcomed the successful conclusion of negotiations to modernize the WTO agreement on government procurement. However, our efforts to secure and expand opportunities for Canadian suppliers go beyond the World Trade Organization. Most of Canada's free trade agreements, from the North American Free Trade Agreement to those with Peru and Colombia, have obligations on government purchasing. These obligations are based on core principles, including a commitment to non-discrimination between domestic and foreign suppliers as well as an assurance of transparency and clear procedures.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement we are debating here today is another step in our effort to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for hard-working Canadians.

It has been said many times in the House that Panama has a dynamic and rapidly growing economy. 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. In fact, its political stability and progressive business environment have helped Panama achieve impressive 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 Americas. As a gateway to the region, our trade agreement with Panama will make it easier for Canadians to establish that foothold in the Americas.

Panama's government market, particularly in the areas of infrastructure, transportation and services, represents a significant opportunity for Canadian suppliers. The ambitious $5.3 billion expansion of the Panama Canal, which I mentioned earlier, is at the top of the list. The Panama Canal serves as a key hub between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and is a significant driver of Panama's economy. Its expansion would bring about increased container traffic, some of which will access Canadian ports to supply the North American market. This is yet another example of why Canada must act quickly to implement this agreement. Canadian businesses can compete and win against the best in the world, but we must ensure that they have a fair opportunity to do so.

As I said, opportunities exist beyond the canal. In 2010, the Panamanian government announced an infrastructure plan valued at $13.6 billion over five years. Numerous infrastructure projects are either under consideration or are already in progress to build and improve roads, hospitals, bridges and airports. Among these projects is the Panamanian government's plan to construct a metro system valued at $1.5 billion.

These projects present many opportunities for Canadian companies and Canadian workers. However, we need this agreement in force, because Canadians can benefit from it. The fact is that despite having signed nearly two and a half years ago and having debated it in this place for nearly 60 hours, the opposition continues to accuse our government of rushing this deal. Two and a half years and 60 hours somehow means that we are rushing the deal. I really beg to differ.

We have seen time and time again that the NDP will use any excuse to oppose a trade agreement. It has been that way ever since NAFTA. Twenty-five years ago, the opposition claimed that the Canada-U.S. and North American free trade agreements would wipe out millions of jobs, compromise Canada's sovereignty over freshwater and cause us to lose our Canadian culture. None of those claims came true. In fact, precisely the opposite happened. Since those agreements were signed, the Canadian economy has boomed. Hard-working Canadians have benefited, and we still have full control over our water. Canadian culture is more alive and well, and I dare say, profitable, than it has ever been in the history of our country.

It is not only the NAFTA that the NDP opposes. The NDP member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, when he was the leader of the Nova Scotian NDP, called trade agreements jobs destroying and vowed to fight all trade agreements. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster and former NDP trade critic went so far as to work against Canadian exporters when he argued that Buy American was a perfectly logical policy.

Protectionism is not logical. There is nothing in protectionism that is logical. We should not be surprised that this is yet another trade agreement that the NDP has failed to support. In fact, the NDP members have stood in the way of our attempts to open up new markets for our exporters at every opportunity.

Now, because of these delays, our competitors are catching up. Panama's free trade agreement with the European Union could enter into force as early as the end of this year. Let us consider that for a moment. Most members in this House would look at the European Union and say it is a market-based economy with very high standards for labour relations and the environment and, certainly, that it has democratically based governments.

The EU has done a tremendous job in putting 27 member states together, and soon to be 28 with Croatia joining. We also need to look at the EU for a moment. It did all of that for its member countries to trade with one another. It broke down the trade barriers. The EU has challenges, and in fact the entire world has challenges, with the economy. However, the EU moved forward because it tore down trade barriers. I ask the NDP members to think about this for a moment, that these nations some 60 years ago were shooting at one another. Where are these nations today? They have the most powerful and richest consumer economy on the planet, with 500 million people. It is amazing, and it is because they dared to tear down trade barriers.

Even more importantly, the Panama-U.S. free trade agreement came into force just last week. Another democratically based government with high respect for the environment and for labour, our closest neighbour and largest trading partner, is trading with Panama. That is okay to the NDP members: they will let the Americans and the European Union trade with Panama, but somehow it is wrong for Canada to do the same thing and let our companies compete on equal footing.

Our companies need this agreement so they can take advantage of these commercial opportunities. It is important that Canadian firms establish an early presence to build solid relationships to capitalize on the future opportunities that will arise in this emerging market.

Canadian companies clearly have the expertise to meet Canada's development plans. 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. The agreement, moreover, would ensure that Canadian suppliers can compete on the same basis as their main competitors in the United States.

It is our job as members of Parliament to make sure that Canadian companies have secure access to opportunities of this nature.

In summary, the time has come to move forward. I certainly still hold out hope for my NDP colleagues. I certainly believe that they do want to move to the centre of the political spectrum. I think in their heart of hearts they understand that trade is good. They have some challenges maybe with some members, but we all have challenges. We do not all agree on every single item. I understand that.

Intuitively, look at the folks we are trading with around the world, especially the United States and the European Union. They are trading with Panama now. They will have their foot in the door ahead of us. We need to be there on equal footing with our foot in the door at the same time.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in listening intently to my hon. friend's comments, one of the things that jumped out at me was his statement that he does not believe in protectionism because it is a bad thing for the government and Canada.

I guess that would explain why the government would leave Canadian dairy farmers out to dry when supply management disappears in this country because of trade deals, such as with the EU, which this government calls protectionism.

Would my friend like to comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like to take a moment, I would be happy to provide a briefing on the comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union. Certainly, as he well knows and surely agrees with, our position is that supply management is not on the table in those agreements. There is nothing in that agreement that changes the long-held Canadian position on supply management.

Furthermore, supply management has not prevented our signing any other trade agreements, including NAFTA, our agreement with Colombia, and our ongoing negotiations with Japan and the TPP and others. Our position on protection of supply management has not affected any of them.

Every government reserves the right to protect certain items like social services, health care, water, and some that are trade-restrictive such as supply management. In every single trade agreement that Canada has signed, we protected those areas.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do not always agree with the parliamentary secretary, but I would agree with him that we are now in a bind because the United States has reactivated its FTA effective October 31, and we have rapidly come to a disadvantage in that market as a result.

However, I have to ask the parliamentary secretary where the government has been for the last 38 months. It had the ability to get the bill through Parliament and at this late hour, after the fact, it is now introducing closure to try to get it through, but we are already at a disadvantage at this point.

The parliamentary secretary may want to answer that, but I have a different question for him. The government has gone to great lengths to talk about the advantages to us from an FTA and the expansion of the Panama Canal. The following quotation appeared in the United States Congressional Research Service's report to Congress on the proposed U.S.-Panama FTA dated April 21, 2011. It states:

Another unique feature of the FTA negotiations was the treatment of business issues with respect to the Panama Canal Area. Its status as an autonomous legal entity under the Panamanian Constitution required separate negotiations for government procurement, labor, investment, and other areas. The United States is the only country with which Panama has been willing to negotiate issues related to the canal area in an FTA.

Where does Canada now stand on procurement issues with respect to the Panama Canal under that kind of an arrangement?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree. I believe there are opportunities for procurement in the expansion of the Panama Canal.

The hon. member is well aware that we are getting to the final days of the expansion of the Panama Canal. I think we are about two years from the opening date and a lot of those contracts have been let. However, there are certainly procurement contracts and subcontracts available to Canadian companies.

More importantly, if we think of all the global commerce out there on the oceans, the great advantage to Canada with the advent of the twinning of the Panama Canal is that upon that date over 5% of that commerce will go through the Panama Canal at one point or another. When we put that global commerce up the east and west coasts of Canada, our coastal communities and cities stand to gain, especially our ports, such as the Port of Vancouver; the Port of Prince Rupert; the Port of Saint John, New Brunswick; the Port of Halifax; and the Port of St. John's, Newfoundland. Those gateway ports will bring more trade to both coasts of Canada.

That is where the real opportunity from the Panama Canal will lie on its opening date.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his great intervention on promoting trade around the world.

I come from a riding with a lot of agricultural sectors. We have beef production, pork production, poultry production and horticulture. In my riding we have Conestoga College, which just recently instituted a food processing centre. We have all kinds of food processing in our riding, including Piller's Meats, Schneider Foods and Conestoga Meat Packers. There are all kinds of opportunities for increased exports.

I am wondering if my colleague could comment on the importance not only to the primary producers of our grain and oil seeds, poultry, pork and beef, but also in terms of our food processing technology, which is certainly envied around the world. We could certainly benefit the producers and processors as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question much better than the member posed it. The reality is absolutely there, and not just for agricultural exports but also for food processing equipment and machinery. There are ample opportunities to export that type of technology to Panama or through Panama as a gateway into the rest of Central and South America.

There are number of areas where we stand to gain, including merchandise exports, agricultural exports and financial services. There is nothing but opportunity with this agreement.

I take great exception to any hon. member who would stand in this place and say that that $111 million in merchandise trade we do with Panama today is somehow not important. For the companies doing that trade today, it is extremely important. Not only that, but they will be the first people able to take advantage of a future expansion of trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade for almost a year, and I am always amazed at the answers that the parliamentary secretary gives to justify certain actions.

I will focus on the issue of tax havens. I took the time to do some research, and I found some very important reference sites—sites that promote tax havens to the public. For example, a European site recommends tax havens in fewer than a dozen countries, including Panama, for European business creators or SME managers.

Similarly, CCP Inc. says on its website that it can set up any type of offshore company in five tax havens, including Panama. Panama is part of these tax havens. The company's slogan is “Security and Privacy are Your Rights!” The site is available in English, French and Russian, which gives a very good idea of how serious the company's business is and how much money it is raking in.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary how he can so easily condone tax evasion and tax havens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would agree with me that no parliamentarians are condoning tax havens. At the same time, I think we need to realize that all countries are moving forward at different rates and not all have the same capacity.

Let us take a look at where the Panamanian government has moved on tax havens. They have signed tax information exchange agreements with 14 countries around the world. That fact alone has taken them off the OECD grey list. They are now not on the grey list but the so-called white list, with most favoured nation status.

The reality is that Panamanians are moving in the right direction. This is not a matter of condoning tax havens; this is a question of whether we are going to trade with a country with a formula that establishes rules-based trading. We are trading with them now. We are not suddenly going to start trading with Panama tomorrow, because we are already doing it. The difference will be that we will have a clearly established set of rules to do so.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise and make comments on the bill before us, the free trade agreement with Panama. Before I get to the substantive part of my argument, I want to touch on a couple of things.

We have heard a lot about the NDP being against free trade. The NDP has shown that it is for free trade, when those free trade agreements are negotiated in a manner that protects human rights, labour rights, the environment, and that is transparent and sustainable.

We are so serious about free trade that our critic, and it was only the NDP critic, my esteemed friend from Vancouver Kingsway, took 13 substantive amendments to committee. If we were not serious, all we would be interested in saying is that we are opposed to this. We are not. We wanted to make this free trade agreement work. In order to make it work, our critic and our whole team put in a lot of time and took 13 amendments to committee. How many amendments did the other opposition parties make? Zero. However, despite all the hard work, my colleagues across the aisle once again refused to accept any amendment.

One of the key things about being a parliamentarian, and the whole purpose of the committee stage, is for people from all political parties to try to improve the legislation. However, there is arrogance from the other side, and because Conservatives have a majority, they are not open to any amendments. The government has a bizarre idea that anything they propose is so superior that it could not possibly be corrected or amended by anyone else. The Conservatives totally ignored the serious work done by parliamentarians to try to fix their legislation so we could then support it.

If any blame is to end up anywhere, it is on the government side. Once again, Conservatives have failed to allow parliamentarians to do their job. They not only use their parliamentary majority at the committee stage to shut down all the amendments, but today as we saw earlier, they used their majority to shut down debate. What do they have to hide? They just want to read out the same old mantra over and over again.

We also heard from the government that this is all about improving trade and improvements for Canadians. Neither the former government, led by a Liberal, nor my friends across the aisle, can be trusted to negotiate free trade agreements. They did not do and they do not do the necessary oversight that is required. My colleagues across the aisle love to quote dollars and figures, so let me quote some numbers from them. These are the Conservatives' figures.

I was so keen to speak on this that I forgot to say that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Surrey North.

As I was saying, we have gone from a $26 billion trade surplus to a $50 billion trade deficit. For our manufacturing, which is a value-added job, the trade deficit has gone up six times, to over $90 billion. Those are decent paying jobs that Canadians no longer hold because they have been given away.

Raw materials are not only Canadians' raw materials, but they are also the inheritance of our children and grandchildren. Once again, the export of raw materials without value-added jobs adds up to $30 billion, but value-added exports are down to $35 billion.

If I were an economist or an accountant, I would be looking at these figures and asking the government to go back to the drawing board to do some homework. That is the teacher part of me.

We also hear the Conservatives talk about opening the borders, free enterprise, and all of that. I am reminded that we hear a lot of that when it comes to big tax breaks for international and national corporations. We hear about it when it comes to free trade agreements. However, when it comes to labour market adjustments, of course, all of that disappears. Then we pass legislation so that employers can pay 15% less to temporary foreign workers who we bring in to ensure the free marketplace analogy is not allowed to work when it comes to Canadians looking for decent paying jobs.

I heard my esteemed colleague from across the way talk about NAFTA and how wonderful it has been. I would remind him of the reality in British Columbia, the beautiful province that I reside in and which is a pleasure to call home. In B.C., we have seen truckload after truckload of raw logs going over the border. Many of our towns in northern B.C. and in the interior have become ghost towns, as they watch those raw logs disappear over the border. Gone with them are the jobs in manufacturing, and, of course, we then buy the manufactured products back.

Let me say that if one mentioned NAFTA in many towns in B.C., one would not get a pleasant reaction. My colleague from British Columbia sitting on the other side knows what a heated topic exporting raw logs from British Columbia is and how it has impacted our communities in a huge way.

The other issue I have to touch on is the environment. One of the key areas for us to address is the environment, and free trade agreements are one of the ways we can do that. However, the Conservative government seems determined to undermine and dismantle environmental protection. Through these free trade agreements, it would also be supporting environmental degradation in other countries as well. I think that is unacceptable. We really have to take a look at where we are going with this.

Members all know that we do not live in isolated cells. Environmental factors and global warming do not recognize borders. They do not stop to show a passport. When pollution occurs in Panama, it impacts us in British Columbia, across Canada and around the globe. We have to be cognizant of that.

Of course, our mining company interests in Panama would be protected and we are happy about that, but there needs to be a balance here. However, it is imbalanced, which makes us not support this particular free trade agreement.

I will quote from Jen Moore's presentation to MiningWatch Canada .

Although [the agreement] includes an environmental side chapter, this is a non-binding declaration that relies on political will for its implementation, of which sort we have not seen in Panama.

Last but not least, I want to mention the money laundering and tax haven in Panama.

The Conservative government talks about security and a halt to drugs. If someone has five marijuana plants, it would give them a six-month minimum sentence. However, it is willing to sign an agreement with a country that even the OECD has recognized as being a tax haven, where money laundering takes place and there is no transparency over those issues.

New Democrats have very serious concerns. We are opposed to this agreement because the Conservatives refuse to accept the very intelligent amendments put forward by our critic.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague, who implied that a free trade agreement can somehow be unilaterally amended in Parliament once all of the negotiations have occurred. More troubling than that was her comment that her party supports free trade.

I want to give her a lot of time to answer this question. I would like her to list all of the free trade agreements in the past 20 years that the NDP has supported.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we will support free trade agreements. We will support free trade agreements—

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

How many?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

The past 20 years.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to finish my response.

New Democrats would like to be able to support free trade agreements. We supported the free trade agreement with Jordan. I was in the House when we voted for it, and I was very proud to do so. I was looking forward to supporting this one. I looked at the 13 amendments that the NDP critic put forward after a great deal of thoughtful deliberation, and if major amendments had been accepted, the NDP would have been rising in a wave. We would have been on our feet voting for this.

We take our parliamentary duties very seriously. We have to do due diligence and protect the environment, labour rights and Canadian jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share a lot of the members' concerns. However, she said at one point that if she were an economist, she would instruct the government to go back to the drawing board. I was wondering if she could cite an economist who actually said that.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had too many conversations with economists recently, and I will be very honest about that. However, I have discussed free trade with many working people in British Columbia. I have discussed free trade with some of the logging companies. I have discussed free trade with some of the trucking companies. I have discussed free trade and its impact, especially as we have seen it in B.C., with very diverse communities. All of them can see one thing very clearly: we should not sign a free trade agreement that does not benefit Canadian workers.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of Canadian workers, after listening to this debate, I have to think that the Conservatives' response to a flood would be to provide a thimble and say it is going to help. We have seen a gush of well-paid manufacturing jobs leave the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, presided over by the government.

Conservatives come before the House today and talk about good jobs and job creation. Let us see a job-creation plan from the government. We have been asking for this since we got here in 2011 and we have not seen a single one. Conservatives want to talk about good jobs. Let us put a plan on the table and not play around with the facts about jobs. I would like my colleague to respond to that.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we have been waiting with bated breath for the government to table a plan that would actually grow decent paying jobs in Canada. Instead, we have seen a huge increase in the number of temporary foreign workers. Last year alone, we brought in 191,000-plus temporary foreign workers because employers can pay them less. However, we do not give them any rights of residency or a pathway to residency, and at the same time we have very high unemployment. We have the highest unemployment among our youth, and yet the minister says the government is going to encourage even more people to come to Canada.

What about growing decent jobs for our young people who are graduating from universities, colleges and high school, and what about decent paying jobs right across this country? Instead, the government is trying to shut the door on EI.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the citizens of Surrey North to speak to Bill C-24, the proposed free trade agreement between Canada and Panama.

As the Asia-Pacific Gateway critic and someone who is very concerned with Canada's trade deficit, I know my colleagues on the opposite side do not like facts and figures but I am going to give them some. When the Conservatives came into power in 2006, our trade surplus was $25 billion. That is a fact. The Conservatives like to talk about trade and how they want to expand our markets. However, under the Conservative government that $25 billion surplus has turned into a $50 billion deficit. That is the Conservatives' record and they like to talk about numbers. I have gotten that off my chest so I will carry on with my speech.

I am very supportive of an open and progressive approach to trade. That includes building a stronger economy and promoting Canada's interests. Unfortunately this agreement would not fit the bill. I will not be supporting the bill for a number of reasons. Chief among those reasons is that when the bill's previous incarnation, Bill C-46, was studied at the committee stage, we heard very compelling testimony from many witnesses regarding the use of Panama as a tax haven for tax evasion and tax avoidance. Furthermore, Panama has a poor record on labour rights, and the deal's side agreements for labour and the environment are very weak. We are also very concerned that the agreement would provide greater rights and powers to foreign investors. This is worrisome, given controversies regarding the environmental and human rights records of some Canadian mining firms in Panama.

Bill C-24 was studied very briefly at the international trade committee of which I am a member. The testimony we heard confirmed that these issues continue to be of concern today. Motions and amendments that would address these glaring issues in the agreement were introduced by the member for Vancouver Kingsway, our NDP international trade critic, but were opposed and defeated by both the Liberals and the Conservatives.

After studying the situation in Panama more closely, one of my greatest concerns is that while Canada and Panama are in the process of negotiating a tax information exchange agreement, tax disclosure issues have yet to be meaningfully addressed despite protestations to the contrary from the Panamanian government, and undoubtedly the Conservative government, when we raise these issues. It is a major issue that the U.S. Congress refused to ratify a free trade agreement with Panama before signing a tax information exchange agreement.

There are very compelling reasons not to sign the agreement with Panama in the interest of Canadian taxpayers. In 2011, Canada's bilateral trade with Panama represented 0.03%, which is less than 1%, of our overall global trade. The agreement would represent the Conservatives' quantity over quality approach to trade deals. There is no need to rush into an agreement before meaningfully addressing the concerns about Panama being a tax haven.

I will speak in more depth about the tax information exchange agreement because it is very concerning and should cause us to pause before we enter into this agreement with Panama. In March 2012, Canada and Panama entered into the negotiation of a tax information exchange agreement. However, this agreement has not yet been signed. This is very troubling, considering the large amount of money laundering in Panama, including money from drug trafficking, that we heard about at the committee level. Panama's lack of taxation transparency has led the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to label the nation a “tax haven”.

As I said before, the U.S. Congress refused to ratify a free trade agreement with Panama before it signed a tax information exchange agreement. Canadian Parliament should be equally cautious. However, analysis of these agreements indicates that they are highly ineffective in preventing legal avoidance or illegal tax evasion. These agreements typically do not have an automatic information sharing provision, rather an individual request must be made. Furthermore, they generally do not require a partner country to provide the information necessary for determining tax compliance in other nation if it has not been previously created.

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. I believe it has about 14 agreements in place.

At committee, prior to the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-24, my colleague, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, proposed a motion to the international trade committee that would stop the implementation of the Canada-Panama trade agreement until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement. I voted in favour of the motion, as did the other New Democrat members of the committee. I supported it because it does not make sense to sign a free trade agreement without a tax information exchange agreement in place.

Unfortunately, the motion was defeated by the Conservatives, along with the Liberals. They argued that progress was being made and negotiations were under way to sign an agreement. I strongly disagree with this line of reasoning. This is putting the cart before the horse. There is no reason to rush the agreement through Parliament. If we in fact are on our way to signing a tax information exchange agreement, why not wait? What is the rush? Why not get that agreement in place before we sign a free trade agreement with a nation that has been known to have money laundering and tax evasion schemes in place? That question has still not been answered by the government.

Considering Panama's history and reputation on such matters, it should be clear why such an agreement is necessary before signing a trade deal and why we need to examine its terms and adequacies. The U.S. Congress would not ratify a free trade agreement with Panama before a tax information exchange agreement was signed. Why should we not have the same basic requirement in Canada? It does not make sense to me and I do not understand why or how it makes sense to the members of the House who intend to vote to pass the bill.

At the committee level, we proposed several reasonable amendments that would have made progressive changes to the bill. These included the addition of the crucial concepts of sustainable development and sustainable investment, a requirement for tax transparency and provisions to incorporate the protection of labour rights in the bill, including the right to collective bargaining. Other amendments 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.

There are many amendments. In total 13 were introduced, yet the Conservatives voted them down. They were reasonable amendments that would have made reasonable corrections to some of the things the Conservatives have overlooked in this free trade agreement. The NDP prefers the multilateral approach to trade and supports trade agreements that expand Canadian exports by reducing harmful barriers to trade and encourage the development of value-added industries.

I want to conclude by saying the same thing I started with. The Conservatives' trade record is very poor. When they took over government it was $25 billion in surplus. Now we are $50 billion in deficit. We should look this deal over before passing it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the things the member said. When the Conservatives became the Government of Canada there was a significant trading surplus. The government policies of Mr. Chrétien and Paul Martin had a lot to do with that surplus. It is unfortunate that we have a huge trade deficit now. Many Canadians are equally concerned about that trade deficit.

One of the ways to deal with that trade deficit is to look at opportunities south of the border where we have lost a great deal of trade. It seems to me that the government is placing a high priority on Panama. It has been working on this for the last few years. It even had the support of the Liberal Party to get it through. It could have passed through the House two years ago, but the government continues to bring in the bill.

Does my colleague believe that the government is neglecting trade relations with other partners around the world at a fairly significant cost and that is one of the reasons why we have a huge trade deficit today?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our trade has gone from a surplus of $25 billion to a deficit of over $50 billion. That is absolutely correct. Not only that, but the manufacturing trade deficit has ballooned six times and is up to $90 billion. Manufactured goods that we sell to other countries are the value-added products that produce good paying jobs.

The member is absolutely right. We have to encourage the government to be more progressive in negotiating trade agreements with other countries, such as Japan. We have to look at India, Brazil and South Africa. These countries have a growing market for our goods. We should be doing that at all times.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems like my colleague across the way is one of the few in the NDP caucus who truly believe that trade is important for Canada, especially as Canada is an exporting nation.

Canada has a commodity that the opposition NDP seems to oppose everywhere it goes and that is the oil industry. This industry is well represented within my constituency, contributes largely to the Canadian economy and benefits us all. Obviously the opposition wants to bring forward a costly carbon tax for Canadian consumers, which is unfortunate. Those members have stood in the way of seeing this product move to other jurisdictions. There is a need for it in Asia and the United States. There is a need for it in a whole host of places. There is a demand for the product we are producing, which does lead to high paying jobs here in Canada. Unfortunately the NDP continues to oppose that specific industry.

I am wondering if the member opposite would agree that the oil industry is an important industry and one that we need to continue to hold up as a commodity that could benefit from additional trade agreements.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, not only am I supportive of an open and progressive approach to trade but the entire NDP caucus is open to a progressive trade policy.

I have looked at the Conservative record on this over the last six years. They will beat drums and talk about how they want to expand our markets. However, Canada had a surplus of $25 billion and that surplus is now a deficit of $50 billion. That is the Conservative Party's trade record. The Conservatives ideological approach is not working. We need to rethink and go strategically into countries that we can trade with, where we can send our manufactured goods, so we can create jobs here in Canada.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be standing here in this House to speak about the issue of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. I have had the opportunity to listen to members opposite and to some of the questions that have gone through to our colleagues.

Let me start by establishing, if I might, that part of my bona fide is that I have been on the trade committee since I was first elected, and I am now in my fifth year. It has been a privilege to be on that committee, because it has been a very active committee. I will touch on that in a moment.

It is rather interesting to hear members from the other side talk about the issue of free trade as if they were the primary proponents of it, when in fact in my experience over the last four years and some, they just do not support free trade. I will grant that members opposite, without a voice vote, chose to support the Jordan free trade agreement, and I salute them for that.

However, that is a modest deal. It is an important deal for what we are going to establish in the Middle East, but it is only a piece of a much larger spectrum of what Canada is trying to do.

As I address my comments, I am not sure whether I want to address members opposite in terms of some of the things they have said or whether I want to stay specifically to the point of the text and the message I want to deliver. Perhaps I can share a bit of both for the benefit of the House.

Yesterday I was in the 10th largest city in Canada: London, Ontario. Our hon. Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development was with me, as well as the members for Elgin—Middlesex—London and London North Centre. Mr. Butters, the president and CEO of Purifics, a water treatment facility success story, when asked by a person who was not in support of free trade how he could justify it, said he would not be here were it not for free trade. He said he deals with free trade in Europe and in the United States, and it is critical to his success, his survival. It is the reason he is in business today.

I can echo those comments right across the spectrum of businesses across our great country. Why do we think the job creators of this country are the ones who support free trade? It is because they know Canada's survival is as a trading nation.

Mr. Speaker, you would know, because you seem wise, that one out of every five positions in this country is predicated on trade, and that is growing.

I find it baffling that members opposite would stand up in this House and pretend to support free trade when in fact they do not vote in favour of it. I struggle with that very deeply. I need them to search their souls.

Mr. Speaker, you might advise them accordingly to consider that, to actually think about what it means to be without free trade in this country. It is that critical.

I have a couple more things I wanted to share because I really think it is important. The member opposite, in his comments, said it is only a small deal. I suppose in some respects it is only a small deal. However, could anyone tell me how small that is to the humble potato farmer of Prince Edward Island when he has to pay a huge tariff when he delivers his potatoes, whole, and his frozen fries to Panama?

Tell me, what would my friends from P.E.I. say? If they had any respect for the humble potato, if for no other reason than that, they would want to stand up and support this free trade deal.

There is much more. In every province and every territory in this country, there are those industries that significantly benefit from free trade. I would like to touch on those a little.

Can members opposite tell me how they justify tariffs of up to 15% in Nova Scotia on fish and seafood? I cannot understand why they would want to do that. Right now paper and paper board products in Newfoundland are suffering tariffs as much as 15%, which kills jobs. The party opposite talks about creating jobs, but I am not sure about that. If it were, it would look to Alberta.

I know members opposite are challenged for some seats in Alberta. Forest products have 15% tariffs; milling products have as much as 40% tariffs. Would members opposite say this agreement is not good enough for Albertans? I would say, if they want to grow some seats in that section of the country, they might just want to say it is good for Alberta, and if it is good for Alberta, it might even be good for them, if they would get behind this and endorse it.

If members opposite were from Saskatchewan, they would say that pulses and cereals have tariff rates that range anywhere from 15% up to 40%. That is killing jobs and prevents additional job creation in the province of Saskatchewan. In Manitoba, the oil seeds and pulses, again, have tariffs of up to 15%.

When we sign this free trade agreement with Panama, almost every tariff will be eliminated. Those that are not eliminated are going to have a range of some three to five years and then they will be eliminated.

What would our friends opposite say to the pork industry? I would actually ask them, and they have consistently heard from the pork industry, which says, “Please, let us do business in Panama without the job-killing tariffs”. That is what they tell us.

I wonder what some members opposite would say to that. How can they stand up and say they support trade when in fact it has not been their history? I know, because I have sat in my chair at every meeting every week at the international trade committee, and that is not the position they take.

I have already excused Jordan, whatever excuse anyone might make about Jordan, and I have great respect for that trade agreement. However, I say it goes much more and greater and beyond that, and if they do ever want to imagine that at some point they would be at some spot other than that side of the House, they would have to come back and say trade is good for Canada and good for Canadian jobs. Frankly, I do not hear it from them. I hear a lot of rhetoric and I do not hear that.

When NDP members say it is a small deal, I would not say to these industries, companies and individual jobs in provinces and territories across this country, which are dependent on exporting to Panama, that this is just a small deal. I think that is rude, and we would never be rude in this House.

The interesting thing is that NDP members also ask what the rush is. I would like to inform the House, for those who do not know. Here is the rush. Did they know that last week the United States did sign its deal and ratified it with Panama? That automatically puts us at a significant disadvantage, because we are now behind the U.S., and we have to push this deal along. What is the rush? It was in 2008 that we started speaking about this and 2010 when we brought it back. It died in the last Parliament. We are trying to bring it back, so we can ensure that industry across this country is protected. We want to do that with every opportunity.

My colleague opposite made the comment that he would prefer to do multilaterals. This government has always said that multilaterals are good, and if Doha were around, we would support that. However, I fear that Doha is as dead as Elvis, and the problem with that is that we have to look at bilaterals and opportunities where we can.

Why are we doing CETA? That is 27 countries. That is a bilateral technically, but it is 27 countries with which we are doing business. We did EFTA, the European Free Trade Association, which is four countries: Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Iceland. That was important to them and important to us.

I do not know why members opposite cannot celebrate good news. This is good news for Canada. It is great news for Canadian jobs. If we get behind the United States in terms of ratifying these deals, good deals for Canada, then frankly it puts our workers and jobs in Canada at a huge disadvantage.

It is interesting too, because I have heard of issues like environmental and labour rights. One of the things I am very proud of is how our officials have established the negotiations they have done with Panama, as they have done with other countries. They have been very proper and very thorough, dealing with labour co-operation agreements with Panama and environmental co-operation agreements.

There are just a couple of things I would like to emphasize, because I think they bear noting. Here is what it means for labour. Members opposite, particularly in Her Majesty's official opposition, think their only role is to oppose. Maybe some day in an off moment someone will explain why they are given that title, because that is all they seem to want to do, oppose. If they would just celebrate and get on board, put their politics aside and do what is right for Canada and Canadians and for jobs in this country, I would say that is the right thing. They should get on side with that right away.

It is interesting, when I hear about the concerns members opposite talk about with respect to labour. I want to touch on this. The labour co-operation agreement we have put in place has several things: the right to freedom of association; the right to collective bargaining; the right to the abolition of child labour; the elimination of forced and compulsory labour; the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

If members opposite were so compelled that they truly believed in that—forget the potato for just a moment—they would get behind this for the sake of labour in Panama. I am glad this does good things for the great people of Panama, whether it is from the environmental standpoint, whether it is from the labour co-operation standpoint, whether it is for their ability to improve their standard of living by being able to bring goods into our country. However, what about Canada?

Who is speaking for the Canadian worker? Who is speaking for Canadian jobs? Who is speaking for Canadian businesses that want this deal? Is that not the point? The Conservative Party is speaking for Canadian jobs, and I am proud to be a member of the party that does that.

I would like to touch on a couple of other things, because we have heard of issues like money laundering and how it is rampant in Panama. I decided to pull a piece out of a very interesting publication. Panama historically had challenges with respect to money laundering. Its improvement has been so significant that it has been taken off the grey list, because it has tried very hard to improve its financial institutions. Not only that, but we have great institutions like Scotiabank, which has been in Panama since 1983, and from a corporate social responsibility has helped show the way to do business properly with financial institutions in Panama. As a result of that success, it has become the fifth largest bank in Panama. I say bravo to Scotiabank for its leadership and commitment to corporate social responsibility. We can all be very proud of that.

There are other things about the opposition to this that frustrate me. We have heard discussion earlier today about the Panama Canal. The Panama Canal is a project of some $5 billion or $6 billion. I have heard at committee and in the House that somehow that has passed us by. That is not exactly true. We had the Ambassador of Panama to Canada come to our committee a few months ago, and he said there are still huge opportunities. They are not just with that $6 billion project, but there are offshoots of that relating to infrastructure that represent some $13.2 billion of economic benefit that will be available in the market. Would I not want to give businesses like EllisDon, McKay-Cocker and M.M. Dillon out of London, Ontario, which do great international work, and all those other London companies great opportunities to do business? Why would the opposition members deny it? That is just wrong.

If members were truly committed to supporting jobs in all their communities, as I know this side is, they would say this is a deal we must get behind. Maybe they have to think of it like Jordan, that it may not be the biggest deal, but it is important to various industries in every province and territory in this country. It is truly beneficial, and we know it to be because the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, local chambers of commerce and job creators say so. If that is truly the case, it begs the question why members opposite cannot say they want to do this for the sake of their communities. I think it is the right thing for them to do. By getting behind a deal like this, they would be setting the stage for a very interesting dynamic, because Panama is the hub of Central America, which is the gateway between two major oceans and the gateway to South America.

We have done deals in Colombia and Peru, and in case there is some confusion, we deal with every country in the world in trade today. Canadian businesses deal with every country in the world today. Businesses are asking for a rules-based system so they know what happens. It is only right that businesses have an expectation that, when they do business in a foreign country, they know the consequences, the rights and the obligations. That seems to me to be fundamental. With my 30-plus years of business experience, I would say that if I wanted to do business in any country, I would want to know the rules.

Earlier I heard a member opposite say we need to do more business in the United States. By the way, I do not think any member of the House would challenge that, but we want to decrease the dependency on our business with the United States. I want to grow that business, but I want to expand it right around the world. That is why this government has been so committed to trade deals, everywhere from South America, to Jordan, to EFTA. We are now negotiating CETA, which involves the 27 countries of the European Union. We are negotiating the trans-Pacific partnership. We have recently been invited in. That involves many countries in the far east that will give us a gateway to Asia.

There is another opportunity we have not talked about. Several countries with which we already have trade, and in fact, with which we have trade agreements, but on a bilateral basis, are coming together in South America and Central America to try to establish more of that multilateral kind of concept. We support that. As long as a multilateral is not formal, I will do a bilateral agreement with every country in the world where I get a chance. That is my commitment to Canadian jobs.

I want to remind members that what we have here is a Canadian opportunity. However, we are already a little late. We cannot be late any longer. If we want to protect Canadian jobs, grow those opportunities, and protect that humble potato and everything else we do, we have an obligation to act expeditiously and as appropriately as we can to ensure that. Because Panama has already signed a deal with the United States, which is our major competitor in Panama, what we must do is put it in place as quickly as the House will allow. Then we must send it to the Senate, of course, for royal assent, as quickly as we can, for the sake of Canada, for the sake of our jobs, and to make sure that our kids have futures. Do not steal those jobs away. Give us the opportunity, give us the tools, to do that.

As I stand in my committee, we hear members who have very thoughtful views about trade with other countries, and I respect the fact that they have those views. I am surprised, after they have done as much as they can, that they would not fully embrace the concept of free trade. It is so basic. It is basic business and basic humanity. If we were to do business with a country like Panama, it would be raising that standard of living. It really would. We would also be raising our standing of living in Canada. That is what is important.

We have created some 800,000-plus jobs since the economic action plan was put in place. That was not done by accident. That happened because we have a plan, and a critical part of that plan includes putting in free trade agreements right around the world.

If we truly want to consider opening up the gateways to South America, and we already have some avenues in place, we have to do that with Panama. That will matter to Central America. That will matter to South America. It sends a message that Canada is open for business. That is the key to what we are speaking about here.

It absolutely dazzles me when members opposite do not seem to understand that. I would truly like them to take their partisanship off, and for the sake of jobs in this country, come forward, just as they did in Jordan, where they showed that they could, to say that they support trade, because look at what we did in Jordan. I hope that was not just a ruse. I hope that is not the case.

I am not a cynical guy. My Cape Breton mom said, “You've got two things in your life. You've got your name and your integrity, and you don't mess up one without messing up the other.”

I would ask the members opposite whether for the sake of Canada, for the sake of business, and for the sake of the Canadian worker, they would do as they did in Jordan and come alongside the Conservatives and let us just do this. Some things are just the right thing to do. That is fundamental.

It is a privilege for me to be on this committee, where I have an opportunity to have an opinion or two. I will apologize. My Cape Breton mother always said, “You remind me of your Cape Breton grandad. Why use 10 words when 100 can do the same thing?” I will raise my hand to say that this might be a modest fault. However, she also said, “If you don't stand for something, you fall for anything.” Therefore, I say to members opposite, do not fall for anything. Stand for the right thing. Stand for Canadian jobs. Let us make a difference in this country and let us grow it to be the greatest in the world.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you are familiar with the expression:

when nothing goes right, turn left.

I think that is what we need to do.

My colleague should know better. Trade is not only free trade. It can only be fair trade. That is very important.

The NDP wants balanced trade agreements that allow us to export our products and do business with the rest of the world while protecting workers' rights, local democracies, the environment and human rights. However, these things are never on the Conservatives' radar. My colleague was talking about a plan, but let us talk about facts, about what the Conservatives' plan is and the results of that plan.

Under the Conservative government, the trade surplus of $26 billion a year has become a trade deficit of $50 billion a year, which represents a sixfold increase in the trade deficit.

In my opinion, the Conservatives' plan is to have a race to the bottom while continuing to say that everything is fine.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there was a question there. However, let me respond to one of the comments my hon. colleague made, which is that we are not paying attention to issues along the lines of labour and the environment. That is certainly not true.

If he was listening closely to my comments, and I am sure that he wanted to, he would have heard about the government's commitment to put in place very strong labour co-operation and environmental agreements that have teeth. What that means, and I will say it again, because opposition members may not have heard, is that labourers would have rights to freedom of association, collective bargaining, the abolition of child poverty, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour and discrimination in respect of employment.

If they are truly interested in improving the quality of life for people in Panama, and I do not think there is a member in the House who would not say that, I would tell them that by embracing this free trade deal, they get that benefit. What is nice is that this is actually a good thing for Canada, too. I wish they would think of Canadians in the same way.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired. The hon. member for London West will have eight minutes remaining for questions and comments when this matter returns to the House.

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 third time and passed.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There are still eight minutes left for questions and comments for the hon. member for London West. The hon. member for London West.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to do that, but with regret I must attend a committee in just a few moments. I will not be able to pursue that additional part of time now.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad there were no questions for the member for London West, because in his remarks he talked about Canada being open for business.

That is for sure, but not only is Canada open for business, what we are also seeing in all of the Prime Minister's initiatives on free trade is that Canada is really up for sale. That is what worries us. It is one thing to be open for business, but it is entirely another to be so desirous of agreement at any cost, regardless of what the net benefits are for Canada, that Canada is really up for sale. That is what I wanted to ask the member to see how he might respond. I guess he is going to the same committee meeting that I have to go to.

On Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama FTA, since negotiations concluded on this trade agreement, more than 1,155 days have passed. That is more than 38 months or more than 3 years.

The Minister of International Trade has claimed that the reason for the delay in passing the legislation is the opposition. The real reason has nothing to do with any opposition party, but is clearly related to government incompetence in trying to utilize the House to get legislation through.

The Liberal Party has supported this legislation, and if this were any priority for the government, it could and should have passed the legislation, but has failed to do so.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond as part of my allotted time, because we will be going to the same committee meeting. I cannot let the kind of comments the hon. member just made go without a response—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will stop the member there. I thought that the member had indicated he would not be able to remain for questions and comments, so we have moved on with debate to the member for Malpeque. If the member from London West feels the need to respond to something the member for Malpeque says in his speech, he can certainly do so during questions and comments in regard to the member for Malpeque's speech. Unless there is unanimous consent to revert back to questions and comments for the member for London West, we have already moved on.

I will give the floor back to the member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the member declined the earlier opportunity, because he is such an interesting speaker. As well, I really did enjoy his quite energetic remarks. That he was wrong on some points is beside the fact.

The reason the government should have passed this legislation earlier, during that 38-month period, was made clear to us by government officials. Before going to that point, I want to come back to the 38 months. That is a long time. The Conservatives had the support of the Liberal Party even when they had a minority government; they would not even have had to use closure. However, if the current government could in any way work with opposition parties and the House and allow the latter to work effectively, the legislation could have been in place long ago. Because the government tries to browbeat legislation through this place, it gets a push back. That is clearly what is wrong with the way the government operates.

As far as what the government officials said is concerned, two year ago during a meeting of the international trade committee on November 3, 2010, the officials warned that the U.S. had concluded an agreement with Panama and that as a result Canadian exporters could face very stiff competition if that agreement were acted upon. Thus, there was a degree of urgency to conclude an agreement on behalf of Canada.

When asked by a Conservative MP at the international trade committee on September 25, 2012 if there were any urgency to concluding and ratifying the FTA with Canada, government officials reiterated their warning. They said:

[I]f the U.S. agreement comes into force before the Canadian agreement...there could well be an impact on Canadian exporters who are already in the Panamanian market. They will no longer be on a level playing field with their American competitors, and the U.S. will have in some cases a significant tariff advantage....

Here is the headline from Reuters World News Service on October 31, just a few days ago. It said, “Bush-era trade deal with Panama goes into force”. Hence, six days ago the U.S.–Panama agreement came into effect. In other words, it is active.

The government of Canada virtually wasted 38 months, and now we are already non-competitive in that market and are trying to push the legislation through the House. The losses that Canadian exporters will likely incur are the responsibility of the Conservative government, and no one else. The government is responsible for the position that Canadian exporters now find themselves in within the Panamanian market, with the loss of their competitive edge, because the U.S. has now activated its free trade agreement. If this crowd cannot get a deal with an economy as small as that of Panama, which, according to government officials, represents one-hundredth of one per cent of our total trade right now, why should Canadians have any confidence that something like the Canada–China investment agreement would not turn out to be a disaster?

The government and this minister are good at reciting the talking points the Prime Minister's Office sends them, reiterating the number of trade discussions under way and the signing of a number of trade agreements. However, what really matters is the results at the end of the day.

The Conservatives claim that trade is their most important file. In fact, the Prime Minister was in China and signed an investment agreement, about which there is a lot of controversy and which has never been debated in this House. I understand that when the Prime Minister was leaving China, the chairman of the Chinese government said that they would like an FTA with Canada, and the Prime Minister accepted readily. That is because the Chinese know that with this particular Prime Minister, the Canadian government will sign a deal, regardless of its net benefits to Canada, just to get a deal. That is our concern with every trade agreement the Conservatives are doing.

The proof is in the pudding. When we look at the results on trade, we now see that for the first time in over 30 years, Canada has a merchandise trade deficit. On the government's watch, there has been a merchandise trade deficit in 32 out of those 44 months. That is serious. What it clearly shows is that the government can reach an agreement on trade, but it has failed to develop the strategy around which Canadians can make the best use of them and add the most value for Canadian industries that are exporting into those markets.

I want to now turn specifically to trade with Panama. Although it is three-hundredths of 1% of our global trade, it is substantive for those people who are in that Panamanian market.

I come from a province where frozen french fries are very important to potato producers and processors in terms of getting into Panama and exporting product there. There is no question that Panama is Canada's largest export market in Central America. It gives us a kind of gateway into the Central American and South American markets, so we need to pursue that.

Primary Canadian merchandise exports to Panama include machinery vehicles, electronic equipment, pharmaceutical equipment, pulses, which mainly come from the west, and frozen potato products, which mainly come from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Canadian service exports include financial services, engineering and information and communication technology services. Those are all important.

However, I want to point out something that I pointed out earlier in the debate. The government goes to great lengths to talk about how the Panama Canal is being twinned and how that is a big infrastructure investment, and therefore Canadian engineering, infrastructure and construction companies would benefit from the deal. That is mostly smoke and mirrors because the fact of the matter is that the Americans already have that sewed up.

The other markets and services, the sale of potatoes, pulses and the like, are extremely important to Canada. That is why we need the deal. However, for whatever reason, the government has tried to oversell it, and it does that with nearly everything it does. It has misrepresented the benefits of whatever particular issue it is in fact dealing with.

To point out and put on the record again, as it relates to the Panama Canal, this is a quotation that appeared in the United States Congressional Research Service report to Congress on the proposed U.S.-Panama FTA, dated April 21, 2011. It states:

Another unique feature of the FTA negotiations was the treatment of business issues with respect to the Panama Canal Area. Its status as an autonomous legal entity under the Panamanian Constitution required separate negotiations for government procurement, labor, investment, and other areas. The United States is the only country with which Panama has been willing to negotiate issues related to the canal area in an FTA.

We really need to ask the Conservative government to clarify its assertions on the ability of Canadian firms to participate in the canal infrastructure work, given those congressional research statements. That comes back to my point on overselling the deal with respect to the Panama Canal. Its expansion is well on its way and the U.S. basically has that sewn up.

As the parliamentary secretary said earlier, and I will agree with him on this, there are added opportunities in the future for spin-off industries from the widening of that canal, for engineering, designs and so on. However, let us not allow the government to oversell the trade agreement.

The bottom line specifically on the Canada-Panama agreement is that the government had 38 months to get this legislation through. It failed during that 38-month period to work with this Parliament and allow the legislation to come forward to a legislative debate and final vote, so now the U.S. has a step up on Canada in terms of that marketplace. Our industries that are exporting to that market will now be at a disadvantage.

The government tends to attack the NDP members for their opposition to the Canada-Panama FTA, but they have some legitimate concerns. I think we have to respect them. However, the Liberal Party has said that it will support this deal. There is no need to go to closure in order to get it through. What would we lose? We would lose one more day, when the government already had 1,155 days to deal with this issue and have a proper debate where those issues were outlined on the table.

Of course there are concerns about money laundering in Panama. We raised those concerns at committee, and we were not satisfied with the answers that the Ambassador gave us. We know there are concerns about money laundering in Panama.

We agree with the side agreements on labour and environment, and they will move us a step forward. They are side agreements. They are basically guidelines, a kind of wish list on labour and environment. They do not go as far as we would like to see them go by having them encompassed in legislation itself, where we would have enforcement ability under the law to have people live up to labour standards and environmental standards. They are not as good as we would like, but on balance, the fact that there are side agreements improves the agreement somewhat. Therefore, on balance, we are willing to support this agreement and move it forward.

We do not have a problem with the government pursuing new agreements, but we must negotiate them in the best net interest of Canadians. That is what we are worried about, and why I started my remarks by going after the member for London West a bit when he talked about Canada being open for business. Yes, we are. We always have been.

However, the difficulty with the Prime Minister is that Canada seems to be up for sale. There are many areas we could go to talk about that. We see the CNOOC-Nexen deal in today's press. It looks like it will be reviewed and now accepted for the Prime Minister. What are the implications of that agreement? Does that mean another country where a company is 64% state owned is in control of Canadian resources? These are serious issues. The government, it seems, makes these decisions about trade agreements on the fly, as the Prime Minister is flying around the world.

It is not good enough. There needs to be a trade strategy. One of the government's most important areas is trade it seems. However, where it fails is in developing an industrial strategy that follows the trade strategy that makes it possible for industries, be they agriculture, fisheries, electronics, service or financial, whatever they may be, to build up that industrial strategy so we in Canada can take advantage of these trade agreements and add jobs and value within our own country.

The benefits of trade agreements should be felt in our own country, and that is not happening under the Conservative government. The results prove it. For 32 of the last 44 months the Conservative government has racked up merchandise trade deficits, and that is just not good enough. We are seeing job losses in our manufacturing sector in Canada.

As I raised in question period, the seasonal industries which create a lot of wealth in this country, $78 billion to our economy, are under attack by the government. That makes no sense at all. They contribute a lot to our exporters, our manufacturing base and our primary industries.

We are seeing the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development basically attacking the people who work in those seasonal industries, who require EI in the off-seasons. The industries that work in those sectors require that skilled labour when the season kicks back in. This minister is attacking them, first with the clawback, in which she is clawing back for the government 50¢ on every dollar that a person earns while working on claim, and now the cancellation. She got up in question period and talked about it being a pilot project. We know that. We know that in the Atlantic region of Canada that program is still necessary, and to take five weeks of income from seasonal workers plus the clawback is attacking those who need that income the most. It is going to drive them into poverty. Those seasonal industries and workers, the ones who work in the potato industry and the fisheries industry, are some of the workers who would contribute to Canada's exports under the Canada–Panama agreement. We need to get it through, but think of the—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The time for the hon. member has expired.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hochelaga.

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

Mr. Speaker, I gather from the Liberal member's speech that he did not think the agreement was perfect. He even talked about tax havens.

This makes me wonder why the Liberals not only did not propose any amendments in committee, but also rejected every one of the NDP's amendments.

He mentioned earlier that conducting another study would not have taken much time, but voting for these amendments would not have taken much time either, and I think some of them would have suited him, so I do not understand his reasoning.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we did agree with one of the amendments that was put forward by the NDP. However, we certainly did not agree with them all because some of them did not make a whole lot of sense to us. The amendments as posed by the NDP would stretch the timeframe in terms of this discussion on the Canada–Panama bill too far into the future. I agree that the bill has some flaws, but on balance it would improve our trading relationship with Panama. The force of that agreement would also give Canadians greater leverage in terms of dealing with Panamanian authorities on labour, environment and money laundering because of that further economic relationship that would be created

I also believe, as I said in my remarks, that Canada now finds itself under the gun. On October 31, the Americans activated their agreement. We now have exporters who, day by day in the Panamanian market, are becoming less competitive. We need those players in that marketplace contributing jobs and investment for Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague. I just want to pick up on a point. We heard about the Atlantic potato industry earlier. In Manitoba, whether it affects potatoes or pork, which are two vitally important industries in our province, this agreement will ultimately have an impact.

In good part, the concern would be why it has taken so long to get the bill passed. I have indicated in the past that the bill had the support of the Liberal Party. I think it is important to recognize that the government has to take a good portion of the blame for the bill not passing. From what I understand, it was on the table before. It was the prorogation of the session by the Prime Minister that ultimately led to where we are today. It could have, in fact, passed years ago. I wonder if my colleague could provide comment on that issue.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague outlined in great part the difficulty we have had with the government. It had 38 months in which to debate, discuss and implement this legislation so that we would have a secure and activated free trade agreement between Canada and Panama. First, the legislation was coming along not too badly, but the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. That created a delay. However, I think the biggest delay has been because of the fact that the only way the Conservative government seems to think it can operate is by invoking closure.

There were minority Parliaments. The government knew full well that the Liberals were in support of this agreement. Yes, other parties were in opposition. As I said earlier, they had some legitimate reasons to put on the table. However, on balance, I think the majority in this House would have passed the bill. It was the government itself that failed to give the bill priority. For the government to blame opposition parties for the fact that legislation did not get through, when it had the opportunity to get it through, is just silly. However, this is the kind of spin the Conservative government always has. It blames the opposition for everything. On this one, it could have had the job done, but it failed, and it failed clearly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments. I think he may have free-trade envy of the Conservatives, because we have brought forward so many free trade agreements that benefit Canadians.

He is saying, all wrapped up in process, that if there were a vote, the bill would probably pass the House. The answer is yes, it would pass the House, because the government has a majority in the House. The question is whether his party supports the bill. Would his party stand up for free trade, or has it decided to go the way of the NDP and the way of its interim leader and be against anything that would expand the pie for everyone in the world? Does the member support free trade? Does his party support free trade? Does his party support this free trade agreement?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I think I made it clear in my remarks that we have supported the Canada-Panama free trade agreement for some time. We felt that there should be a legitimate debate. We even felt that the concerns of the NDP should be addressed. I outlined in my remarks that labour and environment side agreements are all well and nice, but they are not really enforceable by law. They have some good thoughts. The fact that we have an economic agreement with a country gives us some leverage to try to deal with those issues.

Let me be absolutely clear. Do we envy the Conservative government's results on free trade? Absolutely not. The Conservatives go for the numbers. There are nine trade agreements. The U.S. is our biggest trading market. The nine trade agreements they have amount to only 126.5 hours of trade with the United States. That is not very much. They are small countries. They are small agreements. They do not mean a heck of a lot. The government tries to say that nine agreements means a lot. Meanwhile, the government is failing to challenge the Americans on exports of our products to their marketplace, where they are shutting us out. For 32 of the last 44 months, the government has been showing a deficit in trade. For the first time in 30 years, we have a deficit in trade as a result of the Conservatives' actions. Is there envy of the Conservatives? Absolutely not.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque said that the government has a tendency to oversell these trade agreements. In fact, Conservatives talk about how they have signed all these trade agreements, but they do not want to talk about the details of the agreements. They do not want to have them examined in the House. They do not want to subject them to analysis and evaluation after the fact.

Would the member have agreed to support an amendment to subject the agreement to various reviews after it was signed so that we could test the over-promotion by the government?

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Malpeque, give a short response, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is yes. If there is anything we need to do with the government, it is put it to review.

I said in my remarks that the Canada-China investment agreement is a very serious issue that was not debated in the House. It may not have been signed by the Governor General as of yet, but it has come into effect. It has serious implications for Canada and Canadians. I firmly believe that if a Chinese investor, under this agreement, invested in Canada, and a province made a decision that affected that investment in a way that, in the future, that investor lost profits, that investor could sue, and the Canadian government would have to respond. I have a number of written questions--

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I am sorry. We will have to wait perhaps for another time for those.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the House today on the many benefits of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Our Conservative government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians. Canada's prosperity is directly linked to reaching beyond our borders for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's trade and investment. Trade has long been a powerful engine of Canada's economy. This is even more so in these globally challenging economic times.

Today I would like to spend a few minutes talking about how this agreement with Panama fits into our government's broader economic plan. This government understands the important benefits of trade. As an export-driven economy, Canada needs to open its borders. With one in five Canadian jobs generated by exports, our government's ambitious pro-trade plan is essential to bringing continued prosperity to Canadians. That is why deepening Canada's trading relationships in dynamic and fast-growing markets around the world, markets such as Panama, is such an important part of this government's pro-trade plan for jobs and growth.

Regional and bilateral trade agreements have taken on increased significance, given the challenges with the WTO Doha Round. Our 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 trade agreement. In fact, just last month, the United States and Panama brought into force their bilateral free trade agreement. Canada cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while other countries pursue trade deals to secure better market access for their products and services. The NDP's consistent attempts to delay this legislation are putting Canada's exporters at a disadvantage. This agreement has been debated in the House for more than 60 hours. Our government is committed to ensuring open markets for exporters. That is why we are committed to moving forward with this important legislation.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is another step our government is taking to help Canadians compete and succeed in international markets. With 60% of our economy generated through trade, it is clear that Canadian workers and their families depend on the business we do with other countries. Our government's pro-trade plan is a key driver of Canada's prosperity, productivity and economic growth. By securing access to international markets for Canadian exporters, we are supporting economic growth right here at home and are creating new opportunities for hard-working Canadians. Canada's exporters and investors are calling for these opportunities. Business owners and entrepreneurs need access to global markets. Our government is committed to creating an environment in which our exporters can compete and win against the best in the world.

Our track record speaks for itself. Since our government was elected in 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 and Switzerland; most recently Honduras; and, of course, with the bill we are speaking about today, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. We are negotiating with many more, including the European Union, which is a lucrative market of over 500 million consumers. A deal with the European Union would represent the most significant Canadian trade initiative since the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is expected to boost our bilateral trade by 20%. It would provide a $12 billion annual boost to Canada's economy, which is like a $1,000 increase to the average Canadian family's income, or almost 80,000 new Canadian jobs. A Canada-EU agreement would benefit workers and their families across the country.

Our government is also intensifying our focus on the fast-growing markets of Asia. In fact, the Prime Minister is in India as we speak, working to strengthen our relationship with this important partner. Just this past March, the Prime Minister also announced the launch of negotiations toward a free trade agreement with Japan and the start of exploratory discussions with Thailand. The potential benefits of these initiatives are enormous. In addition, Canada is working to modernize its existing bilateral free trade agreements with Chile, Costa Rica and Israel.

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 its strategic partners. Our government understands, as most Canadians do, that trade is fundamentally a kitchen table issue. Canadians intuitively understand that trade helps families put food on the table and make ends meet. It helps parents pay for their children's education and save for retirement.

In short, trade is a matter of fundamental importance to the financial security of hard-working Canadians and their families. Expanding Canada's trade and investment ties around the world will help protect and create new jobs and prosperity for hard-working Canadians.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is another step in the right direction. This agreement represents an opportunity for Canadian exporters to grow their businesses in a dynamic and fast-growing economy. 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 between five and fifteen years.

Tariffs would also be lifted on 89% of Canada's agricultural exports to Panama. This will benefit a range of sectors across the Canadian economy, including fish and seafood products, paper products, vehicles and parts, machinery and many more. This agreement would also provide service providers with a predictable, transparent environment, which would facilitate access to Panama's over $20 billion services market.

As Panama is a significant financial centre for Central America and South America, the financial services provisions of the agreement would benefit Canadian banks and financial service providers operating in Panama. This represents a significant benefit to Mississauga and the greater Toronto area where I am from. People will know that the banking and financial service industries in the Toronto area employ tens of thousands of people. Earlier today in the debate it was mentioned that Scotiabank, one of our largest banks, is a major supplier of financial services to the entire Central and South American region. That is something Canada should be proud of. It is an industry that can be expanded around the world, and this free trade agreement will assist Canadian banks and financial institutions in doing so.

The agreement will also support Canadian companies in their efforts to participate in large infrastructure projects such as the $5.3 billion expansion of the Panama Canal by providing non-discriminatory access to a range of government procurement opportunities in Panama.

Members do not have to take my word for it. I will share with the House the words of an old friend of mine, Mr. Fred Blaser, co-chair of Republica Media Group of Central America. He and his wife, Rosemary Engels, are Canadian citizens who have lived in Costa Rica for approximately the last 12 years. I would call them both Canadian and Central American success stories. They relocated to Costa Rica in Central America approximately 12 years ago to manage a rather small newspaper called La República in San José, Cost Rica. They have grown that business, which they now own with their partners after having acquired it from Hollinger a few years ago, into a major business media empire throughout Costa Rica. That is cause for celebration both for Canadians and the people of Central America.

Mr. Blaser wrote an op-ed article in the Globe and Mail in March of 2011 about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. I would like to share a few of his quotes with the House.

He stated:

It's been a year and a half since Canada and Panama signed a free-trade agreement that creates important opportunities for Canadian producers. Parliament should ratify it.

Panama may have a small economy, but it thinks big. During the past three years, a bad time for most of the world's economies, Panamanian output grew, on average, by a robust 5 per cent a year. In the previous five-year period, Panama had the fastest growth of any Latin American country, with the real value of national production increasing by an average of more than 9 per cent annually.

Even more important, Panama is a country with a plan. Its goal is to become the world's third great logistics centre, after Hong Kong and Singapore, by focusing on three pillars: advanced logistics, a unique commercial centre, and a strong banking system.

A new, $5.3-billion canal, scheduled for completion in 2014, will allow passage of most of the new generation of container ships. As a result, Panama will continue--for at least several decades--to be part of the main sea route between Asia and North America's east coast.

He also stated:

Infrastructure for ordinary Panamanians is also growing impressively. Last month, Panama City started work on a $1.5-billion subway, Central America's first, and announced plans for three additional lines....

As far as banking is concerned, investors from unstable countries throughout the hemisphere have relied for decades on Panama's financial system, as a secure haven for their savings.

He goes on to say:

—the government of [President] Ricardo Martinelli plans to spend close to half of its proposed $14-billion budget over the 2010-2014 period on services related to education, health, housing and social welfare.

It is my view that this free trade agreement will assist President Martinelli in achieving those goals and objectives. Mr. Blaser continues:

Since Panama has a small agricultural sector and makes few manufactured goods, Canadian producers have excellent opportunities in the Panamanian market, in areas that include wheat, processed and frozen foods, and industrial equipment and machinery. They would have better access to the Panamanian market if the free-trade agreement came into force.

Panama has reinvented itself. It's time for Canada to rethink its approach.

Those are words that the House should take seriously. I know that Fred Blaser would be embarrassed if he knew that I was speaking so highly about him today but he is a recognized expert in business and commercial opportunities in the Central American region. It would be a good idea for Canadians to listen to one of their fellow Canadians on this topic. I hope my friends across the aisle, especially those in the NDP, will look at Mr. Blaser's words and some of the other articles he has written on the subject.

Fundamentally, this is a good deal for Canada. This agreement will support Canadian jobs by creating new opportunities for our exporters. This is why implementing this free trade agreement is a priority for our government. The NDP has held up this agreement for long enough. I ask all members to join me in support of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his very interesting speech. Before deciding to ask him a question, I took the time to look at the timeline of this agreement and how it was discussed in committee.

In the previous Parliament, the government introduced Bill C-46 on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement, which died on the order paper. The government is now introducing Bill C-24 on the same subject. A number of witnesses came to committee to discuss Bill C-46. They said, among other things, that the Republic of Panama was used as a tax haven and that it had a bad record when it comes to workers' rights and environmental protection.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway moved a number of motions and amendments to address the most contentious aspects of this agreement, but they were all defeated by the Conservatives and the Liberals.

I am sure that my colleague across the way is just as concerned about tax havens, environmental protection and workers' rights as most Canadians. So why then did the Conservatives not support the NDP's amendments to flesh out Bill C-24?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago there were concerns about Panama and its status as a tax haven. We know though that the Bank of Nova Scotia, one of Canada's great financial institutions and a very large employer of Canadians that is doing well around the world, has operated in that marketplace for a number of years and has become one of the major financial players. It does not do that sort of thing in tax havens that help people hide their taxes from the governments that need to collect those taxes. The OECD has removed Panama from its grey list. The United States and 12 other countries have entered into tax information sharing agreements and Canada is also negotiating one.

We can take a lot of comfort in the fact that banks such as the Bank of Nova Scotia are operating there, and that agreements are in place with the United States, our largest trading partner, and other key trading partners. In addition, President Martinelli is planning to make Panama one of the great banking centres of Central and South America. That cannot be done if the country is operating simultaneously as a major international tax haven.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada has a long tradition of supporting freer trade with other nations. That is one of the reasons why we have the development and the economic opportunities that we have here today.

In the member's comments, he made reference to Japan, Thailand, Chile, Costa Rica and Israel. He also made reference to the trip that the Prime Minister is currently taking to India.

The Prime Minister is also going to be visiting the Philippines. Given that the Philippines is Canada's number one source of immigrants today, and has been for many years in the province of Manitoba, does the member see a potential opportunity in the Prime Minister and the government aggressively pursue freer trade with the Philippines?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and also for pointing out the many trade agreements that the government has entered into over the last several years. I think he is making a good point.

I do not have anything to announce today, but the very fact that the Prime Minister will be visiting the Philippines and making a significant visit there, on this trip, is an indication of the importance of the Philippines as a trading partner for Canada. I am certain that we will be pursuing trade agreements with the Philippines. The member is right in pointing out that the Philippines is Canada's number one source country for new Canadians right now. That is a great source of pride to Canada. Those people come to Canada, work very hard and make huge contributions to the prosperity, peace and cultural diversity of our country.

I know that if we enter into a trade agreement with the Philippines, it will be a great boost to our economy and to the economy of the Philippines.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest not only to my colleague's speech but to his responses. It is really obvious that he has a great command of this file.

I represent a riding that has both urban and rural components. We have all kinds of primary agriculture. Some of the most productive farmers in Canada are in the Waterloo region. In addition to that, we have all kinds of food processing in the Waterloo region, companies like Schneiders, Piller's and Conestoga Meat Packers. We also have Conestoga College, which is doing great work in implementing a food processing technology course for students.

We often miss the fact that not only are we going to be exporting agricultural products but value-added products as well through the food manufacturing and food processing industries. I am wondering if my colleague could comment on the importance of that, not only for big cities in terms of food processing but for rural communities that are facing some pretty significant challenges economically.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for that very insightful question.

We like to talk about what a great agricultural producer Canada is, and it is truly one of the great agricultural producers of the world. However, we also produce a lot of processed food and that employs people throughout Canada, not just in the rural areas but in ridings like his and ridings like mine in Mississauga.

The fact of the matter is that those are not products that are produced in great quantities in Panama, so entering into this agreement will open up some very significant opportunities for food processing companies and the people who work in them across Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs acknowledged the fact that there were reasons for those of us on this side to be concerned, such as the lack of tax transparency with Panama.

He acknowledged that other countries, including the United States, entered into an agreement with Panama on tax information exchange before they signed off on their trade agreements. The member said that Canada was negotiating such an agreement with Panama and the government has acknowledged there is a need for such an agreement.

If that is in fact the case, why will the member not show some respect to Parliament and bring that signed agreement to the House before he asks us to vote on this final agreement?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier, Panama has entered into a tax information sharing agreement with the United States, our greatest trading partner, a country with which we have reciprocal tax treaties and have for many years. We have a great two-way sharing of tax information between Canada and the United States.

Many of the countries that operate in Canada also operate in the United States. Tax information is available to us through that U.S. treaty. We know that Panama is no longer on the OECD grey list, and many of our other trade partners are entering into and have entered into such agreements. We can take comfort in that.

What we need to do is to get this deal done to create those jobs for Canadian workers who need them now. The NDP should vote with us and get this done for the workers of Canada. We will proceed with those other negotiations.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. parliamentary secretary relates to the claim we have heard a lot today, that Panama is no longer a tax haven. It clearly is still a tax haven. It has merely been moved by the OECD from the list of unco operative countries that have refused to make commitments. It remains a tax haven and it has created quite a lot of debate in the U.S.

Now that the treaty before us includes investor state provisions, which means Panama could complain should Canada later impose different conditions for more tax transparency in its dealings with Panama, should we not, as the official opposition has been suggesting today, execute those tax transparency measures prior to giving Panama the right to sue us if we bring them in later?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am kind of surprised by the member's question. She knows that all treaties in Canada are subject to Canadian law, so there is no way that Panama, or any other government under any treaty, could make a claim against Canada for doing something that is subject to Canadian law. Therefore, the question really does not make any sense in that context.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

I must confess that I am worried about Bill C-24, which will have a serious impact on people's lives. The free trade agreement between Canada and Panama will negatively affect a lot of people. Yet the government flatly refuses to adopt the amendments we have proposed. I would like to explain why I oppose this bill.

First of all, Panama's status as one of the world's worst tax havens is not improving any. I think that one of the main functions of government is to ensure that all citizens and businesses contribute to public revenues in an equitable way. Implementing this free trade agreement will make tax evasion even easier for unscrupulous individuals and businesses.

To ensure that this agreement does not provoke even more tax evasion, a tax information exchange agreement needs to be signed before we go ahead with a trade agreement. That is exactly what the U.S. Congress did. It refused to ratify its free trade agreement with Panama until a tax information exchange agreement was signed.

The Conservatives can claim all they like that these fiscal matters have been addressed, but the truth is that they have not been adequately addressed. And they certainly have not been finalized. I find this very troubling, especially considering the high volume of money laundering activities in Panama, including laundering of money from drug trafficking.

The agreement does not yet contain any provisions regarding the automatic exchange of information. Individual requests must be made. For these kind of requests, it is often necessary to know the name of the person suspected of tax evasion in order to request tax information from the other country. As one can imagine, governments rarely obtain this information unless there is a whistleblower.

The member for Vancouver Kingsway moved a motion that made a lot of sense. He suggested that we postpone the implementation of the trade agreement with Panama until an information exchange agreement is signed. Unfortunately, both the Conservatives and the Liberals opposed this motion. Apparently the U.S. Congress had more foresight than the two old parties in the House of Commons. But during negotiations for this agreement with the Republic of Panama, Canada had the upper hand. That was the time to bring in all of the important clauses. But sadly, the Conservatives missed that opportunity.

We must also consider the environmental aspect. We cannot ignore the fact that this free trade agreement is a gift to large mining companies. The agreement has a chapter on the environment, but this chapter is not binding. The agreement is extremely weak from an environmental perspective. No monetary penalties are imposed if a party violates the rules.

There are some great principles but they are not enforced. There are empty words and honourable intentions, but there is nothing concrete to back them up. There is no control mechanism other than sheer political will, and in Panama, political will rarely favours protecting the environment. So we have to wonder: who will ensure that environmental standards are met?

Under this agreement, international mechanisms will be used for dispute resolution. As we know, these mechanisms are very expensive and cumbersome. Take the case of the American multinational that wanted to locate in Mexico a few years ago. The land had been purchased but construction had not yet started. The local government realized that operations of the plant would contaminate the groundwater and hence the region's drinking water. It was opposed to the multinational moving there. Citing chapter 11 of NAFTA, the U.S. firm dragged the local government before an international tribunal. Although the multinational did not even have a shovel in the ground and its operations would have contaminated the region's source of drinking water, the court sided with the company.

No local community will be able to afford to have its arguments heard before international tribunals. What the men and women of Panama are being told is that this has nothing to do with them and that they have no say. That is unfair and insulting. Why are big companies, such as mining companies, entitled to recourse, but mere citizens are not?

That is the old way of going about development. The NDP intends to promote the sustainable development of natural resources while respecting the will of the people. That is the opposite of the Conservatives' approach.

To conclude my remarks about the environment, I will quote Jennifer Moore, of MiningWatch Canada.

In committee, she said:

...this agreement is going to ensure greater legal stability for the Canadian mining industry within the context of a regulatory regime in Panama that has demonstrated itself to be ineffective at preventing detrimental consequences to...the environment....

Is that really what the Conservatives want? What image do they think that projects of our country on the world stage? This problem would have been easy to fix, but no, the government refused to listen to us. It is unbelievably sad.

Another thing I am concerned about is workers' rights. This is important to me and to the NDP. We believe that major development projects have to be carried out respectfully without ideological confrontations. That is why I wonder why there are no clauses in the agreement on protecting workers' rights. There is no mention of the right to strike, for example. Employers have carte blanche to fire striking employees. They also have the right to hire scabs. For years, the Conservatives have been refusing to add anti-scab legislation to the Canada Labour Code, so we should not be too surprised that they do not object to this practice in Panama.

Workers' rights have often not been respected in Panama. I am not talking about decades ago. Just a few months ago there were violent confrontations between striking workers and the police. They took a terrible toll: six demonstrators were killed, several were injured and 300 union leaders were detained arbitrarily. This is a frontal attack on the fundamental rights of workers. What did the Conservative government do about all this? Nothing at all.

My colleague from Vancouver Kingsway proposed two amendments on this in committee. He wanted to guarantee that unionized workers in Panama had the right to collective bargaining. He also wanted to require Canada's representative on the joint Panama-Canada commission to consult on a regular basis with representatives of Canadian unions. But, alas, the Conservatives rejected all these ideas.

We are being asked to support a free trade area where workers' rights will be further degraded. It is distressing. I would also like to point out how inflexible my Conservative and Liberal colleagues were throughout this entire debate. We proposed a host of amendments to improve this agreement. One after the other, our ideas were rejected, even through there was practically no debate on their relevance. Simply put, they did not take our ideas seriously.

Is that not also the case with several private members' bills that propose changes suggested by the official opposition? This government is making a complete mockery of democracy.

The NDP supports trade, and, like many Canadians, we want to eliminate trade barriers. But this is no reason for us to lose our critical thinking. At second reading, we voted to send this bill to committee in the hope of bringing forward some progressive amendments, but not one was accepted.

Yet this is a simple and straightforward matter. What the NDP wants is international trade that encourages the development of value-added Canadian industries, that creates jobs in Canada by expanding access to foreign markets for our products, and that promotes sustainable development around the world and responsible investment that protects the rights of workers here and everywhere else, while protecting our tax system.

The NDP is in favour of fair trade for all, not just blind free trade that benefits large corporations most of all. But the Conservative government does not want Canadians to know this. Once again, it is imposing a time allocation motion to limit the debate on this.

For fiscal, environmental and social reasons, I do not support Bill C-24. This bill is not good for either Canadians or Panamanians.

I invite my hon. colleagues to reflect carefully on the arguments I just raised. Let us reflect carefully on the consequences of what we are about to do. The consequences will be very apparent for a very long time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member claims that the NDP is in favour of free trade, yet there is no example of the NDP ever supporting a free trade agreement. In fact, the NDP has opposed every free trade agreement, including the free trade agreement with the United States, NAFTA, and dozens of other agreements.

Free trade allows everyone involved to raise their standard of living. Why does the member and her party want to deny the people of Canada and the people of Panama an opportunity to raise their living standards?

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

Mr. Speaker, I just said that we are in favour of trade, but economics is not the only aspect to trade. Yes, the economic aspect is important, but there are also the environmental and human aspects.

We will always oppose agreements that do not propose anything to improve the lives of citizens and workers in terms of their rights, for example. We will absolutely oppose that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat interesting regarding the principles the member talks about when discussing the rights of labourers and the need to protect our environment that the vast majority of Canadians, if not all, would agree with them. That does not necessarily mean that we do not enter into free trade agreements. If we were to apply those same principles to trade in general, we would not be able to trade with many of the countries we trade with today.

Is the member suggesting that the government should not allow for trade with countries that, in her opinion, would be compromising human rights and issues of that nature?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I have said twice now that we support free trade agreements when there are agreements and assurances that human rights will not be violated.

I forgot the second part of my answer. I apologize.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here in the House of Commons for many years. We have studied a number of free trade bills. I remember that the Liberals were against free trade during the time of Brian Mulroney and they voted against it. But when they came to power, they were in favour of it. My memory is good and that is what I remember.

We also talk about fair trade. The Conservatives are constantly telling us that we have always voted against it. Perhaps we will be in power in 2015 and we will be able to negotiate an agreement that would benefit both big business and workers. The existing free trade agreements always benefit major corporations but offer nothing to workers. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now remember the second part of my answer.

We have the upper hand when we are discussing and negotiating the agreement, and that is when we can bring in everything we want. We cannot do it after the fact. Afterward, we no longer have that option. The best time is when we are negotiating an agreement. That is when we should include rules to protect workers and the environment, to ensure that we end up with a real agreement and not an illegitimate one.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to respond to one the previous questions by the minister, we have supported free trade and would dearly love to support all free trade agreements, because we do believe in free trade.

However, the Conservatives put forward incomplete agreements. They put forward agreements that with some amendments, like the amendments we put forward to the bill, could be fantastic. I do not know why they only want to go halfway.

Today a number of Conservative speakers talked about the NDP holding up these bills. Let me provide some history to the bill. On August 11, 2009, the Conservative government concluded negotiations for this free trade agreement with the Republic of Panama. The agreement included side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment, and it was signed on May 14, 2010.

[An hon. member]

Where is it now?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Exactly. On that same day the Conservative government tabled the agreement in the House as Bill C-46. The bill passed second reading and committee stage, but it died on the order paper at the dissolution of the 40th Parliament. The legislation was reintroduced on November 15, 2011 as Bill C-24. So we can hardly be accused of holding this legislation up.

Nonetheless, we are opposing the bill for a number of reasons. When the committee considered Bill C-46, it heard compelling testimony from witnesses about the use of Panama as a tax haven for tax evasion and avoidance. Furthermore, Panama has a poor record on labour rights and the deal's side agreements on labour and the environment are very weak.

I started my speech by saying that with some amendments and more careful consideration of the bill, we could make it a better bill. Here, I hope that someone on the government side asks me a question about the two side agreements, one on labour and one on the environment. If the Conservatives simply put those side agreements into the body of the agreement, then those agreements would have teeth. Those two side deals would have real consequences in this agreement. We would accept that. That would be wonderful and reasonable, but the Conservatives refused to do it.

We are also very concerned that the agreement provides greater rights and powers to foreign investors. That is worrisome given the controversies on the environmental and human rights records of some firms operating in Panama. Recent committee testimony on Bill C-24 confirms that these issues continue to be of concern. Motions and amendments that would address the glaring issues in the agreement were introduced by our critic from Vancouver Kingsway, but were opposed and defeated by the Conservatives and Liberals.

We have tried to make this a bill that we could support. The amendments were reasonable and well thought out, and I will talk about them in a moment. Prior to clause-by-clause review of Bill C-24, our critic from Vancouver Kingsway proposed to the Standing Committee on International Trade a motion that would stop implementation of the Canada-Panama trade agreement until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement, called TIEA. His motion was defeated.

The Conservatives and Liberals argued that progress was being made in the negotiations under way to sign an agreement. Considering Panama's history and reputation in such matters, it should be clear why such an agreement is necessary before signing a trade deal and why we need to examine its terms to assess its adequacy. The U.S. Congress would not ratify the American free trade agreement with Panama until this was signed.

I do not know what happened behind closed doors with the Conservatives. Perhaps they asked Panama to sign the same kind of agreement the Americans had. Maybe Panama refused, but the point is that the Conservatives have gone ahead without having any sort of agreement signed.

Subsequently, during clause-by-clause review of the bill, our critic proposed several amendments that would have made progressive changes to the bill. These included the addition of the crucial concepts of sustainable development and sustainable investment, a requirement for taxation transparency, and provisions to incorporate in the bill the protection of labour rights, including the right to collective bargaining. Other amendments would have required the minister of international trade to consult with labour and trade unions, as well as to work with human rights experts and organizations to create impact assessments for this agreement. A final amendment would have required Parliament to vote on extending the provisions of the act after five years. All of these amendments were voted down by the Conservatives, with the help of the Liberals.

The status of labour rights in Panama is a major concern, and it is a complete failure of this trade agreement that it fails to ensure that these rights are not denied to Panamanian workers, as they would have been in the past. Moreover, I reiterate that the side agreements could easily have been incorporated into the body of the agreement. Had that happened, there might have been considerable support from this side of the House for this agreement. There were other amendments that we proposed, but those two are very important.

We did support the free trade agreement with Jordan. We have, at second reading, voted to support trade agreements to get them to committee so that we could offer amendments to make the legislation even better. Canadians expect us to work together in the House to come forward with the absolute best legislation we possibly can. In this and the last Parliament, we have seen legislation from the other side that could have been better if the government had just accepted suggestions and amendments from our side of the House. It could have been legislation that all Canadians could be proud of.

Two of the amendments put forth in committee by our critic would have protected trade union workers in Panama by offering them the right to 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.

Unfortunately, this creates a free trade zone that belittles the rights of labour. This is a serious problem that is already quite prevalent in Panama. I believe that we had 13 amendments to the bill at committee stage. Not one of them was accepted. The Conservatives and the Liberals had no amendments. We have been working to make these agreements better, but we have not had any success.

In addition, two amendments regarding definitions were proposed by our member from Vancouver Kingsway. The first was regarding sustainable development. That amendment defined 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 labour co-operation agreement is not as strong as it could be. Its enforcement mechanisms are weak, the fines are small, there are no countervailing duties, and there is no provision for abrogation or any such remedy. Quite frankly, it is troubling.

We do want free trade, but we support free trade agreements that expand Canadian exports by reducing harmful barriers to trade. We encourage the development of value-added industries. We believe in creating Canadian jobs by increasing market access to our products; increasing productivity by encouraging new investment; diversifying our exports, especially in emerging markets; and also agreements that help reduce Canada's trade deficit.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is very aware of the area I represent. In fact, he has visited many times and I have welcomed him to come back and visit. He knows my area is richly blessed with primary agriculture and also food processing. I am sure his riding has some agriculture as well.

However, I am concerned that we do not simply throw this trade agreement out. It would have a major impact on our rural communities in terms of allowing them to export agricultural products. We know that beef, pork and much of these processed foods are finding a great market overseas.

I would ask my colleague—and I want to give him lots of time to answer this question—if he would make a list for us of the free trade agreements his party has supported over the last 20 years, and I will take the time to take notes.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague for Kitchener—Conestoga. I do know the area well, and I know he is a very hard-working and smart member. However, I am sure he will agree with me that this agreement is not as good as it could be.

I have already said we believe in increasing access to markets for our goods, not only goods from his riding but from mine and ridings right across Canada. We believe that is one of the things free trade agreements should do.

Would this agreement do that? Well, there would be some, but we could make it better. We could make this agreement work not only for Canadian business but for Canadians right across this country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think this might be an appropriate time to highlight the fact that Canada is a trading nation. I like to believe we all recognize that very important fact. Over the last few years we have seen a huge decrease in the trade surplus versus deficit, which has not been in Canada's best interest.

Prior to the Conservatives coming into government, there was a huge surplus, estimated somewhere in the neighbourhood of $25 billion. Today, that has disappeared, and now we have a huge deficit.

Recognizing how important it is for us to get on the right side of the trade deficit issue, does the member believe that the government has been neglecting the trade file and spending maybe a bit too much time on this particular file?

Yes, it is important. The potato industry and Manitoba's important pork industry are important, but we seem to be spending a lot of time on something that could have passed a year or two ago.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not apologize for trying to make the absolute best trade agreement we possibly can. If that takes a couple of extra days, weeks or months, then that is what it takes because it is important for all Canadians.

The member talked about a deficit and I think it is interesting. Maybe to get off topic slightly, there was a huge surplus when the Conservative government took power and it has been frittered away. We had $50 million in gazebos and fake lakes and all sorts of money spent. There was a surplus in this country, but now, of course, it has all disappeared and it will take years and years to get back to balanced books.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my two colleagues who just spoke, the member for Hochelaga and the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, gave excellent speeches.

My northern Ontario colleague represents many workers who want to protect the environment and, especially, their rights as workers. He finds the debate we are having in the House very interesting.

The member for Hochelaga raised some very serious points about the agreement: the absence of the right to strike and the possibility of hiring scabs in Panama. That is a very aggressive stance towards workers.

Does my colleague not find that this agreement violates the rights of workers in Panama?

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for her kind comments and all the hard work she and everybody on this side of the House have been doing in putting forward amendments on this bill. I am on the public safety committee, and we recently put forward a whole bunch of amendments to make the RCMP bill better, but none of them was accepted. They were good, well-thought-out amendments. I do not understand the aversion the government has to looking at our amendments, trying to understand them and incorporating them into bills.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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 Montcalm, Persons with Disabilities; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Aboriginal Affairs.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House today. The Albas family has a strong connection to Panama. In fact, when my great-grandfather left Spain, he found work constructing the Panama Canal, and eventually was able to work his way up to Canada where he set roots. The rest is history.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Our Conservative government has been very clear about the priority it places on implementing free trade agreements. These agreements help Canadians compete in overseas markets. We know that an export-driven economy helps Canadian companies, producers and investors to grow into international markets. When they grow, they add jobs in our local communities. One in five jobs in Canada is related directly to trade.

It is clear that jobs in the communities across Canada depend on the business we do with other countries. This is certainly true in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla. I would like to share an example of that with the House today.

Recently in my riding, with the support of our government's agricultural innovation program, a new food packaging technology was developed that can drastically increase the shelf life of fresh fruits. This increase in shelf life means that marine shipping can now be an option for international markets instead of very costly air freight. Let us not forget that marine shipping is also more environmentally friendly than air freight.

We have a large number of fruit growers in my riding. I must say I am a little biased, but we grow some of the world's best fruit. Even this exciting new food technology, without having a free trade agreement that opens up new markets, quickly becomes pointless.

That is why trade agreements with countries like Panama are so important. It is why our government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians. Statistics demonstrate that trade flows more than double with our FTA partners after 10 years.

Looking at the Canada-Chile free trade agreement, for example, since the agreement was made 15 years ago, bilateral trade between Canada and Chile has more than tripled. I mention that because one of the largest private sector employers in my riding has built specialized equipment that is also sold into Chile. That provides jobs in my riding. I think that is pretty exciting.

Numerous studies have of course demonstrated the same positive impact of trade agreements on various sectors of our economy, but I prefer to walk through the plants in person to meet the workers and to see the innovative projects on which they are working.

It has been shown that the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America led to an improvement of 13.8% in productivity in the Canadian manufacturing sector, a remarkable trade-related achievement. In turn, increases in productivity lead to higher wages and a higher standard of living.

The benefits are clear. These trade agreements are helpful to our local economies. 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. Since 2006, Canada has concluded free trade agreements with nine countries: Colombia, Jordan, Peru, the European Free Trade Association member states of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, and most recently with Honduras and now, of course, Panama.

As another example, some of these countries are more prone to earthquakes.

In my riding, we have a value-added wood manufacturer that manufactures specialized cross-laminate wood panels. These wood products are as strong as concrete, but four to five times lighter. They require less energy to produce and they can be made from less valuable timber. It is easy to ship, and most important, it is very earthquake resilient.

We have the product. We have the technology and the expertise. However, now we need more markets opening their doors to these innovative products. That is why we are also negotiating with more than 50 countries, including major economies such as the European Union, India and Japan. These are potentially huge market for that specialty wood manufacturer in my riding.

All of these initiatives are critical to the economic future of our country. In order to grow at home, Canadian enterprises must be allowed to succeed abroad. They must be able to compete in a predictable, transparent and rules-based trading environment. More important, Canadian firms must be able to compete on a level playing field. They must not be at a competitive disadvantage in markets where other countries have these trade agreements in place.

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 trade agreement, and this is precisely what is happening in Panama if this House does not act quickly to approve this free trade agreement. While this House debates the merits of a trade agreement with Panama, the United States and the European Union are moving forward to implement their respective trade agreements with this vibrant and prosperous economy.

The United States-Panama trade promotion agreement entered into force October 31, 2012. Panama also signed a free trade agreement with the European Union this past July, which could enter into force by the end of the year. Many Canadian goods and services are now in direct competition with those of the United States and potentially the European Union in Panama.

Let me provide another example of this. In the community of Okanagan Falls, in my riding, is one of the world's leading manufacturers of electrical power and control equipment. It does a lot of business in the international mining sector, and right now Panama has a thriving mining industry.

It is important that Canadian manufacturers can bid on work equally with their international competitors, and this is precisely why I am here today speaking in support of this agreement. In my view, we cannot allow American and European firms to have preferential access to the Panamanian market on a number of products that are key exports for Canadian firms.

It is not just for the benefit of my riding. Canadian firms exporting products, such as beef, pork products, frozen french fries, pharmaceuticals, pulp and paper, vehicles and machinery will all be at a competitive disadvantage. They will continue to face duties, while products from the United States now enjoy preferential access. We, in 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.

This government will not stand by, and we will defend the interests of Canadian companies to compete on a level playing field. This is precisely what this agreement does, and that is why I am supporting it on behalf of the people in my riding who will benefit from it. It is imperative that we implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement to ensure Canadian companies remain competitive in the Panamanian market and can quickly move to access that market.

This will benefit Canadian families in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, and many other regions in our great country. The member for British Columbia Southern Interior has a tremendous amount of timber supply in his riding, which supplies the firm in Okanagan Falls that manufactures the cross-laminate beams. This is important for everyone in the interior of B.C.

Before I close, I would like to share one more thought about free trade in general.

Recently a local newspaper in my riding reran some of the stories of the day from 25 years ago. As some members may recall, the same anti-free trade rhetoric we are hearing today was also being used 25 years ago against the Canada-U.S. free trade deal. Some members may recall that the anti-trade critics in those days ran commercials illustrating the border between Canada and the United States being somehow erased. Claims were made that tens of thousands of Canadian jobs would soon disappear and that Canadian sovereignty itself would be compromised. The critics claimed that Canada could never compete on a level playing field with the United States and that the deal, if it went ahead, would be the end of our great nation. Today we can clearly see how very wrong those critics were.

Since the agreement came into force, in 1989, our Canadian annual GDP has risen by $1.1 trillion dollars. Nearly 4.6 million jobs have been created in Canada, and our two-way trade in goods and services with the United States has more than tripled. Today our economy, our economic growth rate, our unemployment rates all consistently outperform the United States, and Canada is the strongest nation economically in the G7. Recently Canadian household wealth surpassed the United States for the first time in history.

As for the critics who were wrong about the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, in my view, they have simply recycled the same arguments from 25 years ago and are using them again today.

Getting back to that story from 25 years ago in the Okanagan, the story was focused on a local grape grower who pondered what free trade might do to the Okanagan grape growing industry. The comments from the B.C. grape grower were not unlike what we hear from free trade opponents today. Those comments from 25 years ago were as follows:

...B.C. grape growers are doomed once provincial government mark-ups on imported wines are phased out over seven years. “I know for sure there is no way we can compete with California...” The Americans have cheaper land and labour.

Of course today we know we can not only compete, we can produce some of the best wine in the world. Today in the Okanagan, premium grape growing land is some of the most valuable agricultural land in the province of British Columbia, if not Canada as well. One of my constituents even consults in the United States on how to produce great wine. Under free trade, the B.C. wine industry has grown from a handful of wineries 25 years ago to well over 206 today. Speaking to some of the wine operators, I should also add there are another 40 or so that are going through the permit process. That number, I am hopeful, will soon jump to over 246. I should also note the B.C. wine industry now supports 3,000 jobs. Those are a lot of jobs, and that is what can be achieved with the power of free trade. That is why I am in full support of this deal.

I urge all members of Parliament to support the passage of Bill C-24.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech of the member opposite.

The Republic of Panama has sheltered the police from legal action. Signing treaties like this with the republic would condone this type of thing.

Why does my colleague condone the impunity of the police in Panama?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have before us a free trade agreement that would be in the best interests of both Canada and the people of Panama. I was not elected to represent what goes on in Panama itself, other than to say that my great-grandfather worked on the Panama Canal and I would sincerely hope the Panamanians would reap the benefits as much as Canadians.

If the member has a question specifically about our government's position and the Conservative government's ideas on free trade, I would be more than happy to answer that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have been fairly clear in terms of the principle of freer trade and free trade agreements. Bilateral agreements can be a very positive thing. All in all, they have been that for Canada.

My question is related to an issue that many Canadians are very sensitive to. There are industries that there are concerns about, and Canadians look to the government to protect those industries, especially those that have built-in protections. As a specific example, Air Canada was supposed to be maintaining overhaul bases in the city of Winnipeg and two other jurisdictions, in Quebec and Ontario. Air Canada made a determination through the back door to dispose of its employees, even though there is federal legislation that mandates those jobs have to be protected in those three locations.

Speaking specifically in terms of Winnipeg, why is it that the government does not stand up for those jobs? Those are the types of jobs that are important in certain sectors of the industry. As a result of the government's not doing that, there are a lot of people who are nervous when it brings in free trade agreements, of whatever nature.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's concern. Obviously today we are supposed to be debating a free trade agreement that would bring benefits to both Canada and to the Panamanian people. I would like to limit my comments today to working on that. Ultimately, this free trade agreement is about jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. We sense that the Liberal Party has concerns only about process. The Liberals say they support free trade, and I hope the member will help us to see this bill through so the benefits can start working for both countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent remarks. It was very interesting to hear about his family connection to Panama.

Can the member explain why free trade with countries big and small is so important, and why the New Democrats seem to always vote against free trade, in spite of the fact that it creates wealth and jobs in both Canada and whatever country the free trade agreement is with? Can the member spend a few minutes explaining to the members opposite about the benefits of free trade?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, going back to my comments from the speech, we see wood products that would benefit people who may not be currently using wood construction and are in earthquake zones. It is not just toward the improvement of our standard of living by selling these value-added products, but it would also help protect the health and safety of people abroad who would be very happy to receive those products.

The member well knows that the New Democrats have said many times that they support free trade in principle, but when it comes to actually supporting agreements, they say it is never good enough. I will remind members that this is a free trade agreement between two different countries, and just because one particular element of the House in a minority position has ideas on it, if this were to be amended that would take extra time. We would have to take them back to Panama, and by that point the Panamanians may have already said to forget it, that they will not deal with us.

Let us not let perfection become the enemy of the good. Let us see further engagement with Panama. Let us see benefits for Canadians. Free trade is a good way of doing it.

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

Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague said that he really likes Panama. However, something is really bothering me. This agreement will reduce tariffs significantly.

That could have serious consequences in a poor country like Panama. For example, Panamanian goods will be competing with Canadian goods. Panamanians will not have more opportunities to export their own goods, unless they are produced in very miserable conditions. This trade agreement does not provide real protection for the workers or for the environment.

I would like my colleague to talk more about this.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern because we want everyone to do well, whether here in Canada or in Panama. That is a very worthy thing and I certainly sympathize with the member.

Part of this agreement is called the agreement on environment, in which there are provisions encouraging the use of voluntary best practices of corporate social responsibility and a commitment to promote public awareness of the parties' environmental laws. The agreement reaffirms the country's international commitments under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. I would say those concerns are being addressed.

As I said in my earlier statement, we are wealthier as a country because of the free trade agreement with the Americans. The NDP voted against that. I would be mindful of that as we move forward in our deliberations.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I asked my colleague to comment on the opportunities that would be created through food processing and he commented on food processing in terms of the packaging of fruit that originates in his riding. I would like him to expand a bit on that. That is a fantastic idea and I do not think he had enough time to elaborate on that in his speech. I want to give him a few minutes to tell us a little more about that great technology.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is both a private and public collaboration through the Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre in Summerland, which is in the heart of my riding. The people of Summerland love to visit it, not just because of the natural beauty but also because of the fascinating science projects that take place there that continue to help our economy.

The basic idea is that by creating a new form of shipping container, it will allow Okanagan cherries, apples and perhaps even grapes to be shipped because they will last up to 30 days. Right now most product can only be sent in less than two weeks. That is an excellent opportunity for people in my riding to start thinking about the far and emerging markets that this government is pursuing trade agreements with.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla knows that the finest wines made in this country are actually in my riding. I would be happy to bring a bottle and if he wants to bring one as well, we can perhaps decide which is better, though not in the House, of course.

Let me ask a two-part question. First, the member said he could not wait to have a perfect bill. Is he suggesting that we should have imperfect legislation? Second, he talked about the wine industry in Okanagan—Coquihalla, which is a fine region without a doubt. I have been there. Is the Canadian wine industry as a whole actually increasing its market share or is foreign competition coming into this country and taking over a larger piece of the market than what it had before we saw the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, when I made the statement that we should not let perfection become the enemy of the good, if we did not have that argument, and I would include the member in this, most of us would not be married right now. I will leave it at that. He does not seem to be disagreeing with me.

Second, I would say that we have an affinity with the United States. We trade with them. In fact, many of us have spouses who were born in the United States. We are strengthened by increasing our investment in one another. It is very elementary to say that together we are stronger. With a small population in such a big country blessed in natural resources, we can work together to harvest those—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We are out of time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to mention that I will be sharing my time with my highly esteemed colleague, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. I wish her well with her speech.

I have already told the House that I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade for one year. During that time, I observed what I hoped was a certain naïveté on the part of government members. It would have been touching, insofar as international trade is concerned, except for the very serious ramifications for our communities. The reality is that it is not naïveté, but a stubborn desire to stick with the old ways.

That is truly unfortunate because if the government were more open to dialogue—or at least a bit more open—we could work in a constructive manner and sign free trade agreements that would benefit all Canadians. Unfortunately, that is impossible. That is what I observed directly and that is what we see every time the government presents a free trade agreement to the House.

There is another very important aspect to consider and that is a very serious consequence of hastily signing free trade agreements and blindly entering into commitments without taking into account the relationships that exist between the countries involved, particularly the countries with which we are doing business. With regard to international relations, we must act very carefully. Every move Canada makes on the world stage is closely scrutinized by our closest neighbours and by the community of nations, not to mention independent research institutes throughout the world.

Canada has an excellent reputation that the Conservatives are unfortunately in the process of very quickly destroying. Because of this reputation, the eyes of international observers are always on Canada. When we do something as significant as giving a country such as Panama status as a favoured nation, we are sending a very important message, which is that we respect the practices of the country in question. With regard to Panama, this raises many questions.

As a courtesy to the members opposite, I will not confuse them by touching on too many different topics since the implications of a free trade agreement are obviously extensive. Instead, I will focus on a single topic, and that is the fact that Panama is a tax haven. I hope that members of the House will listen closely and understand that signing such agreements causes Canada to wander far along a path or become deeply involved in an activity that is widely condemned throughout the world.

Before I begin talking specifically about tax havens, I would like to provide some statistics from UNICEF on income inequality. For the period from 2000 to 2010, 40% of the poorest households shared only 11% of the wealth in Panama, whereas 20% of the richest households—only a small portion of the population—shared over half or 57% of the country's wealth. This gives an important indication of the social situation in Panama and shows just how inequitable this country is. That is one of the reasons why we must be very careful. Obviously, these statistics are not necessarily directly related to the fact that this country is a tax haven, but no doubt they are fairly closely related to it.

Lacking a precise definition, the OECD tried to set some criteria for a tax haven. I will briefly mention the four criteria: very low or no taxes; no exchange of tax information with other nations; lack of transparency regarding its tax system; and no substantial activities of the taxpayer in the country in question.

Since Panama excludes a large part of its population from political, social and economic activities, as demonstrated by the UNICEF figures, we must be careful not to condone practices that are simply reprehensible.

Tax havens are characterized by a lack of transparency, banking secrecy and shady financial operations. The Tax Justice Network ranks Panama 14th on its financial secrecy index of the world's most opaque nations. What is very interesting is that, in addition to ranking countries, that organization asks a number of questions related to Panama's practices.

Regarding banking transparency, it said, “Panama does not adequately curtail banking secrecy”. Regarding trusts and foundations, it said that “Panama does not put details of trusts on public record”. Lastly, regarding corporate transparency, it said that “Panama does not require that ownership of companies is put on public record.... Panama does not require that company accounts be available on public record”.

Here we can see just how much impunity corporations can enjoy, especially in the Panamanian banking and financial systems. Unfortunately, when an organization like that takes a stand, the government tries to discredit it. So I will lead the government into territory that it should be more familiar with and should find more credible.

I found a European website called “the best tax havens in 2012”. The information on that website is very up to date, which is good. I mentioned it briefly earlier, but the website says:

Thus, there is no single, definitive answer to the question, “what is the best tax haven”, especially since it is often better to combine several offshore jurisdictions. If you are an entrepreneur or a manager of an SME in Europe and especially in France, we would recommend the following tax havens:

Then it lists just under 10 countries, including Panama. So that is wonderful confirmation that Panama is an ideal place to shelter one's money from taxes.

I am going to talk about another aspect that I mentioned earlier. CCP Inc., a company that can be found online, basically claims that it can create any type of offshore company in the five tax havens. In order not to spread itself too thin, the company chose the countries with which it is easiest to do business, namely, Antigua, Belize, Dominica, Nevis and Panama. In the case of Panama, CCP Inc. encourages people to allow it to help them create a foundation by telling them to feel free to contact the company or to use its online form. I will not put the link on my website because I in no way condone this.

If we sign the various agreements that will link us to Panama, we will send a message to the world that Canada condones tax havens and tax evasion. Clearly, everything is negotiable. CCP Inc. suggests that people create a foundation to shelter their assets from taxes, saying “Security and Privacy are Your Rights!”

When I first ran for election in 2006, this government said that it wanted to be transparent. I am going to ask my colleagues to be consistent and not to condone banking secrecy or questionable practices, such as those in the Republic of Panama.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time I have been given. I await my colleagues' questions.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Beauport—Limoilou for his excellent speech. The member for Hochelaga also briefly mentioned the fact that Panama is a tax haven in her speech.

While they were speaking, I visited the OECD website and learned that Canada has not signed an information exchange agreement with Panama, although it has done so with many other countries. I will not list them all, because we have signed information agreements with several dozen of them, which means that we can exchange tax information with them.

I think that is a serious flaw with Bill C-24. What does the member for Beauport—Limoilou think about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Alfred-Pellan for raising this point. I appreciate her bringing it up, because I unfortunately forgot to mention it.

It is unbelievable to see this government's lack of priorities. It does not know how to set priorities.

We could ask the government a question. Once the agreements are signed and passed in the House—if they unfortunately succeed with the help of the Liberals—will Panama agree to sign this famous information exchange agreement? I highly doubt it, and that is very worrisome.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member. I do not necessarily agree with his comments.

At the end of the day, there are industries in the province of Manitoba, as in other provinces, that see merit in having a free trade agreement with Panama. I can talk about the potato industry, as I have. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs within the province of Manitoba. We could talk about the pork industry, which has great potential in the province of Manitoba and again creates many jobs.

Freer trade with other countries around the world has generated the wealth Canada has today. I suspect that if the member went through every free trade agreement ever passed through the House of Commons, he would find room for improvement. There is no doubt that this particular agreement is the same. Yes, it could be better. Is the member suggesting that if we do not have a perfect agreement, the agreement should never pass? When I say “perfect”, I am referring to things such as environmental laws, human rights issues, labour laws, and so forth. Is that what it takes for the NDP to pass or support an actual free trade agreement?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments were very disappointing. I will turn the question around. Will we have to condone child labour and child exploitation in order to sell pork or potatoes? Will we even have to condone eugenics or reprehensible practices such as female genital mutilation? I am not sure. I do not want to go too far and accuse him of anything.

Quite frankly, it is disgusting that they are turning a blind eye so easily for the sake of trade. That is my response.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for a quick question. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to ask a question of my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, who taught tax havens 101 to my Conservative colleagues. I am glad that was done today in the House, because it shows what this is really all about. He did a good job defining what constitutes a tax haven.

As my colleague from Alfred-Pellan said earlier, Canada did not sign an information sharing agreement. In my colleague's view, what message is the government sending when it signs a free trade agreement with a country that is considered a tax haven? What message is the government sending to the international community about the fight against tax havens?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke very much for asking me that question.

This sends a terribly ambivalent message. We have a human rights legacy that goes back decades. In fact, we fought for human rights throughout the entire 20th century. Canada was a pioneer; it is among the leading countries in this regard. The government is in the process of destroying that legacy and, frankly, that is disappointing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou for sharing his time with me.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to debate Bill C-24.

While the members opposite might not want to recognize it, New Democrats are absolutely in favour of developing good trading relationships. We understand the need for expanding our markets, but that does not mean that we will give our support to bad agreements. We cannot give uncritical support for the mere notion of trade, and we will stand opposed to those agreements that unnecessarily expose Canada to playing fields that are anything but level.

New Democrats would like to see agreements that go about creating and preserving jobs here in Canada, not documents that hasten the movement of production to other countries. I think most Canadians would agree that keeping good-paying jobs in Canada should be a bare minimum condition for a trade deal and that creating more and better jobs should be the real goal.

The government is fully aware that only New Democrats proposed amendments to the Canada-Panama free trade agreement when the bill was studied at committee. That is a clear example of how we are willing to work to make this agreement better. We clearly are focused on agreements that prove to be of net benefit to Canadians. It cannot be said that New Democrats did not come to the table prepared to work and make the agreement better for Canada and Panama. In that respect, we are pragmatic about trade agreements. The government paints that as something else. However, we have seen that over time, New Democrats' reservations are usually based on probable outcomes and not on an exercise in wishful thinking.

With Bill C-24, there are critical problems that underline the significant differences in belief that separate us from the Conservatives and the Liberals when it comes to negotiating trade deals. For example, we believe that the preconditions to ensuring a level playing field should already be more or less in place. Without that, one country may reap a significant advantage, such as an abundance of cheap, poorly paid labour that operates under substandard labour laws with respect to important Canadian ideals such as workplace health and safety.

New Democrats have also had long-standing disagreements about the significance of environmental protection and the role that should play as these agreements are developed, contrary to the other side. In fact, this trade agreement, like too many others, has a critical flaw in terms of environmental protection. Those measures have been tucked inside a side deal instead of being given prominence in the agreement itself. That further entrenches the belief that the environment must take a back seat to economic interests, which is a view that is irresponsible and unsustainable.

Therefore, when we look at Bill C-24, we ask ourselves what the advantage is for Canada. Will Canada come out ahead? This is not guaranteed. Does this deal reflect the kind of country we are? Again, there are no guarantees, and there are more than a few requests that we take a leap of faith instead. We are asked to take a leap of faith on the environment, on labour, and on the transparency of the Panamanian government and its intention to deal with Panama's reputation as a tax haven. Quite simply, Panama has a long history of being a tax haven. It has gone out of its way to help people hide money from countries like Canada, and that sends up a red flag for many Canadians.

The Conservatives tell us that they are negotiating a separate deal with Panama to address this concern, but on this issue, the government has a credibility problem. It is easily argued that the Conservatives have little interest in addressing offshore tax havens. I will let members decide what the motives for that might be. We know that the Conservative government cut back on inspectors and the resources Revenue Canada uses to catch offshore tax cheats. That is not the stuff of a government that takes the problem seriously. It does not even make economic sense. We know full well that every dollar spent investigating offshore tax fraud nets five dollars in return. Any person on the street would tell us that this is money well spent. Therefore, we can dump the argument that this is somehow about saving money.

This is why New Democrats have a difficult time believing the government's claim that it is addressing the problem in a separate agreement. The fact that it is not already in place, ahead of this free trade agreement, is distressing. I am certain that most Canadians would agree that if someone were bleeding their income, they would not go out of their way to do more business with that person without first addressing that pre-existing problem. It is not as if we are the junior partner here. This is an agreement we do not absolutely need to make, so the question of why the tax loopholes were not addressed first is legitimate.

Labour conditions are another concern that should be considered more important in the negotiation of trade agreements in general and with Panama specifically. We know that any labour rights in the agreement are not built into the deal itself. They are part of a side agreement that does not really have much in the way of teeth.

Consider that Panama is quite a bit smaller than Canada, with only 3.4 million people, and is a significantly unequal society. A full 40% of the population is poor. The rate of extreme poverty is 27%. That problem is particularly acute among indigenous populations.

Given those facts, it should be clear that we are in a position to use a trade agreement as a tool to help Panama address its problem. Yet without better entrenching labour conditions, we are passing up that opportunity. It is too bad, since we know that the country has gone through significant structural adjustment, liberalization and privatization in recent years that has not translated into economic benefits for the population. Without a bit of a push from a larger partner in a trade agreement, it is difficult to imagine much changing, and it is an opportunity lost. I say that being fully aware of worrisome trends in Panama and how that country is vulnerable when it comes to labour rights and human rights.

Many members will know that in 2010, President Ricardo Martinelli unilaterally changed Panamanian laws. He put an end to environmental impact studies on projects deemed to be of social interest, banned mandatory dues collections from workers, allowed employers to fire striking workers and replace them with strike breakers, criminalized street blockades and protected police from prosecution. Predictably, President Martinelli's attack on labour rights resulted in strikes and demonstrations. Six people were killed, while other protesters were seriously injured. Many were blinded by tear gas and police violence. Ultimately, 300 trade union leaders were detained before the president withdrew the labour provisions and called for a national dialogue with moderate trade union leaders and business leaders. This is not the behaviour of a government that respects labour rights, or human rights, for that matter.

I know there are many on the benches opposite who view organized labour as adversaries. However, I am sure there are precious few who would agree with the severity of the Panamanian response or even with the measures that set these events in motion.

Therefore, when New Democrats say that we would like to see labour rights better protected in this trade agreement, one can see that this is based on very real concerns and unsettling trends. We are not convinced that Panama is quite ready to be given favoured trading partner status or that this agreement has the teeth needed to help lift Panama up to our standards.

I would like to reiterate that we are happy to use trade agreements as a way to make our economy stronger and more vibrant. We believe this can be done without blinders that limit the scope and imagination of what can be negotiated. On this issue, as with so many others, we hear the words of our former leader, Jack Layton, urging us on with a simple phrase: “Don't let them tell you it can't be done”.

Therefore, we call on the government to similarly challenge itself to arrive at trade deals that expand Canadian exports by reducing harmful barriers to trade, that encourage the development of value-added industries, that create Canadian jobs by increasing market access for our products and that increase productivity by encouraging new investment. We say negotiate agreements that diversify our exports, especially in emerging markets, and deals that help reduce Canada's trade deficit and improve protections for labour rights, human rights and the environment.

We support agreements that benefit consumers by expanding choice and bringing down prices and that reflect Canadian values such as transparency, accountability and human rights. That is what Canadians deserve.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raised an interesting point in her speech about the environmental agreement portion being broken away from that act. Continuously in the House members opposite have urged the government to break up bits of legislation and now are suggesting that in doing so in this agreement it would somehow weaken it. Is the member now advocating for an omnibus-type trade agreement?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it has been clear from the start that the Conservatives were not interested in any amendments that were being put forward. A Conservative member asked a while ago why the government should wait and try to make sure this is a really perfect agreement because it wants to move on. That is exactly right. Canadians do deserve better. They deserve agreements we can live by; they deserve agreements that can be respected, as labour laws should be respected.

With all our riches, Canada should be in the driver's seat and negotiating deals that would protect critical public resources and services. We should be helping make Canadian firms global leaders in the world economy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party supports the importance of labour laws, the importance of environmental laws and the importance of human rights, but we also recognize the importance of freer trade among other nations. Where we can enter into free trade agreements where both countries, in particular Canada, can benefit, the question is then why not. They would enhance the economic opportunities of all Canadians, if we decide to move forward.

I do appreciate the member's comments because they are the closest to the late Jack Layton's comments. She implied that we cannot have a free trade agreement with another country if that country's environmental laws are not equal to Canadian environmental laws, if labour laws abroad are not equal to Canadian labour laws.

Could my colleague expand on why she believes there should be equality between Canadian laws and the laws in other countries before an agreement can be achieved?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that the Conservatives have never seen a trade agreement they did not like. The fact of the matter is that we need to make sure that, when we do trade agreements, they are of net benefit to Canadians. We also have to look at the labour rights and human rights of workers in those other countries. For example, we do not allow the use of asbestos here in Canada, yet we send it elsewhere for those workers to use without the proper safety net in place. We have to look at that.

New Democrats are pro-trade, but we believe in the superiority of multilateral trade agreements. We believe in agreements that are fair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent speech.

I asked a member across the way a question about something that is particularly troubling when it comes to Panama. Pursuant to legislative measures taken by the Republic of Panama, the police is immune to prosecution. Accordingly, labour laws, among other things, can be violated with impunity.

I would like my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing to say a few words about that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing has 40 seconds to reply to the question.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 40 seconds is not much time.

However, in my speech I talked about how we must ensure the well-being of workers, especially when we enter into agreements such as this. We are not against free trade agreements. However, we must ensure that the rights of people, and human rights such as labour rights, are respected.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would like to inform the House that speeches will now be 10 minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

I am sure we have heard some great speeches today, particularly from my colleagues. I do not imagine I will speak as eloquently or as passionately as did our member for London West earlier today, but I heard his talk and it was exceptional. My colleague from Mississauga—Erindale did a fantastic job of addressing this issue, as did our great member for Okanagan—Coquihalla. I have a tough role to follow.

We have been debating the key elements of this trade agreement and the discussions around it for nearly 60 hours. We are certainly aware that Canada is a significant trading partner with Panama.

I was amazed to hear, throughout the speeches and debates today, how significant that total is. We did over $235 million in trade with Panama in 2011 alone. That is significant for a country of that size.

Canada's prosperity is directly linked to reaching out beyond our borders for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's trade and investment. This is another excellent example of how we are doing that.

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 $5.3 billion that is to be spent on the 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 a $13.6 billion Panamanian government strategic investment plan for the years 2010 to 2014.

A country like Canada with so much expertise could certainly 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.

Looking beyond 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 business.

The free trade agreement provides detailed obligations in areas such as financial services, temporary entry of business persons, electronic commerce, telecommunications and competition, monopolies and state enterprises.

The Canadian banking system is consistently recognized among the best in the world, and today the World Economic Forum has ranked Canada's banking system as the most sound in the world four years in a row. This is an area where Canada is truly excelling. The Canadian financial service 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 are offering a wide variety of banking services. This agreement will help those Canadian financial institutions take advantage of those opportunities that exist in Panama.

On financial services, this agreement provides market access parity with what Panama was offered to the U.S. through the trade promotion agreement and contains a robust prudential carve-out. This agreement substantially lists obligations for the financial service 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 service sector is seeking in order to ensure it is able to compete in an increasingly competitive global market. Our Conservative government is now responding to this demand.

Another important area included in this trade agreement is to ensure businesses are able to fully maximize the opportunities in Panama in temporary entry for business persons. This is an important issue for Canadian businesses to ensure their employees are able to work in Panama, and it is a natural complement to market access for goods, services and investment.

In recognition of the 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 require. These would include impediments such as the requirement for labour certification tests, quotas, proportionality requirements and any other prior approval procedure. The agreement extends to an extensive list of professionals, including various technicians and provisions for spousal employment.

The strength of this free trade agreement does not stop there. It also extends to the areas of electronic commerce and telecommunications. Electronic commerce is an important addition to the previous free trade agreements in light of the importance of ensuring that new digital economy issues, such as protection of personal information, consumer protection and paperless trade, are not overlooked. These issues are increasingly important to business in the 21st century, and Canada and Panama have recognized this importance.

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 surveillance software, music purchased online and digital books. The moratorium is important not only for business 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 telecommunications 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 agreement on the environment commits both countries to pursue high levels of environmental protection, to improve and enforce their environmental laws effectively, to maintain appropriate environmental assessment procedures and to ensure they do not relax their environmental laws to encourage trade or investment.

The agreement on the environment also includes provisions on encouraging the use of voluntary best practices of corporate social responsibility and a commitment to promote public awareness of the parties' environmental laws. The agreement reaffirms the countries' international commitments 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, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities.

In addition, the agreement on the environment provides for co-operative activities between Canada and Panama aimed at achieving the environmental objectives and obligations of this agreement.

The final area I would like to touch on is the obligation of the free trade agreement related to competition, monopolies and state enterprises.

This agreement meets Canada's objective of assuring that anti-competitive business practices and the actions of monopolies or state enterprises do not undermine the benefits of trade and investment liberalization achieved in this agreement. Canada and Panama will co-operate on issues related 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 the agreement, which 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, where many key exporters are seeing enormous potential. According to a report published by the CAPA Centre for Aviation, Panama is the fastest growing economy in all of Latin America and it is expected to be the fastest growing economy in Latin America for the next five years.

Panama's real gross domestic growth for 2011 is estimated at 10.6%, which is faster growth than that of many of the other rapidly emerging economies. It clearly illustrates that the commercial potential in Panama is significant.

I see my time is coming to an end, so I will just say that this free trade agreement has the support of key exporters and investors across Canada and its passage through the House would ensure that Canadian businesses are able to take advantage of opportunities in that market. I urge all members of the House to consider their support of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have talked on this side at some length about our concerns regarding transparency of tax matters, the fact that international concerns have been raised about Panama's status as a tax haven. The Conservatives said that the OECD took Panama off the grey list and that removes all concerns. However, the member will undoubtedly recognize the fact that the OECD still has very significant reservations and other countries, including the U.S., would not sign onto an agreement with Panama until an agreement on tax information exchange was completed.

Does the member agree that we should ensure that the agreement on tax information exchange is made available before we sign on to this agreement?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague rightly pointed out, the U.S. has now signed an agreement with Panama, which is one of the reasons that we are focused on getting this agreement through the House. Canadian companies are finding themselves at a disadvantage on the Panamanian market as U.S. consumers and our competitors in that market have a distinct leg-up.

As we move forward, these kinds of agreements foster growth and regulations. They foster a positive change for countries that engage in these reciprocal trade agreements. I see this as an excellent opportunity for Panama to improve its position on the world stage and improve its relationship with Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the fact that there have been a number of trade agreements that have gone through the House since Conservatives have taken the government reins in Canada, but one of the things we need to recognize is the trade surplus/deficit situation. When Conservatives came to government, they had a huge trade surplus in excess of $25 billion. It was a wonderful gift to have walked into a situation like that. Conservatives have turned that surplus into a trade deficit of $50 billion.

They have been successful at signing some trade agreements. We could give them a pat on the back to a certain degree for that, but can the member explain why it is that we have lost that trade surplus and under the current government we now have a huge trade deficit? Why is that?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member missed the global economic recession that the entire planet faced, but our government introduced an economic action plan that allowed Canadians to weather that storm and do better than G7 and G20 countries. We are now moving forward with trade agreements that are going to improve the deficit the member is highlighting. I could not help but notice he spent a good portion of time patting himself on the back for all the work he is trying to take credit for in years past.

We had an unprecedented recession and Canada weathered that storm quite well. With the 800,000 net new jobs that our government has created across all sectors, we are going to be able to take advantage of these kinds of trade agreements to move Canada even closer to being a global economic power.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to engage in the debate on Bill C-24 at third reading, as I did at second reading, because it is an important debate and an important bill. It is about how we trade with other nations in the world. I have said before and will say again that it is my contention, and that of the official opposition, that Canada should be much more engaged in promoting multilateral trade. We should be working with the international community in its entirety. That is the best way to work toward better deals and arrangements to lift the trade standards of all countries equally, rather than trying to do one-offs with countries to beat the U.S. or the European community. Otherwise, it is kind of hit and miss.

As has been stated here, the Conservative government has not been particularly successful in improving our trade circumstances. We have such a significant trade deficit in this country. Deals with countries like Panama, while being important to the people who are doing business with Panama, and I do not want to understate that importance whatsoever, pale in comparison to our trading relationship with the United States and with many of the other countries that we are trying to trade with.

My colleague, the member for Beauport—Limoilou, did an excellent job of talking about the reason that we should be concerned about Panama's status as a tax haven. He talked about why that was such a problem and why it is that the government should be paying more attention to the concerns that have been raised by the international community, the OECD and the United States Congress, which refused to sign on to a trade deal with Panama until an agreement on the exchange of tax information was completed.

I heard one member opposite say the fact that the U.S. has signed on to a trade deal with Panama is another reason that we must hurry up and that we are again being surpassed by the U.S. This trade deal was originally signed by the current government back in 2009. The government members have not shown any urgency whatsoever to get it done. Now that we finally get it into the House and start to look at it and debate it, the Conservatives should not try to scare me, as a member of this chamber, into cutting down on my questions and concerns simply because the government has been tardy and as a result the United States has beaten us in that relationship with Panama. However, it has also shown us a bit about negotiations and about ensuring it is protecting the interests of Americans, in that case, because their Congress insisted on getting an agreement on the exchange of tax information before signing on to the deal. That is something the Conservatives have not done.

In the past three years, since the deal was signed, what have the Minister of International Trade and his colleagues been doing? What has the parliamentary secretary been doing? They should have been ensuring that this additional agreement on the exchange of tax information was completed and signed. We could have debated it in the House and it would have gone some distance in helping to encourage members of the opposition benches that this was a deal that had some merit. However, they did not do that.

I sometimes get the feeling, from the way government members talk about what great free traders they are, that all they are concerned about is being able to say they have signed a deal on trade. When it comes to ensuring the deal is the best one we could get, not perfect but the best one we could get, that would be good. That would be a point well taken. Unfortunately, the government tends to say it has a deal and it has to be signed regardless of members' objections.

New Democrats introduced 13 very reasonable, modest, important and integral amendments at committee and not one of them was supported by the government. There was everything from ensuring the side deals on labour and the environment are included, to tax transparency, to the question of increasing sustainable investment, to harmonious and sustainable development. These are matters that are important to us and to the Panamanian people. Surely, members opposite do not want to benefit from the exploitation of others.

While we can agree that we want Canadian companies and businesses in this country to profit and benefit from any trade we do with other countries, surely we recognize that does not mean we are at all content with benefiting at the expense of others. If it is as a result of exploiting child labour or causing the degradation of the environment of another country or exploiting or penalizing workers, surely members opposite will agree that it is simply not worth it.

Frankly, that is why I say we should be going the way of Australia and establishing principles on which to make sure we conduct ourselves as we relate with the rest of the world. As we engage in economic relationships with other countries, we need to set standards, as Australia has done. The standards deal with the promotion of multilateral trade with other countries to ensure that we all benefit from economic activity in the global community. That should be in the best interests of this country and the members of the House.

I want to pick up on one thing that caused me some concern and that is the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The question of investor-state provisions was raised. He was asked a question about the fact that this agreement contains the same investor-state provisions as the free trade agreement with the United States. In that respect, it ensures that Canadian companies will be dealt with in that country on the basis of certain laws and rules, and so on. That is questionable when dealing with a country such as Panama that is developing its justice system. However, the Panamanian companies that are dealing with Canada can have access to those provisions and can sue our companies or our subnational governments, if they feel they are being wrongly dealt with economically.

I am concerned, in light of the fact that the government is engaging in the FIPA, the foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with China, in complete secrecy by the way, that he does not understand an important part of the provision with Panama, let alone an important part of the FIPA with China.

Perhaps I will a get a chance to address this concern more fully when questions are asked.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot this afternoon about balance of trade. The balance of trade definition, for those in this House who may not be aware of it, is the difference between a country's imports and exports. In order for us to increase our exports, we need to have more markets for them. That is the purpose of negotiating trade agreements; increasing our exports grows our economy.

To my colleague who just spent 10 minutes talking sort of superfluously about maybe getting more trade and growing the economy, how does the member feel about trade in general? Will his party finally support an agreement that promotes new markets for Canadian products?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I am disappointed that the member found my intervention on this important piece of legislation superfluous, but then again we all have different standards of debate in this House.

Let me say that the official opposition has said, on numerous occasions, that we support free trade and that we support multilateral trade. We are a trading nation. I am from the trading province of Nova Scotia. We support and promote trade.

However, we want to make sure that the trade is in our interests and in the interests of the country we are trading with. Let us not be caught up in the fact that we simply want to be able to say, “Hey, we got another deal.” We want to be able to say, “Hey, we have a good deal for Canadians.”

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his speech related to comments on investor-state provisions.

I wonder if the member wants to share any reflections on the irony that our Prime Minister is currently in India, where the Indian Parliament has refused to ratify the investor-state agreement with Canada because of the very concerns that members of the opposition benches in this House have. India is apparently allowing their parliamentarians to vote; whereas in Canada we are not to see Parliament have a chance to speak to this issue before ratification. I am speaking of the Canada-China investment treaty.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised this issue earlier about the concerns around the investor-state provision, which I followed up on in my intervention.

The irony of the way the government deals with issues like foreign investment is truly incredible. We expect the government to get an agreement on tax information exchange transparency when it will not even be transparent on an important deal with China that is going to lock us in for 31 years.

As has been suggested in the question that was just asked, India has refused to sign on to the investor-state provision with Canada without having this matter come before their Parliament. I bet Canadians who are listening to this debate, and I am sure there are five or six, as well as the ones who will be reviewing Hansard later, will also recognize the huge irony in the position of the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his speech.

There is one thing that strikes me about free trade agreements. I find that, on our continent, Canada lacks vision and its agreements are not very ambitious. They focus solely on trade and the benefits to certain major companies. That is all.

There does not seem to be a regional vision for integrating the other countries. We would all do better if certain basic conditions were met.

I would like my colleague to talk a bit more about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that question. That is what I was talking about in terms of establishing principles. It is about promoting multilateral trade with principles whereby our country and the people of our country and the country we want to do business with are all lifted higher, and we make sure that their rights and our rights are equally protected.

The House resumed from November 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the third time and passed.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to share my comments on a bill that should have been passed two and a half years ago. We are in the eleventh hour of debate on this bill, which is certainly not being rammed through. It should have been passed long ago.

We are a trading nation, as most members of the House and Canadians know. It is something to see the magnitude of trade that we do in Canada as we look at what has happened over our history. Eighty-five per cent of our trade has been with our southern neighbour, the United States.

Here I want to take the opportunity to congratulate President Obama for his win last evening and the people of Michigan for their decision to allow the new bridge to be built between Windsor and Detroit. The existing bridge is the largest trading bridge anywhere in the world. At times there is $2 billion a day in trade going across that bridge, so it is very important that a new bridge be built.

As I said, about 85% of our international trade has been with the United States, whereas last year it was about 73%. We are becoming less dependent on the United States and more dependent on other markets, such as the one we are debating under this piece of legislation, Panama's.

It is impressive to see the number of jobs created because of our international trade. One in every five Canadian jobs is generated through exports and 63% of our country's annual GDP is created because of international trade. Therefore, it is very important that we get this piece of legislation through. Panama is the hub of the Americas and a very important logistical platform for us to trade with in Central America.

This is a continuation of an agenda that our government has had since coming into office. We have signed nine different free trade agreements, including with countries such as Colombia, Jordan, Peru and Honduras; and with the European Free Trade Association, including Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. This is long overdue. We are very aggressively pursuing other countries with regard to free trade agreements, seen in the Canada-European Union free trade agreement, for example. We look forward to the final text perhaps being out before year end.

I was with the trade committee in Japan last week and was very encouraged by what we heard regarding a bilateral trade agreement with Japan, the world's third largest economy.

When we add all of these up and see exactly what we are doing, the possibilities of moving forward on our trade agenda are very encouraging.

Just to look at what we have done with NAFTA and the United States, since NAFTA was signed some 18 or so years ago, that agreement has created about 40 million jobs. The GDP of the three countries was a little over $7 trillion at the time of signing and is now over $17 trillion now. Between the three countries, we are now trading almost $1 trillion a year. It is very significant.

Canadians realize the importance of a trade agenda. What I cannot understand is where the opposition is at with regard to our trade agenda. Even today, opposition members say that they do not like and would get rid of the NAFTA agreement. They say they would never support it and never have supported it. It does not matter what kind of logic we use or what kind of math we put in front of them to show them the benefits of it, they disagree with it. This is something that I absolutely do not understand.

The opposition members have disagreed with all of the nine free trade agreements our government has signed, except maybe the one with Jordan, which they could not come to a decision on. They had to sit on their hands because they did not want to show that they were somewhat supportive of that agreement. When we look at the Canada-Panama free trade agreement, I would suggest that it is much more beneficial even than the agreement with Jordan. Yet the opposition filibusters and accuses the government of trying to ram it through.

There has been a lot of debate on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement, and it is amazing what is in that piece of legislation and what it will do for our agriculture sector. Agriculture is near and dear to my heart, as we farm about 3,000 acres of canola and wheat. It is important for us to understand the size of agriculture in Canada. The agrifood sector actually generates 8% of our GDP. It creates one in eight jobs in this country. That is 2.2 million jobs in Canada created because of agriculture. There is some $41 billion created because of trade in our agricultural products in international markets. Almost half of our total agricultural production in this country goes to international trade. Indeed, we are sixth largest exporter of agricultural products in the world.

It is very important that we make sure that we capture as many possible markets as we can for our agricultural products. Panama is the second largest market for agricultural products in Central America. This piece of legislation would allow agriculture not only to be enhanced but also for it to be done in a tariff-free way. How many tariffs are there? On the signing and implementation of this piece of legislation, 78% of Canadian agricultural exports to Panama would be tariff-free .

What are those products? The 20% tariff on frozen french fries, which help Prince Edward Island and Atlantic Canadians, would be eliminated. How about the pulse crops of the Prairies? There is a 15% tariff on those that would be eliminated immediately upon signing of this agreement. How about malt exporters, the barley growers of this country? The 10% tariff applying to them would be eliminated upon signing of this agreement.

By the way, the opposition disagrees with our getting rid of these tariffs and has fought this for two and a half years in the House. That is absolutely ridiculous when we see the benefits to these areas.

How about our beef sector, which has been plagued by the BSE crisis and all kinds of problems, including its exports to different countries around the world being shut down as a result? The producers have gone through a very difficult time. The tariff they face in the Panamanian region is 25% to 30%. That would be eliminated.

I was in Japan last week with the trade committee, where we were excited about the opening up of the export of our beef, from beef aged 21 months to beef aged 30 months now. However, Japan is another market that has been hurt because of the delays by the opposition with regard to this piece of legislation.

The tariff that really bothers me the most is the 60% to 70% tariff on our hog industry. It is amazing to see that kind of tariff placed on our hogs. That so important to us because our largest competitor in that market is the United States, which signed a free trade agreement with Panama on October 31. If we do not get our free trade agreement with Panama through the House, we will lose our competitive edge and never get it back. It is absolutely critical that we make sure that we stop playing around in the House and start doing what is right for Canadians. The opposition should get onboard.

There has been two and half years of filibustering in the House, two and a half years of wasted time and opportunity for us to be able to capitalize on the great infrastructure of the Panama Canal, as well as the opportunities for our agriculture sector and many others. The opposition says we are fast-tracking this by bringing in time allocation. I understand the NDP, because that is just their ideological bent and where they are at. They are what they are. However, two days ago we had the Liberals opposing our closure motion on this legislation. I find that really hard to understand.

Not only has the United States signed an agreement with Panama, but the European Union is also expected to sign an agreement, perhaps by the end of this year. Then we will lose a competitive edge with Europe as well.

It is absolutely amazing when we see what the opposition is doing with regard to this piece of legislation and the free trade agreements we have reached with nine different countries around the world and have been promoting. I just do not understand it.

I will quote the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, who was the vice-chair of the trade committee at one time. He said that when it comes to trade agreements, they are “job-destroying”. I do not understand where he gets that math. How can he possibly get there?

There is only one thing that we heard with regard to trade in the NDP's platform and that was a $21 billion cap and trade carbon tax. That is what the opposition is promoting, instead of the positive trade we will experience when we pass this piece of legislation. I encourage the House to get on with this. The next two hours cannot go fast enough.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was quite a treat to listen to the combination of myths, fantasy and distortion from my hon. colleague opposite.

I would like a factual answer to a serious question. The hon. member sits on the trade committee with me and he heard the evidence we heard, that Panama is one of the top two tax havens in the world, that it launders an incredible amount of drug money, and that it would be prudent to have a tax information exchange agreement in place so we would have transparency to assure Canadians that laundered money and tax-protected money is not making its way into this country. We heard that the U.S. Congress insisted that an exchange agreement be in place before it signed a free trade agreement, and I put a motion before the committee to ask the committee to ensure such an agreement is in place before we give preferential trade status to Panama.

Can my hon. friend opposite answer why he voted against ensuring we have a tax information exchange agreement with Panama in place before we sign a trade agreement, as our colleagues in the United States insisted on so prudently?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

We have heard for two and a half years that the reason the New Democrats are saying no to this is because of a tax haven in Panama. It was on a grey list, and it has moved from a grey list to a white list. My hon. colleague knows this. We heard it in testimony at the committee. He heard from the finance department that this is working and that there is a change with Panama. Panama has come a long way.

We could take two approaches. One approach is as we did with Jordan, where we sign an agreement to try to improve the labour situation and some of the corruption we potentially see in some of these countries. Or, we could just step aside and wait until they have their house completely in order. Our approach is to go in, engage and be able to bring them into a place that is much more positive. That is exactly where Panama is. It has gone from a grey list to a white list, and it is improving.

The hon. colleague knows full well that this is going to be worked out in this legislation, and that is the fact. The hon. colleague, if he were absolutely true to himself and to this House, would admit it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for bringing the merits of this agreement so clearly to the attention of this House. Panama is both a valued partner of Canada, in and of itself, and also a hub for international trade. We on this side look forward to voting in favour of this agreement.

However, the member mentions the opposition's position on this trade deal, as on so many others. What would the opposition's anti-trade agenda mean for Canada if any government were foolish enough to implement even some of these aspects? It is against trade agreements with the nine countries with which we have negotiated, and with the scores of countries we would like to negotiate with. The opposition would instead like a $21 billion carbon tax.

The Leader of the Opposition, while mentioning the IMF today in favourable terms, does not agree with what the IMF is calling for, which is fiscal consolidation. Deficit reduction is what our government is doing, and the NDP does not want to do it. Does the member—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Yellowhead.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, not only would their carbon tax be an absolute blowout, estimated at $21 billion, but with their anti-trade thing, now we are getting into serious money. If we got rid of NAFTA and all trade agreements, not only would it be an unbelievable black eye and message to the international community that our agricultural products are not the best in the world, which they are—the safest in the world and coveted by most of the world, along with our energy supply and on and on—but the amount of dollars that would be compromised would actually cripple this country. Canadians are too smart to buy this nonsense.

The opposition members are driven by ideology, based mainly on unions that are a little out of touch and self-serving. This is absolutely ridiculous. We cannot build the nation under that ideology. It is unfortunate that we have an opposition that is driven by ideology rather than actual facts and the reality that we are a trading nation and we have great optimistic opportunities as we move forward. We need to enhance and accelerate trade, not hamper it.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act.

Bill C-24 follows up on a trade agreement that we signed with Panama on August 11, 2009. This free trade agreement poses some problems in a number of areas, including with regard to workers' rights and environmental protection standards. Today, however, I will focus on the issue of tax evasion and money laundering, which is very troubling.

When Todd Tucker of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch testified before the Standing Committee on International Trade on November 17, 2010, 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 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 few regulations. According to the OECD, the Panamanian government does not have the legal capacity to verify key tax information about these businesses. Panama's shadowy financial practices also make it a very attractive place to launder money that comes from all over the world.

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. There are no restrictions on capital entering or exiting Panama. Transactions are protected by banking secrecy, and financial activity is not monitored.

In March 2012, Canada and Panama entered into negotiations for a tax information exchange agreement. However, this agreement has not yet been concluded or signed. This is very troubling, considering the large amount of money laundering in Panama, including money from drug trafficking.

Furthermore, the issue of disclosing taxes has not been adequately addressed, even though the Panamanian government and the Conservative government claim that it has. Without a real political will, these agreements generally do nothing to eliminate legal tax evasion and do little to discourage individuals from illegally evading taxes. In general, tax information exchange agreements do not contain provisions on the automatic exchange of information. Individual requests must be made.

Members should listen carefully to what I am about to say, because it is the key part of my speech. The U.S. Congress refused to ratify a free trade agreement with Panama before it signed a tax information exchange agreement. According to tax evasion experts, the agreement with Panama enables it to sidestep the transparency provisions if they are contrary to Panamanian public policy.

As the opposition, we have made suggestions in the past to improve this agreement. During the clause-by-clause review, we proposed several amendments that would have made notable changes to the bill. These included the addition of crucial concepts of sustainable development and investment and, most importantly, we proposed a requirement for taxation transparency.

Before the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-24, the NDP moved a motion in the Standing Committee on International Trade to postpone the implementation of the Canada-Panama trade agreement until Panama agreed to sign an information exchange agreement. This motion was voted down by the Conservatives and the Liberals. That shows where those two dinosaur parties stand on proper, responsible tax policy.

Considering Panama's history and reputation in such matters, it is easy to see why such an agreement is necessary before we sign a trade deal. The U.S. Congress did not want to ratify the American free trade agreement with Panama until a tax information exchange agreement was signed. It is important to remember this because it is the crux of the matter. It is for this reason that the NDP has serious concerns, which I believe are shared by all Canadians.

Contrary to what the Conservatives would have Canadians believe, the NDP supports trade. We are in favour of developing Canadian exports by reducing trade barriers. We are in favour of developing an industry that exports value-added products. We are in favour of creating jobs in Canada by expanding access for Canadian products to foreign markets. We are in favour of increasing productivity by encouraging new investment. And, we are in favour of diversifying our exports.

The NDP has a trade strategy. We want to help Canadian businesses to be leaders in the global economy. We are going to improve the protection of human rights and the environment, and we will defend public resources and services that are essential to Canadians.

Finally, we are going to help lower Canada's trade deficit since, under the Conservative government, Canada has gone from having a trade surplus of $26 billion to having a trade deficit of $50 billion. Yes, I said “$50 billion”. It is shameful.

Since the Conservatives took office, the manufacturing trade deficit has increased sixfold to $90 billion. We are exporting $30 billion more in raw materials but $35 billion less in value-added products.

The Conservatives' track record shows that their trade approach is not working. That is understandable, because they are very bad managers. They are not going to become good managers by repeating the words “growth” and “economy”. Not at all. We know that, and so do Canadians.

The Conservatives are negotiating trade deals using an extreme, ideological strategy instead of making the interests of Canadians their priority. The Conservative government is completely dysfunctional and so is its trade strategy.

The NDP prefers a multilateral approach based on a sustainable trade model. In fact, bilateral trade deals are really just 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 sustainable multilateral trade model would avoid these issues while protecting human rights and the environment.

If the Conservative members have been listening to what I have tried to explain here, they will have understood that we do not oppose this agreement and that we want to give it a chance. All we are asking for is greater transparency. We do not want to be associated with tax evasion, and we especially do not want Canadian businesses to be associated with that, either.

I care about this country's businesses and their reputation. That is the difference between us and the Conservative government, which claims to be a good manager, to take care of Canadian interests and to be competent when it comes to the economy. This government is about to sign yet another free trade agreement—it is on quite a roll with these agreements—but it is not thinking carefully about its trade partners.

I am more than happy to do business, but not under just any conditions and to the detriment of Canadian businesses.

We in the NDP have ethics, and it would be nice if the government followed our lead.

What I wanted to say here today regarding the free trade agreement between Canada and Panama is simply that we support trade, but we believe that it must be carried out in a responsible and more serious manner for Canadians.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have sat in the House now for the last two days and I have heard many NDP members get up and say they are in favour of trade. I have heard it dozens of times.

[An hon. member]

They vote against every deal.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all I would ask is that they follow their applause with some concrete evidence and list the number of trade agreements they have voted for over the last 20 years in the House.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

What a comment, Mr. Speaker.

We like to choose our partners. It just does not make sense to me that the Conservative government is signing free trade agreements with just about anyone, as if Canada were up for grabs.

Choosing our economic partners is the right thing to do. When it comes to Panama, I have some serious concerns.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain why supporting free trade is regressive.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that.

What I said was that the motions moved by the NDP were rejected by two dinosaur parties. The NDP believes that a tax information exchange agreement must be signed to improve Panama's transparency.

If the Americans asked for and got one, why is this not good for Canada? Why are we going to let them walk all over us as though we did not have any rights?

We are in a position to demand such an agreement. That is not regressive, it is forward-thinking.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to ask my colleague a question. Her speech was very interesting and emotional. I always like to hear her speak, especially about a free trade agreement such as this one, and present the NDP's vision, which I believe is the right vision for Canada. What she said is very important.

I would like to hear her talk more about the problem created by a government or a country that has these types of economic relationships with a country that does not comply with certain basic tax rules. What message does this send to the international community?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have some questions.

What message does that send? It sends a strange message that we respect certain economic partners and not others. When a country is known for tax evasion, we have every reason to be asking questions. Are we making the right choices? Are we making the right decisions in negotiating with this country?

As I said earlier, if the Conservatives were at least open to the idea of signing an initial tax evasion information exchange agreement, the government would prove that it does not agree to any old conditions when doing business with other countries. Right now, we get the impression that it does not care and that all it wants is to sign as many free trade agreements as possible, with any country. It gives the impression that the countries do not matter, as long as we are signing agreements. That is questionable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Québec for her speech. I also congratulate her for her work on the Standing Committee on International Trade, where I think she does a fantastic job.

Yesterday in my speech, I quoted an organization that is critical of tax havens. It had a few things to say in its assessment of Panama, which I will share.

Among their findings on Panama, this is what they said about automatic information exchange, “Does the jurisdiction participate fully in Automatic Information Exchange such as the European Savings Tax Directive? Panama does not participate fully in Automatic Information Exchange”.

That is very worrisome. I would ask my colleague to comment on that.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank my distinguished colleague who also sits on the Standing Committee on International Trade. He was able to bring in all of these comments from experts, from people who are familiar with the situation. When tax experts are telling us to be careful with Panama, that is something we need to take seriously.

We would like this government to take the necessary precautions this time with this free trade agreement. I would like this government to listen to us and make an attempt to sign an information agreement so that there is more transparency.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

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 Churchill, Culture; the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, Employment.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to rise in the House this afternoon to speak to this very important Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

I think it is the third time that I have visited Panama as part of the trade committee of which I have been a member for about six and half years. Back in May 2008, we travelled to Panama and had over 60 hours of extensive debate in a variety of committees and in the chamber. I am hoping that later this afternoon we will see logic prevail and this agreement continue through the House and become an act as soon as possible for businesses across Canada so they will have a rules-based and fair-trading system in a Canada-Panama relationship.

I will first take a moment to thank all the members of the House who paid tribute to our veterans. The speeches we heard were very emotional. When we look into the eyes of our veterans, we think of the men and women who are serving today and have served. I think of the veterans in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country. It is an honour and a humbling experience to be their member of Parliament. It is because of their dedication and sacrifice that we have the best country in the world.

Our government believes in the importance of our veterans. We also want to expand our economy to make Canada an even better place.

We are focusing on a global commerce strategy because we understand the importance of trade. In fact, one in every five jobs is dependent on trade in Canada and it represents nearly 65% of our country's income. Indeed, the importance of international trade to an export-oriented economy like Canada has cannot be overestimated. There is no doubt that trade sustains the incomes and living standards of Canadians and ensures the long-term prosperity of our country. Furthermore, integration with regional and global trading networks is essential.

As a trading nation, Canadian exporters, producers and investors need access to international markets to stay competitive. It is pretty simple: When we trade, we become more competitive. Prices for goods and services go down. wages, salaries and our standard of living go up, and businesses are able to hire more workers. In addition, internationally-oriented firms are better positioned to withstand global downturns.

Our government understands, as most Canadians do, that trade is a kitchen table issue. The Minister of International Trade is with the Prime Minister in India right now working on expanding agreements. He understands the importance of trade to help families put food on the table and make ends meet.

We have heard from my hon. colleague for Yellowhead earlier today and yesterday from the member for London West, the hard-working member for the 10th largest city in Canada, as he likes to inform us, on the importance of how we need to work together to break down these trade barriers so that Canadian businesses can be competitive.

In my own riding of Kelowna—Lake Country, Campion Marine, the largest boat manufacturer in Canada, is continually requesting that we break down barriers so that the excise taxes that are in place in other countries can be eliminated and it can be competitive. That 5% sometimes can be the difference between success and hiring more people or, unfortunately, not being competitive in the marketplace.

As I mentioned, not only does trade support the quality of life for Canadians but it provides hope, jobs and opportunities for our children and grandchildren. It would be difficult for the average Canadian to imagine a world without international trade.

Our Conservative government clearly understands that our standard of living and Canadians' future prosperity will be generated by deepening and broadening our trading relationships. That is why deepening Canada's trading relationship is rapidly growing in markets around the world, such as Panama, which is an important part of this government's pro-trade plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Canada's exporters, investors and service providers are calling for these opportunities. Business owners and entrepreneurs want access to global markets. We heard numerous witnesses testify at our trade committee saying that they need to be competitive. Unfortunately, the opposition continues to delay this.

We heard back on October 31, just last month, that the Panama-U.S. agreement had come into place. However, we are still at the gate. Our American colleagues in the south and their businesses are out making deals while we are spinning our wheels.

We cannot stop this. We need to continue to move forward. With the co-operation of the opposition and all members of this House, we can continue to expand, establish and grow our pro-trade plan.

Since 2006, Canada has concluded new trade agreements with nine countries. They include: Colombia; Jordan; Peru; the European trade association member states of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland; most recently, Honduras; and, of course, the discussion this afternoon is on Panama.

We are also negotiating with more than 50 countries, including major economies such as the European Union, India and Japan. Last week I was with some of the trade committee members in Japan where we are working on an economic partnership agreement, which is looking very promising, to expand relationships with Japan.

A deal with the European Union would represent the most significant Canadian trade initiative since the North American free trade agreement. Such a deal could potentially boost our bilateral trade with this important partner by 20%. It could also provide a $12 billion annual boost to Canada's economy, which is like a $1,000 increase in the average Canadian family's income or almost 80,000 new jobs.

Canada has also officially joined the trans-Pacific partnership, otherwise known as the TPP. The potential benefits of this initiative are enormous. The TPP market represents more than 658 million people and a combined GDP of over $20 trillion.

By improving access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses, we are supporting the Canadian recovery and creating new jobs for Canadian workers. It is part of our economic action plan. As the Minister of Finance alluded to during question period, the importance of helping small businesses grow with a tax credit is an initiative within budget 2012.

Within our free trade agreement with Panama, we have the government's efforts to strengthen the Canadian economy once again. These are multi-prong approaches to help grow our economy and create jobs. Pursuing bilateral and regional trade agreements is essential to bringing continued prosperity to Canadians.

I understand, and it is unfortunate, the opposition NDP continues to stand in the way of our efforts to open up new markets for our exporters. I would love to see the WTO and the multilateral agreements come to completion as well, but the reality is that they are stalled. In the meantime we continue to work with bilateral agreements and multilateral with the trans-Pacific partnership.

The NDP comes up with all these excuses and says it believes in free and fair trade. We do as well, but we are also doing the trade agreements rather than just talking about them. The fact is that the NDP's anti-trade record is clear. My hon. colleague and seatmate just asked the opposition party if it could please list off the number of trade agreements it has supported over the last 20 years. It was like a deer in the headlights. Unfortunately, there was no response. The NDP members like to talk about it over there, but we are doing it. Going all the way back to NAFTA, they have consistently opposed our efforts to create new opportunities for exporters and investors. On this side of the House, we are tired of hearing all the naysayers. We will continue to move forward in creating jobs.

The anti-trade NDP's special interest backers continue to fearmonger and misrepresent the facts about trade. They believe that the global economy is something Canadian workers should fear. Our government knows that our businesses, our entrepreneurs and our workers can compete with the very best in the world and win. With a rules-based, level playing field, Canadians will be number one.

However, to compete and win, Canadians need to be on a level playing field. With the entry into force of the United States-Panama free trade agreement just last month, Canadian firms are no longer competing on a level playing field. Their American competitors are now able to sell their products in Panama at a lower cost as the result of the duty-free access they enjoy under the US-Panama FTA. This is why the implementation of this trade agreement is an urgent priority for our government. Canadian companies are constantly proving that they are competitive enough to compete and succeed in the global marketplace, but the government has a responsibility to do all it can to help those companies succeed abroad.

Governments do not create jobs. We create the framework and the environment. We minimize regulations. We have to have incentives where necessary, but ultimately it is the private sector that will create the jobs. That is why our government will fight to ensure that businesses have what they need to be successful abroad and ensure that the Canada-Panama free trade agreement is ratified and enters into force as soon as possible.

In closing, we must prevent Canadian firms from losing market share in Panama and defend the competitiveness of our businesses in this fast-growing emerging market. In a short time, we will be voting on Bill C-24 in the House. This is why I ask for the support of all hon. members for the Canada-Panama free trade agreement and the parallel labour co-operation and environment agreements. It is the right thing to do for Canadians.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that, in the House, the NDP stands in the way of all free trade.

I do not understand how amendments stand in the way of a bill, a motion or anything else. We are talking about the role of the House, the very role of parliamentarians.

I would like the member to explain to me what democracy means to him. What is the role of a parliamentarian if not to introduce bills and debate them in order to make them better?

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

Mr. Speaker, I just find it bizarre that the member even asked the question. The question was asked by my seatmate about the last 20 years and there was no response.

There will be dissenting opinions but there has to be something that the member agrees with in the trade agreement, such as the fact that NAFTA has been the best thing for both sides of the border. The U.S. is our biggest ally, 35 out of the 50 states, and Canada's number one trading partner. There is about $1.9 billion a day of trade going across the border. We are looking at expanding because we do not want to depend on one country. About 75% of our trade is done with the U.S. We need to diversify, just like our investment portfolios. That is why we are opening borders across markets.

Why would the opposition not at least say that they see the logic in creating jobs and opening opportunities for Canadians? That is what we are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kelowna—Lake Country for his terrific speech. I would also like to recognize his work on the trade committee. The general public watching this may not know that he is also the person who put in the bill to allow wine to cross provincial borders. That was an important bill for British Columbia. It still has to be put in place by the provinces. We are hoping they will do that soon.

However, on Panama specifically, there is about $111 million of merchandise trade going from Canada to Panama. Therefore, Canadian exporters are exporting about 111 million dollars' worth of goods into Panama and are paying a duty on that. The opposition members talk about trade with Panama as if none already exists. We already have a vibrant trade between Canada and Panama.

How will this help trade that is already in place?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hard-working colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade. It is a real pleasure to work with him on our trade committee and moving forward.

While representing Kelowna—Lake Country in 1989 when NAFTA came in, there was all this fearmongering that the world was going to come to an end, so we replanted the grapes and we have some international award-winning wines now produced in the Okanagan, through Ontario and across Canada. Therefore, it has been of benefit to all Canadians.

With respect to the Panama trade agreement, the NDP have said that we need to restore our imbalance of trade. How do we do that? By opening up new markets. The fact is that we cannot have it both ways by talking through one side of our mouths and out the other. We want to open up markets. We want to expand on machinery, precious metal opportunities and agriculture.

There are opportunities for people from every province. Whether from British Columbia, the forest sector, in machinery, the agricultural community or financial services, there is something for everybody. There is a job waiting for one of your constituents if you would just stand up and support it.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I would just remind hon. members to direct their comments through the Chair.

We have time for a short question and response. The hon. member for Saint–Jean.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to respond to the member opposite, I would say that there are many ways to make easy money. Many criminal activities can also make a lot of money.

The member opposite said that, at the end of the day, the most important thing is to do business and to make money. Would he go so far as to say to his constituents that he is prepared to engage in just about any criminal activity to make money?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have the most open and honest government that I have ever had the pleasure to serve with in the last six years. We are bringing fair trading rules so that Canadians have investment protection and there is a rules-based trading system. Why would members be against bringing rules so that people in both countries are treated fairly? This is all about fairness and providing opportunities for business so that we can compete on an equal basis.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, there are no words I like to hear more than “new markets”.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-24, the legislation implementing the Canada-Panama free trade agreement, as well as the related agreements on labour co-operation and the environment. Today I would like to focus on the commercial opportunities that exist in Panama. It is unfortunate that members opposite continue to suggest that this agreement should not be a priority for our government. It is no surprise to hear this from New Democrats. They, after all, have consistently opposed our government's efforts to open up new markets and create new opportunities for our exporters.

It is disappointing to hear others, like the member for Malpeque, whose own constituents stand to benefit from this agreement, in particular Prince Edward Island's potato exporters. The member for Malpeque has suggested that since our bilateral trade with Panama represents a fraction of our global trade, we should not concern ourselves with it. How wrong he is. That is why today I would like to spend a few minutes talking about some of the opportunities that exist in Panama and why it is in our nation's best interests to forge closer economic ties with this dynamic and fast-growing economy.

Panama has long been considered a logistics centre and international connection point in the Latin American region. Panama is often referred to as the gateway to Latin America and plays a critical role in connecting the Americas. Panama is 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 world trade passed through the Panama Canal in 2010, but that is not all. In addition to its importance as a hub for global shipping, Panama boasts a stable and robust economy with the second highest per capita income in Central America. In 2011, Panama's economy recorded real GDP growth of 10.6% and all indications show that this impressive growth rate will continue well into the future.

Like Canada, Panama welcomes international commerce and is committed to providing a stable and pro-business environment for trade and investment. In 2011, Panama received the fifth highest score in Latin America in the annual World Bank rankings of countries for ease of doing business. Panama is a perfect example of a dynamic, fast-growing economy with tremendous potential, just the type of economy our businesses need to engage with in order to succeed in the 21st century.

It should not be a surprise that Canadian businesses have already begun taking notice of this country's commercial potential. In 2011, our two-way merchandise trade totalled $235 million and this figure is rapidly growing. In fact, over the past five years bilateral merchandise trade between Canada and Panama has increased by 105%. Panama currently represents our second most important export destination in Central America. Number one is Costa Rica and we already have a free trade agreement there. It is clear that this thriving economy offers tremendous commercial opportunities for Canadian businesses, but what is even more impressive are the opportunities that lay ahead.

Panama continues to invest heavily in large strategic projects that will solidify its position as an important emerging market in the global economy. In addition to the widely reported $5.3 billion project to expand the Panama Canal, the Panamanian government is implementing a five-year infrastructure plan valued at $13.6 billion. Furthermore, under the strategic plan, the government of Panama has designated $2.8 billion for transportation infrastructure projects alone. Numerous infrastructure projects to build hospitals, social housing, bridges and airports are either already in progress or under consideration. Looking ahead, tendering processes for projects such as airport improvement and the construction of the fourth bridge over the Panama Canal are expected in the coming months.

Opportunities also exist in the energy sector, which is, as we all know, another area of expertise for Canadian companies. Panama's energy needs have increased significantly in recent years, with demand increasing 5% to 7% annually. The expansion of the Panama Canal and a large number of other private and public infrastructure projects have led to an aggressive road map for increasing the installed base of energy generation and transmission.

Canadian companies are acknowledged leaders in the development of these types of projects and clearly have the expertise to meet Panama's development plans. By implementing the Canada-Panama free trade agreement, our government will support Canadian companies looking to capitalize on these opportunities, by solidifying their ability to participate in large-scale infrastructure projects in Panama. The government procurement chapter in this agreement will guarantee that Canadian suppliers have non-discriminatory access to the broad range of government procurement opportunities in Panama and receive the same treatment as Panamanian firms when bidding for these opportunities.

Panama's vibrant market has been sparking interest in the business community across Canada. Canadian companies are eager to capitalize on these commercial opportunities. Our government is doing all it can to support Canadian companies. The opportunities are out there, and clearly Canadian firms have the expertise to succeed. It is our job to ensure they have access to these opportunities and are able to compete on a level playing field against foreign competitors.

With the United States-Panama free trade agreement entering into force on October 31 of this year, we must act quickly to implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement so Canadian companies can compete on a level playing field and continue to be successful in Panama. Despite the continued opposition of the Liberals and the NDP, our government is creating new opportunities for Canadian exporters.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I will ask her what is probably the easiest question she has had to answer in the House: does she approve of trade with a country that is considered to be a tax haven?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we know about Panama is that they are complying with the OECD and all of the requirements there. They are moving forward and have been designated as being on the white list.

What I do know is that free trade agreements are good for everyone. What we do know is that the rising tide lifts all boats, and so everyone stands to win out of a free trade agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is quite simple. The reality is that for many years Canada depended upon the United States for trade. It was 82% of our trade that crossed the border, north and south. Today 72% of our trade crosses the border north and south.

Our growth is outside of North America; it is not inside of North America. If we do not sign agreements with countries like Panama, if we do not look to the European Union, if we do not look to Japan, if we do not continue with this very aggressive free trade blitzkrieg, if you will, that we have had as a government, what will happen to our nation?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, trade has long been the history of Canada's success. If we look at the earliest Europeans who came here, we had the Hudson's Bay Company setting up trade with Europe from the very inception of their moving into Canada.

Trade is very important, and it is even more important now as we move into this global economy. We absolutely have to seek out new trade agreements and new places for our exporters to find markets. We are very aggressive on this. Our government is focused on it. We will continue to pursue these trade agreements.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague opposite for her speech. I heard only the end of it, but it seemed very interesting.

I have a very simple question for the member. My colleague from Sherbrooke talked about the fact that, despite everything that some people are saying, Panama is still considered a tax haven.

Panama does not appear on the list of countries with which Canada has signed tax information exchange agreements. Canada has signed hundreds of these agreements, but it has not signed any with Panama. It seems to me that it will be difficult to insist that Panama sign a tax information exchange agreement after a free trade agreement has been concluded.

Why did this government not think of that before putting this free trade agreement with Panama on the table?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, previously Panama was on the grey list of the OECD, but as of July 6, 2011, it has concluded the required number of 12 double taxation agreements, and the OECD has formally placed Panama on the list of jurisdictions that have substantially implemented the international standards for exchange of tax information, commonly known as the white list.

Is there more to be done? Yes, but we will work with Panama to see that happens.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP did refer to trade in its last platform. NDP members, in fact, referred to a $21 billion carbon tax. They are in favour of trade, but so often they are not in favour of trade because they forget it is not just the big companies that benefit from trade but the smaller companies. In my riding, it is the farmers. When we sign this free trade agreement, it will help the farmers in my riding who are growing beef and pork and products that will be processed locally and then shipped overseas.

I am urging my colleagues across the way to support it, at least for the farmers in their regions. Not many of them represent farming areas, but for even the ones who might have a bit around the edge, it would be good if they would support it. I ask my colleague if she would agree that this is crucial for our farming community in Canada.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. Even though I live in Newmarket, and Newmarket—Aurora is an urban centre now, we are surrounded by farming community. It is essential for our farming communities to have access to these new markets.

I thank my colleague for Kitchener—Conestoga for the question and for identifying that agriculture would win from this type of trade agreement.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues who have spoken so far 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. They have also done a fine job of explaining the NDP's position on this bill and why we oppose it.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24 on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. This is not the first time we have talked about this bill and opposed it. It was introduced in the House in the 40th Parliament, where it reached second reading stage. The bill died on the order paper because of the election, as we all know.

I will try to explain why the NDP opposes this bill and the trade agreements proposed therein.

The free trade agreement is worrisome given the controversies surrounding Panama's track record on respecting workers' rights, human rights and the environment and because Panama is used as a tax haven for tax evasion.

In our opinion, this agreement promotes the exploitation of workers and human rights. When the committee studied Bill C-46, we heard convincing testimony about the fact that Panama had a bad track record when it comes to workers' rights and that the side agreements on labour co-operation were very weak.

Teresa Healy, senior researcher with the social and economic policy department of the Canadian Labour Congress, said:

The Canada-Panama agreement does not include specific protection for the right of association 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.

On labour issues, the amendments are modest; there are no countervailing duties; there is no provision for abrogation or any other such remedy; and again, labour provisions are in a side agreement outside the main agreement.

She added:

I would like to say a few words about labour rights in Panama.

Panama has a population of about 3.4 million. It 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.

When we look at Panama's labour laws and the lack of protection for its working people, it amazes me that the Government of Canada is in such a hurry to sign an agreement with this country.

Teresa Healy of the Canadian Labour Congress testified before the committee about the labour co-operation agreement. She said that, although the agreement mentions the International Labour Organization's core labour standards, it is still too weak. What is more, in recent years, the Panamanian government has been increasingly harsh on labour unions and workers. We are convinced that this trade agreement does not respect the integrity of human rights.

The Government of Canada issued an official warning that can be found on the site for tourists and investors. It reads:

OFFICIAL WARNING: Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada advises against all travel beyond the town of Yaviza in Darién Province. The danger zone begins at the end of the Pan American Highway (past Yaviza, about 230 km southeast of Panama City) and ends at the Colombian border. This area includes parts of Darién National Park and privately owned nature reserves and tourist resorts. Due to the presence of Colombian guerrilla groups and drug traffickers, levels of violent crime in this zone are extremely high, with numerous reports of kidnapping, armed robberies, deaths and disappearances.

I would also like to add that Darién National Park is a nature reserve in the Darién region of Panama that has been a UNESCO world heritage site since 1981.

Darién National Park is the largest of Panama's national parks. It is connected to Los Katíos National Park in Colombia.

I would like to quote the hon. member for Newton—North Delta. When the bill reached second reading stage, she said:

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.

During the clause-by-clause review, the NDP member for Vancouver Kingsway proposed several amendments that would have made progressive changes to the bill. The changes would have integrated into the bill the protection of workers' rights, including the right to collective bargaining. Other amendments would have required the Minister of International Trade to consult workers and unions, as well as human rights experts and organizations, in order to conduct analyses of the impact of the trade agreement. That motion was rejected by the Conservatives and the Liberals.

As for respecting the environment, the agreement on the environment is an exact replica of environmental agreements we have signed before, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, the Rotterdam Convention on Trade in Hazardous Goods, and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

Canada and Panama have agreed to not weaken their environmental regulations in order to attract investment, and interested parties must ask the government to investigate suspected violations of environmental regulations. However, it is important to note that there are no financial penalties for non-compliance.

Panama is also a tax haven. In March 2012, Canada and Panama began negotiations on a tax information exchange agreement. However, this agreement has not yet been signed. A lot of money laundering goes on in Panama, particularly with money from drug trafficking. The lack of tax transparency in Panama led the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, to label this country as a tax haven. It is often necessary to know the name of the suspected tax evader in order to obtain tax information from the other country. Governments cannot easily access this information.

Before the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-24, the member for Vancouver Kingsway moved a motion in committee to postpone the implementation of the Canada-Panama trade agreement until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement. Once again, this motion was voted down by the Conservatives and the Liberals.

We want fair trade. In my riding, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, many people buy fair trade coffee. Do my colleagues have any idea what fair trade coffee is?

Panama is the smallest coffee producer in Central America. In the 2000s, the country experienced a coffee crisis. Producers banded together, and Panama's coffee was chosen as the best in the world for the first time in 2004. Fair trade coffee is the result of demand from consumers who all decided to make choices that would ensure that the producers receive fair payment for their product.

With this free trade agreement, we are worried that small producers will not end up processing or marketing their products. There is a very big risk of a third party taking over these steps, thus depriving the producer of the added value when selling the product. It is no easy task to protect one's business in a sector dominated by a handful of large-scale producers, and this is not a fair market.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for her very enlightening and well-researched speech. As usual, she has shown that she was very well prepared.

The many troubling facts about Panama lead us to ask many questions. Because of the problems she outlined, it is worrisome that the Republic of Panama adopted legislative amendments two years ago that prevent legal action against police in the event of certain abuses.

In light of everything she said, can my colleague tell us what she thinks of this unacceptable impunity of the Panamanian police?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.

Drug trafficking endangers public safety and obviously leads to a lack of transparency. Consequently, it is possible that some police officers, who should be responsible for public safety, become the bad guys.

If there was a tax system that required the country to provide the names of people who make investments or park large amounts of money without providing any information, we could prevent these types of corrupt situations.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, a little earlier in my speech I spoke about some of the enormous commercial opportunities that would take place in Panama. It is putting huge investments into infrastructure projects. I commented about the billions of dollars that would go into Panama. Even the expansion of the Panama Canal would allow opportunities for infrastructure dollars to go there.

We know the U.S.-Panama free trade agreement came into effect on October 31, essentially giving United States companies the opportunity to move into that market now. Therefore, with the expertise that we have in Quebec in the aerospace industry, in machinery, in agriculture, why would my colleague want to put Quebec companies behind the eight ball and not allow them access to bid on some of those contracts?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question.

What we have actually seen is the opposite scenario. Unfortunately, every time we sign free trade agreements with new countries, many of our businesses close up shop. That is what happened in the forestry sector, for example. Even the pharmaceutical sector is moving to a country where employees are paid less, their rights are not respected and where production will be less expensive. Thus, this will result in some of our businesses closing their doors.

This also affects our GDP and Canadians' quality of life. We are losing jobs, not gaining them, in those situations.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad for this opportunity to ask my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles a question, as I know she is deeply concerned about workers' rights in Québec and everywhere in Canada.

I was very surprised by some of the things I heard during the speeches, especially from the Conservative side. I remember that yesterday, my colleague from Hochelaga said that with this bill, workers will not be allowed to strike and, on top of that, employers will have the right to hire scabs. I have a very simple question.

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone can guess what my reply will be.

Workers' rights, their right to unionize and their right to defend their interests must be respected. People are being forced to work in so-called free zones, for terrible wages and terrible hours, for an unbelievable number of days and in unbelievable conditions. Indeed, the right of association must be promoted and respected.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement and the many benefits this agreement would bring for agriculture and agrifood producers and exporters.

First, I would like to emphasize that our Conservative government clearly understands that our standard of living and Canadians' future prosperity will be generated by a deepening and broadening of our trading relationships.

That is why our government is committed to securing and deepening access to traditional markets such as the United States, while broadening and expanding access to dynamic and fast growing economies around the world. Pursuing new trade opportunities is a win-win for Canada and its trading partners.

Canadians benefit from jobs, prosperity and consumer benefits that come from increased trade. In turn, our international partners, many of which represent developing economies, benefit from an ever-expanding middle class and improved standard of living that is lifting more of the world's population out of poverty.

We are also creating new opportunities for our exporters, opportunities that are bringing jobs, growth and long-term prosperity to hard-working Canadians across the country.

As Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector becomes more modern, more innovative and more competitive, the sector is becoming a more significant part of Canada's economy. In fact, in 2012 the agriculture and agri-food industry accounted for one of every eight jobs in Canada. This translated into employment for over two million Canadians. It also accounted for 8% of Canada's gross domestic product.

In 2011 Canada ranked as the fifth largest exporter of agriculture and agri-food products on the planet, thanks to exports totalling $41 billion. That is why our government works tirelessly to improve access to international markets for agricultural exporters.

Whereas over its 13 years in government the Liberals completed only three trade deals, in less than six years our government has concluded free trade agreements with nine countries. They are Colombia, Jordan, Panama, Peru, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland and Honduras. Sadly, the ideologically driven NDP has consistently opposed these agreements.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement we are debating today is another example of the actions our government is taking to support Canadians as they compete and win in the global economy.

Our government will ensure that Canadian agriculture and agri-food producers and exporters remain competitive with exporters to Panama. I want to emphasize why this is so important.

As members of the House are aware, Panama has also concluded free trade agreements with the United States and the European Union. Panama's free trade agreement with the European Union could enter into force as early as the end of this year. However, the United States-Panama free trade agreement entered into force just last week.

The United States is Canada's biggest competitor in Panama and many Canadian exports are in direct competition with those of the United States.

Canadian products are now at a competitive disadvantage as they continue to face duties while exports from the United States enjoy duty-free access. Over 87% of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods to Panama are entering that country duty-free. Our government will not let Canadians compete on an unlevel playing field. It is time the House finally passes this agreement.

Our agreement with Panama is a comprehensive agreement that covers market access for goods, including agriculture and agri-food products. In 2011 Canada exported nearly $25 million worth of agriculture and agri-food products to Panama.

Upon implementation of this agreement, high quality Canadian products such as beef, pork, malt, frozen potatoes, pulses, maple syrup and canola will benefit immediately from duty-free access to Panama. This will be welcome news for agriculture and agri-food exporters.

Let me cite one example. Canada's exporters of frozen french fries will benefit from the immediate elimination of Panama's tariffs of 20% 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.

It is curious that the member for Malpeque has suggested that in the past our government has exaggerated the benefits of the agreement. I would remind him that his home province of P.E.I. exported over $1 million of potatoes to Panama just last year.

Our pulse exporters will also benefit from this agreement. Tariffs of up to 15% will be eliminated with the implementation of this agreement.

Canadian malt exporters would benefit from the immediate elimination of Panamanian tariffs of up to 10%. Our pork sector would also benefit. Tariffs on pork products, such as fresh and chilled pork cuts and sausages, would also see immediate tariff elimination. Everyone knows the difficulty our pork producers have had in recent years. This is an industry that desperately needs this help.

In 2009, Panama re-opened its market to Canadian beef and in 2010 Panama lifted the last of its BSE-related limits on imports from Canada, including a ban on live cattle. This was good news for our beef exporters, and this agreement would bring them even further benefits. Under this agreement, Canada's beef exporters would see the immediate elimination of Panamanian tariffs ranging from 25% to 30% on all of Canada's beef cuts within a 200 ton tariff rate quota. Panama's tariffs on other agricultural exports, such as refined canola oil and refined sugar from Canada, would be eliminated over a period of five to fifteen years. This particular agreement would have ongoing and increasing benefits for agriculture and agrisector producers.

Those are just some of the benefits that our producers and exporters would see from this agreement. It is obvious that, for all of those reasons, the Canada–Panama agreement would be a win for Canadian agriproducers. It would create more Canadian jobs by enhancing our ability to export more goods and services to this dynamic and fast-growing market, including our agricultural goods.

I ask all members to join me in supporting this agreement.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the same question I asked earlier, but I will be more precise. I would appreciate a yes or no answer.

Putting specific countries aside, does the member think that Canada should sign a free trade agreement with a known tax haven? I am not asking for information about Panama specifically. Yes or no?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Panama, in particular, has actually done a lot of work to move itself to what we call “the white list”. It has completed several different components of the status that was given to it to complete before we did that. We continue to work with Panama, and it is working toward establishing itself as a country that will be on the white list, which will continue to improve some of these issues that the colleague opposite talks about.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing about the NDP that never ceases to amaze me is when it opposes free trade agreements with developing countries because it claims to be the party that helps the poor. However, its opposition to trade agreements with developing countries does nothing but keep those countries poor, which is really shameful on its behalf.

In terms of agriculture, I have the honour of representing the constituency that is the largest canola producing constituency in the country. I was very pleased to learn of the potential for the canola industry.

Would my hon. friend tell me about other markets for specialty agriculture products that may become available with this free trade agreement?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I look to my own riding in the northern part of Nova Scotia that hugely bases its economy on agriculture. We have pork producers have suffered greatly. One of the largest pork producers in Atlantic Canada is still in my riding. This would open up the Panama market to him. It would remove those barriers. It would actually level the playing field with the Americans who have just recently put their deal with Panama into force.

I look at the maple syrup producers in my riding, and there are literally hundreds. We are one of the largest producers of maple syrup. This would level the playing field so that they could export goods.

We look at our beef producers who have had such a difficult time since the BSE crisis in 2003. These trade deals opened up international markets that, until recently, were closed to them, and it levels the playing field with many other countries so they can now export their beef and continue to build this business which has been in such a great crisis.

Without a doubt, this deal is important for us to settle and settle right away. With the U.S. putting its deal into force last week, it has an advantage of getting into the supply chain now, knocking out our companies and taking away those particular agreements from companies that could exploit them. So we need to level the playing field with the United States and that necessitates that we pass this deal immediately.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to ask a question immediately after a colleague with whom I sat on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, where he and I had some very good discussions.

I would like the hon. member opposite's views on tax information exchange agreements. Canada is a champion in that respect. It has signed hundreds of such agreements with various countries.

We are currently signing a free-trade agreement, absent a tax information exchange agreement, with Panama, a country known to be a tax haven, even though it is no longer on the dreaded grey list.

What does the member opposite think about that?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague indicated, Panama has moved off the black list and onto the white list. Since March 2012, we have been negotiating a tax information deal with it.

All we need to do is look at what our agriculture exporters will face if we do not level the playing field with the United States. Just in the area of beef alone, hundreds of thousands of cows will probably move to Panama. If we do not level the playing field, we will not have access to that supply chain, to that market. On behalf of our beef producers alone, the sector of the agricultural community that has faced such a great crisis since the BSE crisis of 2003, we need to move on this quickly. I do not understand why my colleagues across the way are continuously trying to slow this deal down and hurt our beef producers.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the benefits for Canadian investors and service providers from the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

First, I would like to emphasize how disappointing it was to hear some of the comments yesterday from the members opposite. We have before us in this House the opportunity to bring a level playing field to our Canadian exporters. Today, as a result of the U.S.-Panama free trade agreement, they are at a disadvantage.

Our government is committed to giving our exporters the tools they need to compete on fair terms. I am surprised by the member for Malpeque, for example, who claims to support this agreement but called our bringing this legislation to a quick vote “absurd”. I am sure the exporters in his home province of Prince Edward Island, who are facing Panamanian tariffs while their American competitors have duty-free access, would have a thing or two to say about that.

I am not surprised by the rhetoric coming from the NDP members. They have been consistently anti-trade since the days of NAFTA. Now they are committed to voting against yet another free trade deal. Obviously, a leopard does not change its spots.

I would like to speak to the benefits of this free trade agreement for Canadian investors. Foreign investment is an integral component of today's modern economy. With one in ten Canadian jobs generated by foreign investment, our government understands that attracting new investment is critical to the long-term prosperity of our economy. Investment not only produces jobs but it increases the transfer of know-how and of efficiencies and economies of scale to host the economy. It contributes to our nation's competitive advantage, it enhances productivity and it promotes innovations.

The results speak for themselves. Investments with our partners, inward and outward, are essential to the long-term prosperity of our economy. They not only strengthen Canada's global competitiveness at home but also paves the way for new opportunities for Canadian companies overseas.

This is why it is important to build on our investment relationship with countries like Panama. In fact, Panama is already an established and growing destination for Canadian direct investment abroad, particularly in areas such as construction, mining, banking and financial services. There are enormous commercial opportunities for Canadian investors in Panama.

We are already seeing some of these major projects unfold. Canadian companies are demonstrating tremendous interest in Panama, partly as a result of the major government projects currently under way there. These projects include the building or improvement of ports, roads, hospitals, social housing projects, bridges and airports, which are part of the $13.6 billion Panamanian government strategic investment plan. Under this plan, there are a large number of infrastructure projects that will create new opportunities for Canadian businesses.

The current and future opportunities in Panama for Canadian investors illustrate just how important it is to enhance our investment relationship with countries like Panama. Once this agreement is implemented, Canadian investors in Panama will enjoy greater stability, transparency and protection for their investments.

The free trade agreement with Panama would provide investors from both countries with the benefits that come with enhanced investment obligations. These reciprocal commitments would serve to promote bilateral investment flow, which is crucial in linking Canada to global value chains.

The agreement provides a range of obligations to protect investment abroad through legally binding rights and obligations. The investment obligations of this agreement incorporate several key principles, and they include treatment that is non-discriminatory, protection against expropriation without compensation and the free transfer of funds. Through this agreement, investors would also have access to a transparent, impartial and binding dispute settlement mechanism. While this agreement would ensure that investors and their investments are protected, it would not prevent either Canada or Panama from regulating in the public interest with respect to health, safety and the environment.

Let us now turn our focus to Canadian service providers. Our services sector is a critical component of the engine of our economy. In total, it is responsible for more than 70% of our total GDP and more than three in four jobs in Canada. That is why I am very pleased to see that our free trade agreement with Panama includes important provisions covering services that would open new doors for Canadian service providers. Indeed, this free trade agreement contains strong provisions governing cross-border trade and services that would provide new market access by Canadian service providers to Panama's dynamic and rapidly growing market.

The agreement provides market access beyond Panama's obligations under the World Trade Organization's General Agreement on Trade in Services, particularly in areas of Canadian expertise and export interest, including mining and energy-related services, professional services, environmental services and information technology. Indeed, the free trade agreement we are debating here today contains substantive provisions governing cross-border trade and services, as well as providing a level market access similar to that afforded under the North American Free Trade Agreement. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement will provide a transparent, predictable and rules-based trading system to Canadian service providers, while ensuring they are treated equitably with Panamanian companies.

It is clear that Canadian service providers stand to benefit considerably from the implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. In 2009, Canadian commercial services exports to Panama amounted to $48 million. This agreement provides a great opportunity to take our current bilateral trade in services to a new level in the years ahead.

Closer economic integration with Panama promises to deliver further gains for Canadian exporters, investors and service providers. Canadians value the real and tangible benefits that this agreement will produce, and that is why Canadian businesses have been strongly advocating in favour of this agreement.

However, to take advantage of these opportunities, this House must pass the Canada-Panama free trade agreement tonight. With the United States-Panama free trade agreement now in force, the timely implementation of this free trade agreement is much more critical. That is why I urge all hon. members to support the implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague two questions.

There was a free trade agreement, and we studied it in committee. The NDP proposed some amendments, including to parallel agreements on the environment and on workers' rights.

My first question: Did the Conservatives act reasonably when they rejected every word of every amendment the NDP proposed in committee?

And my second question: Is that approach consistent with a desire to get the best possible outcome for Canadians? The Conservatives seem totally unable to listen to the official opposition and to negotiate with it.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this agreement provides for a whole myriad of areas in its present form, including ensuring that Canada and Panama work under a fair and free trade arrangement. It would also respect one another's jurisdictions, environmental issues and other concerns that people may have with these types of agreements.

However, there is always the scare tactics from the NDP: if we sign this deal, the world falls apart; if we sign this deal, the environment falls apart. These are the scare tactics we get from the NDP any time we want to bring a free trade agreement forward in the House of Commons. It is nonsense stuff that comes from that side. They do not even support any free trade agreements that are brought to this House in any event.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:44 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, November 6, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #492

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)