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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

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.

Third reading

[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.

[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.

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.

Bill C-24—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, what is so urgent? Maybe they want to see the American presidential election results. They probably want to get settled in at home as soon as possible.

There is a lot to say about free trade. In the past, 65% of the Canadian economy depended on the manufacturing sector. Now, that figure is 45%. Our economy fell 20% in the last three decades as a result of free trade agreements that did not benefit the manufacturing sector. This is because we cannot provide a social, economic and moral work environment to adapt to the competitive environment created by globalization in the 1990s.

That is why we want to discuss Bill C-24 more and we will continue to do so as long as possible to protect our small businesses, which drive regional economies. That is what is at stake here and there is no rush to do this today.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, in his earlier remarks, the House leader said he was mistaken on where the Liberal Party is at. No, he is not. Liberals have supported this agreement for a very long time. The need for time allocation on Bill C-24 is absurd.

This is a government—and the House leader acknowledged this in the House—that has failed completely to bring legislation through the House in a timely fashion. I hear him attacking the NDP. There are NDP members who sit on the committee and they have some legitimate concerns, but they also have a legitimate right to timely debate. I do not think they have been obstructionist. I do not see the need for time allocation. The government should allow the debate to go to its full extent.

It is interesting how the numbers work. This is an important deal and we are worried that the Americans have an agreement. This legislation is not law because the government delayed for 38 months, and the American agreement is coming into effect. He says exports have increased 20% over the last two years. Yes, they have, but how big is that? The Canada-Panama agreement is 3/100 of 1% of Canada's trade around the world. For the Conservatives to blow the numbers out of proportion as if it were the end of the world if we did not debate it properly is ridiculous, and the government itself should accept its responsibility. It cannot even abuse democracy in a way that makes sense. If it is going to abuse democracy, it should have done it 30 months ago and put the legislation through then.

My question to the House leader is this. Would he begin his answer with an apology for the mishandling of this legislation, bearing in mind that the Liberal Party has supported it in this Parliament and the previous Parliament, when the legislation could have been implemented if the government had done its job and allowed Parliament to operate as it should?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is following the Americans' lead. Well, the Americans waited until a tax information exchange agreement to address tax havens was signed before ratifying their agreement. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley mentioned this earlier.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway moved a motion to this effect before the international trade committee, calling for the government to wait until such an agreement was signed before passing this free trade agreement. Last Friday, when the minister was talking about Bill C-24, he said that negotiations were under way. Before ending this debate and passing this free trade agreement, why does the government not want to wait until an agreement is signed that would guarantee the protection of taxpayers and the exchange of financial information to crack down on tax havens?

This is a very important issue for people. All taxpayers must be treated equally, and something must be done about tax havens. That is what the Americans did, and we want to follow their example. Why not follow their example with regard to respect for the public and taxpayers?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation 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, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the second day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-24 Notice of Time Allocation

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Canada-Panama free trade agreement is implemented as soon as possible. We need to give Canadian workers and businesses more market access for their exports. Unfortunately, we find that the NDP is ideologically opposed to free trade, so it is not surprising that I must advise an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of 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. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[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—

[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.

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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, while I do not know anything about a so-called deal that the NDP House leader talked about, I do know the Conservative Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance announced a process she was going to recommend to the finance committee to allow study of the bill, which I understand was adopted yesterday. It is a large bill, but it is not as large, of course, as the one that the Leader of the Opposition had when he was part of the cabinet in Quebec.

However, that being said, it is important that it be studied.

Consequently, as our government proposed, next week, 11 committees, including the finance committee, will study the important and necessary economic measures proposed in Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012.

Yesterday, the finance committee got to work on this bill, not even 24 hours after the House passed it at second reading. This bill will implement key measures, like an extension of the small business hiring tax credit; and let me assure the House, it will definitely not implement the New Democrats' $21.5 billion, job-killing carbon tax.

Turning to business in the chamber, we will start second reading of Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, momentarily. I think it will be today.

Tomorrow, we will start report stage—and, ideally, third reading—of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act.

As a former trade minister, I can tell you that the NDP is opposed to free trade. They have made that clear numerous times by dragging out debate, delaying and voting against free trade agreements here in the House. In fact, the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior outlined his party's position when he stated that “trade agreements threaten the very existence of our nation.” That is the NDP position.

We will continue debating free trade with Panama next week, on Tuesday and Wednesday. This bill will finally put into law our free trade agreement—an agreement which was signed here in Ottawa almost two-and-a-half years ago.

On Monday, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, before question period. Based on the speeches we heard the last time it was before the House, I hope that these two extra hours of debate will be sufficient for it to proceed to committee.

After question period on Monday, we will see Bill C-36, the Protecting Canada's Seniors Act to combat elder abuse, considered at report stage and, hopefully, third reading.

Also Monday will be the day designated, pursuant to Standing Order 66(2)(a), for resuming the adjourned debate on the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Finally, next Thursday, we will consider Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act, which I understand was considered clause by clause at the human resources committee this morning. Given the unanimous endorsement the bill received at second reading, I hope it could pass and be sent to the other place before we rise for the constituency week.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I did want to be in accord with the official opposition and NDP House leader. However, my disappointment was that before we started debate on Bill C-45, what we first encountered was a delay tactic in the form of a concurrence motion brought by the Liberal Party. Indeed, that was very disappointing to us and a surprise because Bill C-45 is important. It is the government's top legislative priority for this fall. All parties know that. He is quite right that I did want to see it debated in substance in the House rather than see those kinds of tactics to avoid debate.

Bill C-45's measures will further Canada's economic recovery and ensure the foundation for more good-quality jobs on top of the over 820,000 net new jobs we have already had. It includes an extension of the highly successful small business hiring credit that is directly helping Canadian entrepreneurs create new jobs.

Unfortunately, we have seen the NDP take an anti-job creation position. Believe it or not, the NDP finance critic actually dismissed the hiring credit as yet again another across-the-board cut for small businesses.

We want to see taxes lowered. We do not want to see higher taxes or an NDP carbon tax. That is why we have a budget bill that keeps those taxes low.

I am pleased to say that we will be voting on C-45 on Tuesday night at second reading, which will give us the opportunity to send it to the finance committee for consideration. The parliamentary secretary for finance has made it clear that she will ask the finance committee to ask, I believe, 10 other committees to study elements of the bill and potentially make recommendations with respect to changes or adopt its contents. The opposition and government members are free to make amendments at committee based on their own study as well as on the studies of those other committees. Therefore, there will be ample study of the bill and that is good for all.

Bill C-45 will continue to be debated this afternoon, tomorrow, Monday, and Tuesday. As I said, the vote on the bill will take place on Tuesday evening.

On Wednesday, we will take up report stage—and, hopefully, third reading—of Bill C-28, the Financial Literacy Leader Act. Should we be able to make quick work of that debate, the House will take up Bill C-12, the Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act, at second reading.

On Thursday morning, the House will consider second reading of Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. And, after question period, we will turn to Bill S-8, the Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, also at second reading.

Finally, on Friday, we will start report stage of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act. This bill would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Panama—an agreement whose time has long come. In fact, when I was the public safety minister, I was honoured to be present when the Prime Minister concluded negotiations in Panama City, some 38 months ago.

International Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, in relation to Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Chairman, this motion reads as follows:

That the Committee:

recommend that the Government of Canada negotiate an agreement with the Government of Panama that would provide for financial penalties of up to $50 million per violation of the Agreement on the Environment contained in Bill C-24;

report this to the House of Commons; and

notwithstanding the Order adopted by the Committee on Thursday, September 27, 2012, postpone its consideration of Bill C-24 until this agreement is signed.

I will give the committee the rationale behind this motion.

As we all know, and as was confirmed by our witnesses who are here with us today from the department, in the labour and environmental side agreements of the Canada-Panama trade deal there are in the labour part financial penalties of up to $15 million for any violation of the labour side agreement.

Of course, these agreements are something the opposition cares deeply about, and the government has responded that they are the types of comfort provisions Canadians can look to in ensuring that when we make an agreement with a country such as Panama, they will respect and will try to improve their labour and environmental standards, or at least not reduce them as a means of attracting trade and investment.

However, funnily enough, there is zero penalty in the environmental side agreement, which leads in our view to a perverse situation in which we've just signed an agreement under which a country such as Panama, which has some significant environmental sensitivities that I will talk about briefly in a moment, if it violates the terms of the environmental side agreement and lowers its standards to attract trade, will attract a penalty of exactly zero—not a nickel. We can talk, we can bring it up, we can complain, but there is zero penalty.

One thing I will give the government a lot of credit for is that they have presented a legislative agenda over the last five or six years that seeks to really impose responsibility on people who would break agreements and break the law, but in this case you could have a party to an agreement flagrantly and brazenly break the terms of agreement and there would be no financial penalty whatsoever.

Now, in terms of the environment, we heard testimony from MiningWatch. Whatever else can be said of the entirety of the testimony, we know that there is significant mining activity and other activity in Panama that is economically beneficial but that creates environmental concerns. We know there are extremely sensitive environmental areas in Panama, including the Meso-American biological corridor, which we have heard about; there are UN-protected sites; there are hundreds and hundreds of species at risk.

To me it would seem, if we really want to make sure that Panama and Canada live up to the environmental commitments they have made in these agreements, that we should back them up with some sort of meaningful penalty in the event that they are breached.

I certainly hope they are never breached and that the penalty would never need to be implemented, but to sign an agreement that has absolutely no enforcement teeth is wrong. I think it reflects a complete lack of concern for the environment.

If we really do say that environmental side agreements are important to us, and if we want to make sure that parties, as a result of trade and investment, improve their environmental standards and concern for the environment, then we have to demonstrate our resolve by showing that we are serious and that we will back them up with meaningful sanctions in the case that there is a violation.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, this is the first of the two motions that I'll move:That, notwithstanding the Order adopted by the Committee on Thursday, September 27, 2012, the Committee postpone its clause by clause consideration of Bill C-24 until Canada and Panama have signed a tax information exchange agreement.

I'll briefly explain the purpose and reasoning for this motion, Mr. Chair. One of the major considerations as this agreement has come before Parliament in the past has been Panama's reputation as being a known tax haven, a place where offshore money can be hidden in banks without disclosure to other countries. That concern has been exacerbated by the fact that illicit money from illegal activities, notably the drug trade, has also been identified to have flowed into Panama, leading to a concern that investment money that goes into Panama could fly out of Panama and go to other jurisdictions, including Canada.

We've heard evidence that the situation seems to be improving since this agreement came before the committee. We understand that Panama has been removed from the so-called grey list because it has signed 12 tax information exchange agreements with countries. That's enough to remove it from the grey list.

I understand from the witnesses we've heard that Panama and Canada have been negotiating a tax information exchange agreement. I reviewed the previous testimony before this committee and found that Panama was resistant to Canada's request that we sign such an exchange agreement.

It's important that Canada and Panama have the ability to exchange tax information as a means of stopping the laundering of illegal money and to ensure that Panama is not a tax haven. Again, to Panama's credit, we heard from the ambassador that the negotiations are at a fairly advanced stage. I formed the impression that they were near completion.

My research indicates that the U.S. Congress went in the reverse of this Parliament. Because of Panama's history as a tax haven and drug-laundering centre or attraction, the U.S. Congress required that a tax information exchange agreement be signed before they would sign off on a trade agreement. The reasoning is pretty obvious. Until you have a tax exchange information agreement, you really have no way of opening up the Panamanian banking system or tax system to scrutiny by our jurisdiction; therefore, you don't know if money flowing into Canada is flowing in from drug cartels or other illicit activities.

This motion essentially agrees with the same responsible position of the U.S. Congress, which is that whatever the merits of signing a trade agreement are—and I understand the government is fully behind such—I think we all agree that a tax information exchange agreement is an important part of the puzzle.

I think it's only prudent that we, as parliamentarians, reassure Canadians that such an agreement is in place so that we can rest assured that any concerns regarding status as a tax haven or a drug-laundering centre are taken care of prior to signing a trade agreement that will see the flow of investment—presumably from Panama into Canada and Canada into Panama—at increased levels.

I'd urge all members of the committee to vote in favour of this motion. It doesn't mean this Parliament won't pass a trade agreement; I think it just puts it in the right order, and puts prudence and care before haste.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I call the meeting back to order.

We want to first of all thank the department for being here. We almost know them by their first names. It's good to have you with us as we go through clause-by-clause consideration of this very important piece of legislation. It has passed the committee once before—actually, maybe even twice. Not much has changed except the timeline.

We're dealing with clause-by-clause study of 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.

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I call the meeting to order.

We want to thank the department for being here again for a second hour. We look forward to your testimony.

I know you have some brief opening remarks, Mr. MacKay, so I will yield you the floor.

We are dealing with Bill C-24, concerning the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama. We look forward to clause-by-clause on Thursday, so we look forward to your informing the committee concerning whatever questions we might have. I'm sure there will be a few.

The floor is yours, sir.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes. I move that all the words after "2012" in the third line of the first paragraph be struck so that it reads, "that the committee begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24 on Thursday, October 4, 2012,".

Then it carries on with the second paragraph: "that if the clause-by-clause consideration has not been completed”, there would be no further debate, and the rest would read the same. It would just eliminate the part about limiting debate to five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I call the meeting to order.

We are working on Bill C-24, the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

We want to thank our witnesses for being here.

From the Embassy of Panama in Canada, we have with us Ambassador Corona. Thank you for being here.

Before we get to our witnesses, we have a motion for which we need unanimous consent to bring forward because of the timing.

Do we have unanimous consent to bring it forward?

[Cameron MacKay, Director General, China Trade Policy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to appear before the committee and speak to Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

My name is Cameron MacKay, and I was the chief negotiator for the free trade agreement, or FTA, in 2008-09. I am currently the director general of the China Trade Policy Bureau of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I am joined today by a few colleagues.

John O'Neill is director of the investment trade policy division, and Jeff Marder,

also from Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada.

Jeff is director of the bilateral relations division with respect to Panama and Central America.

Also with me is Pierre Bouchard, from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, as well as Alain Castonguay, from Finance Canada.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is a concrete demonstration of the government's commitment to an ambitious bilateral and regional pro-trade plan, consistent with both the global commerce strategy and the Americas strategy. To compete and succeed in international markets in this hemisphere and beyond, Canadian companies need a level playing field with respect to tariffs and market access. The Canada-Panama FTA achieves that goal.

Panama's economy is small, but by virtue of its geographic location, it occupies a strategic position in the global trading system, with approximately 5% of global trade transiting via the Panama Canal. That is why Panama is often referred to as the gateway to Latin America, and represents an entry point and logistics hub for the broader Latin American market.

Panama is also a high-growth emerging market. According to the World Bank, Panama's GDP growth rate over the past five years, from 2007 to 2011, was 10.6%. The IMF forecast for 2012 is 7.5% growth. That means Panama is the fastest-growing economy in Latin America, and, according to the IMF, is expected to grow by over 6% per year during the next five years. Clearly there are opportunities there for Canadian businesses.

But Canadian companies face some stiff competition in this dynamic market. Like Canada, Panama is a strong proponent of open and free markets, and has an active and ambitious free trade agenda. Late last year, President Obama signed the United States-Panama FTA into law, and that agreement could enter into force as early as this October.

Panama has also concluded FTA negotiations with the European Union, and is negotiating an FTA with the European Free Trade Association.

In fact, Canadian companies are already well aware of Panama's potential and are increasingly active there. In 2011, two-way trade in merchandise between Canada and Panama totalled $235 million. Canadian merchandise exports were valued at $111 million, while merchandise imports were valued at $124 million. Canada's two-way merchandise trade with Panama has grown by 78% over the last two years.

Key Canadian exports driving our merchandise trade with Panama include machinery, precious stones and metals, meat, aerospace products, mineral fuels and oils, fruits and vegetables, and electrical and electronic equipment. While the overall size of our trading relationship may not be large when compared with other partners, it is important to recall that Panama's robust economic growth bodes well for expansion.

It was against this backdrop that Canada sought and obtained a high-quality, comprehensive FTA with Panama. Both parties were highly motivated to conclude an ambitious deal. Negotiations were launched in 2008 and concluded a year later in 2009.

If Parliament agrees to implement this FTA, it will help Canadian companies take advantage of the opportunities offered by Panama's growing economy by immediately eliminating Panamanian tariffs on 95% of recent non-agricultural imports from Canada and 78% of agricultural imports. Tariffs on most other products will be eliminated over time, although both countries agreed to exclude a small number of goods, such as Canada's over-quota tariffs for dairy, poultry, and egg products.

This agreement will produce benefits for all parts of Canada, including pork producers in Quebec, frozen French fry producers in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, as well as pulse and cereal producers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Canadian investors would also benefit from the FTA's implementation. Panama is already a popular destination for Canadian commercial interests, particularly in such areas as banking and financial services, consulting services, construction, and mining. Some of the Canadian companies with an existing presence in this market include McCain Foods, Scotiabank, Inmet Mining, SNC-Lavalin, and Golder Associates, an Ontario company providing consulting, design, and construction services.

The FTA will establish a stable legal framework to support Canadian investments in Panama, including guaranteeing the transfer of investment capital and protecting investors against expropriation. Investors will also have access to transparent and impartial dispute settlement procedures.

The number of Canadian companies active in the country is also expected to grow in the years ahead, in part owing to the many infrastructure projects planned by the Panamanian government and the private sector.

You may know that Panama's $5.3-billion canal expansion project is expected to be completed by 2014 and is projected to boost cargo flow by roughly 35% through 2025. With the Panamanian government investing in its country's growth and strategic importance, procurement opportunities are another key driver for the negotiation of a free trade agreement with Panama.

I am pleased to say that the government procurement provisions in the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement guarantee that Canadian suppliers have non-discriminatory access to a broad range of government procurement opportunities, including those under the responsibility of the Panama Canal Authority. Ongoing operation and maintenance of the canal is expected to generate ongoing opportunities for Canadian companies.

Along with the canal expansion, the Panamanian government has a five-year, $13.6 billion strategic investment plan, including $9.6 billion that will be allocated to infrastructure investments. As we know, Canadian companies are proven world leaders in infrastructure development projects. The FTA will help Canadian investors and service providers to compete for these opportunities on a level playing field against their competitors.

As I mentioned earlier, Canada's service sector also stands to benefit from a free trade agreement with Panama. In 2009, the last year statistics were available, Canadian commercial service exports were approximately $48 million a year, with room to grow. This figure is likely to be propelled by Canadian financial, engineering, professional, and information and communications technology service providers. The FTA will provide service providers like these with a secure, transparent, and rules-based trading environment.

Finally, in keeping with Canada's approach to free trade agreements, Canada negotiated side agreements on labour and the environment. These agreements will help ensure that neither side will weaken existing commitments on the environment or labour in order to gain a competitive advantage with regard to international trade.

Mr. Chair, Canadian companies that do business abroad rely on fair, transparent, predictable and non-discriminatory trade rules. In the case of Panama, Canadian companies have indicated that they want to increase their activity in that market. With the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement, we are looking to provide the rules they need so they can compete and succeed abroad, while building a stronger economy here at home.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My team and I would be pleased to take your questions.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the second reading stage of Bill C-24.

The House resumed from June 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I admit that I rise today in this House with a certain amount of anxiety to state my views concerning Bill C-24, an act to implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

Obviously, this legislation is very important for the people of Canada and Panama. If it is enacted, there will be many lasting consequences, and they will not necessarily be positive. Before telling my colleagues what I really think, however, I believe it would be a good idea to give an overview of what is really in this bill.

First, the negotiations between Canada and Panama addressed a number of major changes to trade relations between the two countries. Several points drew my attention. First, it provides that Canada would eliminate all customs duties on non-agricultural products, and the vast majority of duties on agricultural products.

The best estimates available indicate that this means that 99% of customs duties on Panamanian imports would disappear with the stroke of a pen. Over a 15-year period, once the agreement is ratified, other duties would also be gradually eliminated.

The various products that would still be subject to customs duty include dairy products, poultry and eggs, and certain products containing sugar. In return, about 90% of Canadian exports to Panama would be exempt from customs duty. Obviously, that 90% includes numerous agricultural products.

At the end of a 5- to 10-year period, it will be possible to export most agricultural products, in fact virtually all of those products, free of customs duty. Knowing that at present, Panama’s customs duties come to nearly 70% on certain agricultural products, we can understand how significant the consequences of ratifying this agreement will be for both countries.

Apart from agricultural products, there will be a series of equally important changes if the agreement is ratified in this House. Those that cause the most concern obviously include the expansion of free trade in the service sector, such as information technologies, for example, and also increased access to government contracts in both countries. The agreement also addresses other points. For example, it mentions an agreement on the environment, an agreement on labour and provisions dealing with investments.

As we can see, this agreement is very wide-ranging and will have consequences for many different spheres of society. Earlier I mentioned agriculture, the services sector, government procurement, the environment, investment and labour law. It will have major consequences.

For this reason, I believe we should think long and hard about the agreement before deciding whether or not to support it. This is what I and my party have done. We have been watching the negotiations leading to Bill C-24, which we are currently studying. We were also in attendance at the meeting of stakeholders and experts.

Our analysis of these many discussions has had a chilling effect on our support. Above all, we heard a great deal of very convincing evidence that Panama is a tax haven. According to Todd Tucker, research director at Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, Panama is home to an estimated 400,000 corporations, including many offshore corporations and multinational subsidiaries. In comparison, as just one example, this is four times the number of corporations registered in Canada. It is a number that speaks volumes.

According to the OECD, the government of Panama does not have the legal resources to efficiently verify the essential information concerning these corporations, including the information with regard to their capital structure. When we are talking about tax havens, needless to say, it is obvious that caution needs to be exercised.

This is also the reason why my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, put forward a number of amendments that would help to resolve part of this issue. Unfortunately, the Conservative government, with the support of the Liberals, refused to listen, as it was probably too blinded by its ideology and by its disregard for compromise.

Another aspect that I have serious problems with is the rights of workers. In fact, the agreement we are examining today gives no specific protection to the right of association or the right to strike. A number of stakeholders raised this issue during the consultations. There is cause for concern, especially since the fines prescribed in the event of infractions are virtually non-existent.

We must be very aware of Panama's specific context in order to see how the rights of workers will be impaired by this agreement. Recently, demonstrations and strikes were held in Panama when the government made a full frontal attack on the rights of workers. Some of the government's repressive measures included the authorization to bring in strikebreakers, an end to environmental studies for certain projects and a prohibition on collecting mandatory union dues.

During the demonstrations in Panama, the police used excessive force to suppress protests. Six demonstrators were killed during confrontations with the police and 300 union leaders were detained. This is particularly worrisome if we consider that, with the government we have right now, workers are losing more and more of their rights. I therefore do not see how it will be useful to support a free trade agreement that does not respect workers' rights. Unfortunately, the state of workers' rights in Panama is far from rosy.

We have every reason to be concerned given that the free trade agreement set out in Bill C-24 will likely make the situation worse rather than better.

Once again, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster proposed sound and intelligent amendments to fill this gaping hole in the agreement. These amendments could have protected unionized workers by guaranteeing them the right to bargain collectively. These amendments also would have required Canada's Minister of International Trade to speak with union representatives on a regular basis, which is a healthy thing in a balanced democracy.

It is nothing, for a democratic country like Canada, to make demands when signing a free trade agreement. That seems obvious. But the government simply brushed off my colleague's suggestions, which were realistic and showed a lot of compromise.

For all of the reasons I just listed, my party and I are opposed to Bill C-24. The NDP has always opposed trade models like this one. We saw it with NAFTA. These agreements put the interests of multinational corporations ahead of the interests of workers and the environment, which is unacceptable. They also promote inequalities and erode the quality of life of people and honest workers. It is not surprising that this government is pushing so hard for this agreement. It is rather ironic, though.

The agreement we are studying today is another step in the strategy adopted by Canada and the United States, which focuses on serial bilateralism through the use of trade agreements that are unfair to honest people, as I already mentioned. For a long time, the NDP has been preparing and suggesting a multilateral approach based on a fair, sustainable model that respects the environment and workers.

I urge my House of Commons colleagues to carefully consider the consequences of passing Bill C-24. I do not think we should pass it. This agreement will not help honest workers. The government has been utterly uncompromising and has rejected all of my colleague's fitting amendments.

I will never vote in favour of such an unfair agreement.

[For continuation of proceedings see part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from part A]

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that the question be now put.

CANADA-PANAMA ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise today to support Bill C-24, the act to implement the Canada–Panama free trade agreement and in support of our government's pro-job, pro-trade agenda.

As an export-driven economy, Canada needs open borders. With one in five Canadian jobs generated by international trade, our government's ambitious pro-trade plan is essential to bring continued prosperity to Canadians. That is why deepening and strengthening Canada's trading relationships in dynamic markets, such as Panama, is an important part of our government's plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Canada and Panama have a history of strong bilateral relations. Canada established diplomatic relations with Panama in 1961 in recognition of the growing political and economic ties and to promote political trade and investment relations between Canada and Panama. Canada then opened its embassy in Panama in 1995.

Export Development Canada's regional office opened in the Canadian embassy in Panama in September 2010 and now covers all of Central America and the Caribbean. This decision endorses Panama's potential to become the Singapore of the Americas. It also echos other respects in which our embassy has adopted a regional mandate. In 2011 EDC supported more than 100 Canadian companies in Panama.

Apart from our physical presence, Canada and Panama also speak to each other in multilateral fora, such as the World Trade Organization. Panama acceded to the WTO in 1997. As a WTO member, Panama grants most favoured nation treatment to all of its trading partners and has bilateral investment treaties with 16 countries.

One of these investment protection agreements was with Canada and it came into force in 1998 as a means to deepen our commercial relationship by extending to Canadian investors legally binding rights, including provisions to protect them from expropriation without fair, adequate and prompt compensation and the freedom to transfer capital internationally.

Canada and Panama also have concluded an air transport agreement in order to facilitate greater travel between our two countries. Copa Airlines, Panama's national carrier and a prominent regional airline, has now launched four weekly direct scheduled flights to Toronto. This improved service will facilitate travel and people-to-people ties for nearly 100,000 Canadian visitors a year and an estimated 5,000 Canadian residents in Panama.

This year we are also negotiating a tax information exchange agreement with Panama. To combat international tax evasion, Panama committed in 2002 to implement the OECD standard for the exchange of tax information. Panama has now substantially implemented the OECD standard through the conclusion of more than 12 double taxation agreements or tax information exchange agreements that include the OECD standard. Like a double taxation agreement, a tax information exchange agreement will also have important benefit for investors.

The result of these initiatives for Canadians in recent years is bilateral trade between Canada and Panama has been steadily growing. From just under $50 million in total trade in 2002, we were up to a total of $235 million per year by 2011. We are now in 15th position as a supplier of goods to Panama. Much of this is very diversified and includes pork, vegetables and vegetable preparations, vegetable oils, industrial machinery, electrical and electronic—

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. I will spend a few minutes talking about how this agreement fits into our government's broader economic plan.

The one thing we always need to keep in context is that free trade agreements, while they are important, fit into a much larger plan of what our government is trying to accomplish. We have been working on a number of free trade deals, which I will touch on in a bit, but I also want to comment on the fact that we continue to lower corporate taxes to one of the lowest levels in any of the G7 or G8 countries. That is important as we look at trying to attract other investments and corporations for jobs.

There are other things we are doing. We are continuing to work on deals with the U.S. to try to get goods and services flowing quicker at the borders. A historic deal was announced just this week. The Prime Minister was able to make a deal in Windsor, which is hugely important in trying to get our goods and services across to the U.S., our largest trading partner. We continue to invest in research and development. We realize that new jobs will come as we are able to commercialize technology. That is why we continue to spend money on research and development and ensure we are getting the best bang for the buck.

We have been trying to reduce red tape. The Red Tape Reduction Commission talked to business owners and business people across the country to try to figure out how to reduce irritants so that Canada could become a friendly place to do business. It already does a great job. I think one of the differences between us and some of the other parties in the House is that we realize that we need to continue to find ways to sell our goods and services around the world. Sixty per cent of our GDP depends strictly on trade. With a population between 30 million and 35 million people, there is no way that we can consume all of our goods. Therefore, we need to continue to expand those markets. Tat is why I appreciate the opportunity to talk a bit more about this Panama free trade deal.

We understand the importance of benefits of trade. As I mentioned before, we are an export-driven economy and we need open borders. With one in five Canadian jobs dependent on international trade, bilateral and regional trade agreements are essential to bringing continued prosperity to Canadians. That is why deepening Canada's trading relationships is rapidly growing, and markets around the world, such as Panama, are important parts of this government's pro-trade plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

With a GDP of over $30 billion and a GDP per capita of over $10,000, Panama is among the fastest growing and best managed countries in Latin America. In fact, the Latin Business Chronicle has predicted that Panama will be the fastest growing economy in Latin America in the five year period from 2010 to 2014, matching Brazil's rate of growth of 10%.

Like most countries in the region, however, Panama is feeling the impact of the global financial crisis, which threatens to undermine the social gains made in the past few years. That said, the expansion project of the Panama Canal, combined with the conclusion of a free trade agreement with the United States, is expected to boost and extend economic expansion for some time.

As a former member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I had the pleasure of visiting Panama in 2008 with my committee colleagues. I want to mention, since Lee Richardson, who was the chair of the committee at the time, is no longer in the House, that it was a pleasure travelling with Lee to Panama and he did a great job leading the delegation. He is certainly a colleague that we will miss in the House. I want to wish him all the best as he starts his work in Alberta.

While in Panama, we had a chance to visit the Panama Canal. One really cannot appreciate the sheer scale of this 97-year-old architectural marvel until one gets to witness it in person. The Panama Canal is an 82 kilometre ship canal that connects the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific via the Caribbean Sea. It is one of the largest and most difficult engineering projects ever undertaken. The Panama Canal is a shortcut that allows for shorter, faster and safer access to the North American west coast, allowing those places, including Canada, to become more integrated with the world economy.

The Panama Canal has an annual traffic of over 14,000 trips, carrying about 300 million tonnes of goods annually, raising close to $2 billion in revenue for the Panamanian government. The Panama Canal expansion project, which is currently under way, will double the capacity of the Panama Canal, allowing more and larger ships to transit.

New components include the construction of the two lock complexes, the excavation of new access channels to the new locks and the widening and deepening of the navigation channels. The project is expected to be completed in 2014. Interestingly, this expansion was approved in 2007 by Panama's cabinet and national assembly with a national referendum in which 77% of Panamanians voted to support this project.

The Panama Canal Authority estimated the cost to construct the third set of locks at approximately $5.25 billion. This estimate includes design, administrative, construction and testing. As with most projects of this scale, there are opponents who contend that the project is based on uncertain projections about maritime trade and the world economy and that the project will cost more than the $5.25 billion price tag.

Again, according to the Panama Canal Authority, the third set of locks is financially profitable and will produce a 12% internal rate of return, which will help to continue to finance the project and will be a cash flow for the country as it moves forward.

Recent challenges in concluding the World Trade Organization Doha round regional and bilateral trade agreements have taken on increased significance. Our government recognizes that there are a growing number of countries where Canadian companies are at a competitive disadvantage because their competitors have preferential market access under some form of preferential trade agreement.

Canada cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while other countries vigorously pursue trade deals to secure better market access for their products and services. That is why our government is in the midst of the most ambitious pursuit of new and expanded trade and investments agreements in Canadian history. The Canada–Panama free trade agreement is yet another step this government is taking to help Canadians compete and succeed in a global economy. It supports the global commerce strategy which will ensure that Canada maintains its current economic strength and prosperity in an increasingly complex and competitive global economy.

With 60% of our GDP dependent on trade, it is clear that jobs in communities across Canada depend on the business we do with other countries. This government's pro-trade plan is an essential contributor to Canada's prosperity, productivity and growth.

By improving access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses, we are supporting domestic economic growth and creating new opportunities for Canadian workers. Canada's exporters, investors and service providers are calling for these opportunities. Business owners and entrepreneurs want access to global markets. This government is committed to expanding the various opportunities created by free trade agreements. Our track record speaks for itself.

Since 2006, Canada has concluded new free trade deals with nine countries: Colombia, Jordan and Peru; the European Trade Association member states of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland; and, most recently, with Honduras and, of course, Panama We are negotiating many more, including with the European Union.

A deal with the European Union would represent the most significant Canadian trade initiative since the North American Free Trade Agreement and could potentially boost our bilateral trade with this important partner by 20%. It could also provide $12 billion annually to boost the Canadian economy, which is equivalent to a $1,000 increase to the average Canadian family income or almost 80,000 new jobs.

Canadian companies recognize the many benefits to workers and businesses that a Canada–E.U. trade deal would bring.

We are also intensifying our focus on Asia. During the Prime Minister's visit to China in February 2012, leaders announced that Canada and China would proceed to exploratory discussions on deepening trade and economic relations on the completion of the bilateral economic study. Also, just this past March, the Prime Minister announced and launched the negotiations toward a free trade agreement with Japan and the start of exploratory discussions with Thailand. This week, the possible participation in the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations was also announced.

This free trade agreement would also better enable Canadian companies to participate in large projects.

For all those reasons, the proposed Canada–Panama agreement is a good deal. The agreement will support more Canadian jobs by enhancing our ability to export more goods and services to this market. This is why the implementation of a free trade agreement is a priority for this government.

I ask all hon. members to support Bill C-24, the legislation to implement the Canada–Panama free trade agreement and the parallel labour co-operation and environment agreements.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Devinder Shory, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-24 , the Canada–Panama free trade agreement. This is a trade agreement that would help Canadians from all regions of the country, including the hard-working people of Calgary Northeast.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement would level the playing field for Canadian businesses in Panama. As we all know, healthy Canadian businesses produce jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. Seeing as how Panama has negotiated a few free trade agreements in recent years, Canadian companies are currently at a disadvantage in Panama because many of their competitors have better market access under one of Panama's recent free trade agreements.

In March 2011, six Central American countries, including Panama, initialled an association agreement with the European Union. The agreement includes a section on trade, which will reduce tariffs on European goods such as machinery and transport equipment, goods that are also key Canadian exports to Panama.

In addition, since 2003, Panama has signed and implemented free trade agreements with Chile, Peru, Singapore and Taiwan. However, it is not just these trade agreements against which we are competing.

The United States is our friend but it is also a competitor. The U.S. signed a comprehensive free trade agreement with Panama in 2007. It has been ratified by both Panama and the U.S. and it is expected to come into force before the end of 2012. Once that agreement is brought into force, over 87% of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods and nearly 56% of American agriculture exports to Panama will become duty-free immediately. Canadian producers of pork, potatoes and other goods will be hard pressed to succeed in the Panamanian market if their American competitors enjoy such duty-free access while we do not.

I am sure my hon. colleagues will agree that we must take steps to maintain Canada's competitiveness in Panama. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement would do just that. By removing the majority of tariff barriers faced by Canadians goods exported to Panama, this agreement would help Canadians succeed in one of Latin America's most dynamic and rapidly growing economies.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement would also help Canadian companies bid competitively on major government procurement contracts, including projects related to the $5.3 billion U.S. expansion of the Panama Canal. If we in the House believe that Canadian exporters and investors are among the best in the world, we must help them prosper by ensuring that they are not disadvantaged in the Panamanian market. The opportunities are there and it is our job to help Canadians take advantage of them.

Now I will turn to the second set of benefits that the Canada-Panama free trade agreement would provide. As members know, Canada is a country of many regions. Tariff concessions under the Canada-Panama free trade agreement would make Canadian goods from every region more competitive in Panama's market, bringing economic benefits to every province.

Permit me to briefly remind the House of a few specific benefits that this agreement would have for exporters across Canada.

When I migrated to Canada, Quebec was my first home. That is where I met my wife Neetu. Our first son Jatin was born in Montreal on January 15, 1991. It is a beautiful part of Canada and a province that would benefit from this trade agreement. Quebec pork producers would enjoy immediate duty-free access to the Panamanian market. Panama's tariffs on pork currently range up to 70%.

Quebec producers of industrial and construction machinery would benefit from the immediate elimination of Panama's current tariffs, which are as high as 15%. Quebec firms in the pharmaceutical and aerospace sectors would also enjoy duty-free access to Panama. Panamanian tariffs in these sectors currently range up to 11% for pharmaceuticals, and up to 15% in the aerospace sector.

Therefore, I urge all Quebec members to stand up for Quebec producers and to vote in favour of this agreement.

In Ontario, the free trade agreement would benefit exporters through the elimination of Panama's tariffs on industrial and construction machinery. Ontario exporters of electrical and electronic equipment which currently face tariffs of up to 15% would also enjoy immediate duty-free access to the Panamanian market. Other sectors of export interest for Ontario include pharmaceuticals, chemicals and furniture. In all of these sectors, Panama will immediately eliminate its current tariffs when the free trade agreement comes into force. I know that the Leader of the Opposition likes to blame all manufacturing slowdowns on other provinces, but supporting this agreement is one real way, an easy, honest way, that the NDP can stand up for Ontario manufacturers and exporters.

In B.C., where I also lived before settling in Alberta, exporters would benefit from the immediate elimination of tariffs on goods such as paper and paperboard, processed food products and wine. Exporters in my home province of Alberta would enjoy duty-free access for industrial and construction machinery, and power-generating machinery.

In grain-growing provinces like Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, farmers of oilseeds, pulses and cereals would benefit from the immediate elimination of Panama's tariffs, some as high as 40%, on their products.

Let us jump back east. In Atlantic Canada, exporters would benefit from the immediate reduction of Panama's tariffs on paper and paperboard. Current tariffs on these products range as high as 15%.

Panama would also eliminate its tariffs on fish and seafood, which range up to 15%, and frozen french fries, which range up to 20%. As we know, french fry superstar McCain Foods is fast becoming a global player, and recently I had the pleasure of touring one of its facilities in Gujarat, India with our hard-working Minister of International Trade. Let us not stand in its path to success with Panama.

Other sectors of interest for Atlantic Canadian exporters that would receive duty-free access under the Canada-Panama free trade agreement include plastic, electrical and electronic equipment, and information and communication technology.

These represent just a few of the ways that Canadians would benefit from this free trade agreement, but before workers and businesses across Canada can take advantage of these new opportunities, we must do our part and pass Bill C-24. We live in challenging economic times, and we cannot allow Canada's competitiveness to diminish. By pursuing an aggressive bilateral trade agenda, this government is helping Canadians to compete and win in markets beyond our borders.

International trade plays a critical role in the success of our nation; 60% of our GDP and 1 in 5 jobs depend on trade. Free trade agreements, including this agreement with Panama, are necessary to help Canada maintain its current economic strength and prosperity. That is why I hope that my hon. colleagues here in the House will join me in supporting the passage of Bill C-24. It is good for constituents, it helps produce jobs and growth, and it is good for Canada.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand in the House today and talk about the Canada-Panama labour co-operation part of the agreement in Bill C-24, which is a very positive initiative. It started many years ago, but even in January of this year our Minister of Labour visited Panama to talk about labour co-operation and discuss labour related issues. She met with government officials and people in business. She took the trip to support the free trade agreement but specifically to discuss labour related provisions. As we all know, our Minister of Labour is very much a supporter of having good labour relations and ensuring those conditions are in place so people can continue to work.

Our government is proud of its journey of bringing into place a number of free trade agreements. We are a free trade country. We have products that we need to export to other countries and we do that by partnering with other countries. However, we also need to ensure that we coordinate our labour issues with those countries. If we do that and work with our partners on a trade agreement, then obviously it becomes a potential benefit for Canadians.

As free trade agreements are signed and brought forward, they will bring forward many preferential investment opportunities. Many of those, through trade, will reach out into many aspects of the commodities that we have in Canada. However, we also want to ensure we protect the environment and those investments in it, along with labour. As we know, economic advancements cannot be made at the cost of labour rights.

It will be in interesting when the free trade agreement comes into force because Panama's trade tariffs sit at over 90% for Canadian exports going to that country. We hope that many of those tariffs will be eliminated. That is good news for all Canadian companies that export into that market.

For service providers to gain access, we need to help expand Panama's communications, technology and financial services markets. There is also a chapter that ensures there are rules that will govern Canadian investments to give greater protection and predictability to Canadian investors who are looking to invest into Panama, which will encourage companies to invest and help strengthen Panama's economy.

The free trade agreement also gives Canadian exporters of goods and services greater market access. That access goes into Panama's government procurement opportunities, one of the few that are available to it. One example that we know of is the Panama Canal expansion process that is happening or about to happen. It is one of the U.S. $5.3 billion worth of investment projects that will widen and make export and trade more accessible. It gives Canadian companies a procurement opportunity for products, whether it is Canadian goods and services, that they will be able to bid on.

When we talk about trade and economic growth, the goal is rationale, which we talk about within our economic action plan. We believe it is a part of free trade. It is more than just a philosophy. It is a key element of our economic policy and our relationships with other countries.

Quite honestly, this recession was the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s and many countries around the world are still struggling through it wishing they had the same economic stability and governance that Canada does. It has intensified our negotiations with other countries so that we will be able to partner with them to help them and ourselves become stronger in our economy and labour rights. We are doing that particularly in the discussion today around Panama.

How do those opportunities for Canadian exporters actually happen?

Panama is a strategic hub logistically. It is a platform on which Canada can build on. It will allow commercial activity to grow through Central America, the Caribbean and the Andean region of South America. It brings in a great global perspective for trade. However, free trade is also about having a level playing field where Canadian businesses can compete in the Panamanian market.

In these challenging economic times, it is important than ever to build solid trade relationships with countries around the world to secure our future prosperity. Canada is committed to pursuing initiatives that will help Canadians compete in global markets, and Panama is one of those markets.

I will now talk about the importance of labour rights. As Canadians, we naturally want to see our country prosper and continue to prosper, but not at any price. We are eager to advance our trade agenda but we must also ensure that labour rights and obligations are respected. Prosperity cannot come at the expense of labour rights. This is a concession that we are simply not willing to make. We will not accept this free trade agreement nor any other accord without the proper concessions in place. As I said, we will ensure a level playing field and that means that everybody must play by the same rules.

There is also a labour co-operation agreement, which is why the free trade agreement with Panama is paralleled with a labour co-operation agreement. This agreement includes the enforcement of labour rights and a transparent complaints and dispute resolution mechanism.

Under the terms of the labour co-operation agreement, Canada and Panama have committed to ensuring that their laws respect and embody the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The declaration covers the right to freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour and the elimination of discrimination in the workplace.

It sounds a lot like the same labour standards that we uphold in this great country of Canada. However, it also demonstrates the government's belief that prosperity cannot come at the expense of workers' rights.

In the Canada-Panama labour co-operation agreement, both countries have committed to protect workers' health and safety on the job, as well as to provide compensation in cases of work -related injuries or illnesses. Both countries have also committed to establishing and maintaining minimum employment standards.

The fact that the Government of Canada is helping Panama address these issues speaks well of Canada. We are recognized as a country that is compassionate. We do what we say we will do and we trade with honest intent.

Businesses that treat their workers decently are more likely to attract skilled and productive employees, just like businesses that treat their customers well are likely to have better sales.

We have a reputation for honesty, integrity and reliability. We keep our promises and we play by the rules. We want to help build a Canada-Panama relationship to that same extent.

, I would encourage the members opposite to support Bill C-24, not only for Canada but also to help build a strong partnership with our colleagues in Panama. We want to strengthen Canada's economy, a foundation for future trade and opportunities to promote and ensure fair, productive and safe workplaces that will benefit both countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to discuss Bill C-24 to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Panama.

First, I would like to point out that, once more, this motion is subject to time allocation. This is the 25th time this year that we have had to put up with a motion of that kind.

I am going to make a somewhat lengthy comment about the level of absurdity that this Parliament has reached by being constantly constrained by the party in power. This week—actually for two weeks—we have watched the heights of contempt for this Parliament being scaled with Bill C-38. The Conservatives refused to split up a budget bill of more than 400 pages that has impacts on all kinds of departments: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Agri-Food, not to mention Human Resources and Skills Development because of the employment insurance issue that affects fisheries and tourism and that got a very poor reception from most Canadians. The provincial governments are angry. Another concern, and not the least of them, is the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

All of this is in a huge bill on which we were muzzled. The hon. members opposite are constantly throwing numbers at Canadians: 50 hours, 70 hours. Those numbers cannot really be weighed by someone who is not in the House. They do not accurately reflect the time that members would normally have required to share information and hear from witnesses in committee on such dense bills, had the work of Parliament been respected by the current government in this House.

Another aspect of Bill C-38 is completely mind-boggling. Just thinking that we were muzzled on it is astounding. There were decisions to eliminate organizations. Division 33 of part 4 repeals the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Act and allows the government to take the necessary measures to do away with the centre. We are gagged on fundamental issues dealing with the elimination of organizations that have been very important to the development of Canadian policies.

On the Experimental Lakes Area, Mr. Del Giorgio, a professor of biology, said:

This is a disaster of proportions...that are hard to describe. It is not just the Canadian scientific community that is completely outraged; people from all over the world are sending petitions.

The government is shutting down the Experimental Lakes Area, not just slashing its budget.

For two weeks, we were simply gagged on that as well.

Here we are with Bill C-24 before us, a free trade agreement. This is not some minor information that can just slip through. This is a potential free trade agreement with a country in the Americas. That is important. Has this bill received unanimous support? If the bill had unanimous support, we could perhaps better understand why a gag order was imposed again, but no, we have before us a bill that does not have unanimous support.

Todd Tucker, from Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, has conclusively demonstrated that Panama is one of the worst tax havens in the world and that the Panamanian government has deliberately allowed the country to become a tax haven.

Despite requests from the Canadian government, Panama refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. This point is very important. At some point during the whole free trade agreement process with Panama, the Canadian government asked for a tax information exchange agreement. Why? First, Panama has some serious problems with illegal money and money laundering associated with illegal drugs.

There is something I do not get at all. There are members here who brag about being tough on crime. They are in the middle of negotiating with a small Latin American country that has a serious money laundering problem associated with drugs and, suddenly, it is no big deal.

The Conservatives want to be tough on crime with a 16-year-old kid who makes the mistake of growing a few pot plans in his basement, but they do not have the courage to apply their own tough on crime logic, in an international agreement, to a problem as serious as money laundering associated with drugs. That makes no sense at all.

My NDP colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster moved a motion to stop the implementation of a trade agreement between Canada and Panama until Panama agrees to sign a tax information exchange agreement. This motion was rejected by the Liberals and the Conservatives. But in light of this situation, it made sense to resolve this issue first. Other countries, including the United States, that came to agreements with Panama signed similar agreements.

I will repeat, because this is a very important point. Why did a so-called tough on crime government disregard the very idea of a tax information exchange agreement that could have covered all types of trade agreements? This could have perhaps covered the problems related to money laundering. How could this have been excluded from the negotiations and not remain central to the agreement? I do not understand it.

This is not a unanimous bill, and so it is not a bill that should be muzzled. Teresa Healy of the Canadian Labour Congress testified that although the minimum labour standards of the International Labour Organization are cited, the agreement is still weaker than it should be. Moreover, as Ms. Healy pointed out, the current Panamanian government has become increasingly tough on unions and workers in recent years.

Some things having to do with workers' rights and fundamental human rights have not yet been resolved.

Muzzling debate about Bill C-24 amounts to muzzling debate on tax evasion and workers' rights. This is not trivial; it is really not trivial.

Panama is not Norway. You need to show a good dose of bad faith to throw the name Panama in the middle of existing agreements with northern European countries. That is what I heard two or three times from colleagues on the opposite side of the House. You cannot put Panama on the same list as Norway and Switzerland without showing bad faith.

A fair trade policy can be realistic. For instance, from the beginning of our discussions with emerging countries, we should demand standards regarding human rights and tax ethics that are in line with Canadian standards. It would be simple. We would not have any surprises or any appendices to add at the end, but rather just the fundamental principle whereby all trade agreements must protect and promote human rights. We should be talking about this from the beginning, imposing it, and prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any products considered to have been manufactured in deplorable conditions that do not meet international standards. This notion should be imposed at every stage of the negotiation process. Ensuring that all trade agreements respect sustainable development is a notion that this government cannot seem to grasp or assimilate.

The agreement includes side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment. These side agreements are not in the main body of the text. Someone probably suddenly realized that a bare minimum should be done in order for this to be acceptable. Why is it not simply in the main body of the text?

More than one-third of Panamanians live in dire poverty. Free trade agreements should guarantee that better living conditions and working conditions will result from the agreements, rather than the potential exploitation of the poverty there. Although the agreement appears to protect the environment on the surface, it does not include any really strong measures or any mechanisms to resolve disputes.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, which someone mentioned earlier, Panama is a major financial conduit for drug trafficking and money laundering activities. Under those conditions, there is no way anyone can guarantee a better way of life for the people of Panama.

Trade between Canada and Panama is currently worth $150 million. Why the urgency, especially since we already do $150 million worth of trade with this trading partner? How can the Conservatives justify ramming another free trade agreement down our throats as quickly as possible, using another closure motion, when the agreement does not even ensure that Panamanian tax laws will not encourage tax evasion?

I congratulate the government on one thing: in this agreement, Canada has kept over-quota tariffs on supply managed goods such as dairy, poultry and egg products. That is very good.

What is deplorable about this bill is the failure to address human rights and tax evasion. I have been talking about this from the beginning. Every time we fail to address such fundamental issues in our international agreements, we somewhat deride the work of our most courageous predecessors in Canada. They struggled to move the country forward, while constantly working to improve our fundamental rights. We must never lose sight of that.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

CANADA-PANAMA ECONOMIC GROWTH AND PROSPERITY ACT

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-24, which has to do with a Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

It is very important that we take a stand and take the time to read this free trade agreement, because Panama is an extremely important international partner. Panama is the largest economic power in Central America, partly because of the Panama Canal, which sees a large number of goods pass through. Right now, it is being expanded, which will allow for greater flow and traffic.

Maritime traffic is rather important to Panama. Panama also is specializes in financial services, commerce and tourism. So it is important for us to examine this agreement and decide what this agreement with Panama will contain. We need to do things the right way.

I have listened to my colleagues' comments today and will get back to them shortly. I think that the government is botching this job and is not taking the time to create a worthwhile agreement. The NDP is in favour of free trade agreements if they are responsible and sustainable. Right now, we have the momentum to show that Canada is a leader. Right now, Panama is an emerging country. Canada, as a proud economic partner and world leader, could show Panama the way in terms of proper environmental norms and a system of rights for workers and unions in Panama, and we could make this free trade agreement into an agreement that supports sustainable and viable long-term development.

This could be the time for Canada to move things forward internationally. Canada could be an excellent partner. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is completely ignoring this extremely interesting opportunity that is right in front of it.

The sad thing about this bill is that there has been a time allocation motion, which means that we will not be able to discuss it in greater detail. However, there are a number of interesting points I would like to make. When I read Bill C-24, I noticed a number of shortcomings. My NDP colleagues tried to make amendments to correct those defects, but unfortunately, all of the proposed amendments were rejected.

In my view, the most significant flaw is probably the fact that there is no tax information exchange agreement in this bill. I will say more about that later. There is also a glaring lack of vision with respect to sustainable development. The agreement lacks meaningful protection for the rights of Panamanian workers. We know what happens when jobs and workers are not protected. When that happens in Canada, factories close their doors and move jobs elsewhere. It is important to ensure that Panamanian workers are protected. Another problem is the fact that this is a bilateral agreement, not a multilateral one.

As for the tax information exchange agreement, it may sound very confusing to some, but actually, it is quite simple. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development gives a very good description of tax information exchange agreements on its website. Basically, any country can refer to that description in order to create its own tax information exchange agreement. All of the information is on the website. It was created in 2002, and since that time, many countries, including Canada and Panama, have used this model to clarify their tax information exchange agreements.

So what is a tax information exchange agreement? The following description is from the OECD document:

The purpose of this agreement is to promote international co-operation in tax matters through exchange of information...The agreement grew out of the work undertaken by the OECD to address harmful tax practices...The agreement represents the standard of effective exchange of information for the purposes of the OECD's initiative on harmful tax practices.

As I just mentioned, many countries have followed this model to create their tax information exchange agreements. Canada has entered into several such agreements, for instance with the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas and Saint Lucia. In 2010, Panama signed a tax information exchange agreement with the United States, one of its biggest financial partners.

I just asked the hon. member for Burlington a question. I asked him why Bill C-24 does not contain this kind of tax information exchange agreement with Panama based on the same model as the one presented by the United States.

I was told that it was not ready in time. That is not a reason. In fact, it is proof that this bill was completely botched. We need to take the time to do things. This is important; it is a free trade agreement. I was honestly shocked when I heard this. If it was not ready in time, why not take the time to do things the way they should be done before presenting them to the House? Why did they not accept the amendments presented by the opposition to resolve the problems with this bill? I wonder.

It was not ready in time, and I find that very sad. This is clear evidence that we should go back, call a halt to this bill and secure an agreement. It is not as if things are pressing and we absolutely must have a free trade agreement with Panama by tomorrow. And it is not as if they are our most important partner. Panama is not Canada's largest trade partner. Bilateral trade in terms of goods between our two countries was worth only $149 million in 2008. We are not even talking about 1%. We have the time to do things right. I do not see why we are not, and it saddens me a little to hear this.

I know that Panama was recently removed from the OECD grey list because it has implemented information exchange standards, but we do not even have these information exchanges with Panama. If that were the case, this bill would already be much better. We do not have a tax information exchange agreement, but the Conservatives, on the other side of the House, are trumpeting the double taxation convention that Panama has agreed to sign. They think that will do.

Is it really enough? I do not think so. Double taxation tax treaties—the definition is on the Canada Revenue Agency website—are designed to avoid double taxation for people who would otherwise pay tax on the same income in two countries. That applies to legitimate income only. A tax information exchange agreement helps track down all income, legitimate or otherwise. It is a much sounder and more interesting way to protect ourselves in terms of taxation standards.

Again, I am extremely disappointed not to find this exchange agreement in the bill, especially since we have already signed such agreements and so has Panama. So why not sign one together? It is a mystery. My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster proposed some extremely interesting amendments, including some on sustainable development and responsible investment. That is what we want to see. That is the direction we should be taking. We are all responsible. We all live on the same planet and everyone has the right to fairness.

We were also very disappointed that the benefits of sustainable development were not considered. I understand that it is a system of rules, but it has to be applied fairly and it is not included in this bill.

This bill touched on several issues all at once. I will not have time to talk about protection for workers or the environment, which has been clearly bungled in this bill, as it was in Bill C-38. I would like to talk about what we want to see in a Canada-Panama agreement.

We simply want a fair trade policy, one that gives a rightful place to social justice, and fair, sustainable, equitable trade. These are very simple things that should be the basis for a free trade agreement with another country. We should instead be negotiating multilateral agreements. However, if the decision is made to enter into a bilateral agreement such as this one, we have to do more and make a more responsible commitment with this kind of agreement.

We are reaffirming our vision of a fair trade policy that puts the pursuit of social justice, strong public-sector social programs and the elimination of poverty at the heart of an effective trade strategy.

Let us protect the environment, protect workers and, at the same time, ensure that the tax measures included in this type of bill are appropriate.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-24,, an act to implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. It will be of no surprise to those in this House that I will be speaking against this agreement because of my strong concerns about the impact of free trade agreements that lack adequate environmental, labour and human rights safeguards.

While this package does include side agreements on labour co-operation and environment, both of these are extremely weak. The Conservatives and the Liberals joined together to defeat amendments proposed by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster which would have strengthened those agreements by providing both dispute resolution mechanisms and enforcement mechanisms. Without those safeguards, I cannot support this free trade agreement.

In debate today, some members on the other side of the House have asked the New Democrats, as the official opposition, why, if we supported the free trade agreement with Jordan, we were not supporting the agreement with Panama. Part of that answer lies in the differences in the agreements that I just mentioned. The side agreements in the Jordan free trade agreement were far stronger, had enforcement mechanisms and had dispute resolution mechanisms included in them. There is a difference in the agreements themselves.

The other part of that is the feeling I have that we ought to choose our partners very carefully when entering into closer economic associations. There are large differences between Jordan and Panama. For instance, Jordan is not a tax haven while Panama continues to refuse to implement a tax information exchange agreement with Canada. That lack of transparency means that Panama remains a major centre for money laundering, especially from the drug trade.

When I hear members on the other side talk about the provisions in this agreement for closer relations in financial institutions, this raises a big red flag for me about why we would want closer relations with a country that lacks that transparency and is a major transfer point and money laundering point for the drug trade in the Americas.

Again, on the question of why Jordan and not Panama, one only needs to look at the human rights and labour standards of these two countries. Here again, Jordan has made great progress and Panama has not. Jordan has made progress in raising labour standards and enforcing those standards, including several recent raises to the minimum wage and activities to try to enforce basic safety in the workplace conditions.

Panama has made no such progress. In fact, in Panama, the existence of sweat shops and other exploitive labour practices remain a real problem. Labour organizers working on these issues also come under very severe pressure, both from the government authorities and under threats from unidentified forces who we can only imagine are perhaps associated with those other illegal activities in Panama.

Not only do labour organizations face human rights threats in Panama, so do journalists attempting to cover labour and justice issues in Panama. Professional organizations of journalists have reported that over half the working journalists in Panama now face or have faced criminal defamation proceedings brought against them by the governments or businesses. These defamation suits carry penalties of up to one year in prison and very hefty fines.

This places an extreme chill on journalism and the freedom of expression in Panama, a problem that does not exist in Jordan. This has become so extreme that, in 2011, two Spanish nationals who had permanent resident status in Panama, Francisco Gómez Nadal and Maria Pilar Chato Carral were detained while covering a demonstration by the Ngäbe-Buglé indigenous people in Panama City. They were detained for 48 hours before being permanently expelled from Panama. This, again, placed a very severe chill on the activities of all journalists operating in Panama, because Mr. Francisco Gómez Nadal and Ms. Chato Carral were extremely prominent journalists, working both for the daily newspapers in Panama City and also filing stories for newspapers in Spain.

We on this side have been very consistent in calling for trade agreements that have labour standards, human rights standards and sustainability built into those agreements. When we talk about sustainability, we are talking about sustainability that is both economic and social, as well as environmental.

In Panama in the past few years, there have been very severe conflicts over development, in particular between mining companies and hydroelectric projects and local communities, and especially indigenous peoples in Panama. Indeed, this was the subject of a CBC documentary this week which attracted the attention of international human rights organizations.

According to Amnesty International, one protestor died and more than 40 were wounded during clashes at a blockade of the Pan-American Highway by the Ngäbe Buglé indigenous people who I mentioned earlier. They are asserting their rights to be consulted and to give informed consent before any development project on their lands proceeds in the province of Chiriqui. Similar protests by local community organizations occurred earlier this year over the reopening of the Cerro Cama open pit gold and copper mine by a Canadian mining company.

These conflicts over development also involve a lack of enforcement in environmental standards. At the Santa Rosa mine, which operated throughout the 1990s and was operated by a subsidiary of the Canadian mining company, Greenstone Resources, the mine finally closed in 1999, leaving three large tailing ponds, which are now very strongly suspected of having contaminated local water supplies. Local protests have broken out again very recently from the local community as this mine is now being reactivated without there ever being any attempt by the government to address these environmental concerns.

When members on the other side say that we are opposed to trade, they get it wrong. What we are opposed to is entering into these agreements which will provide advantages to multinational corporations, some of them Canadian, to impose working conditions that are dangerous, to develop projects that have severe environmental consequences and to undertake development in a country where freedom of expression comes under very severe threat.

Therefore, when we talk about trade on this side, we prefer to see multilateral agreements that have some basic principles inserted within them. However, if not, and obviously the government will not pursue the multilateral agreements, then we would like to see the same kinds of principles in these bilateral agreements, the principles I have just talked about: environmental sustainability, social sustainability and economic sustainability.

Of course, in a country like Panama with a large indigenous population and a large poor population, this means working with poor communities and working with indigenous communities for development that would help them build their communities and build their lives in a sustainable manner. We see nothing of the kind going on in Panama at this time.

We also want to see agreements that have very strong benefits to both parties. Therefore, we have called upon the government, before implementing free trade agreements, to have some kind of independent assessment of what the effects of the trade will be. We have not seen anything of this kind coming down the pipe from the government.

When we talk about competition on the international stage, we on this side support free trade based on efficiency and innovation. If a company can be more efficient than another company, and Canadian companies are often very good at this, then it should have access to markets and it should succeed. If a company is more innovative than other companies, it comes up with new ideas that would help advance the quality of products or develop new products that would fill a niche in the market, then it ought to be able to succeed in that trade.

What we do not want to see is companies that succeed in international trade by offloading their environmental costs on to future generations. What we do not want to see is companies that succeed in international trade on the basis of paying the lowest wages in the most dangerous working conditions. Therefore, if we are to build closer economic relations with new trade partners, we need to ensure it is on the basis of shared values of democracy, human rights and sustainability.

When my colleagues on the other side asked why we supported the trade agreement with Jordan, we said that it was not because it was a perfect agreement, but that it is a good agreement. Jordan shares those same values with us and has shown demonstrable progress in the areas of democracy, human rights and labour standards. When it comes to the Panama agreement, we see exactly the opposite.

Therefore, I would question why we would want to enter into this agreement with a partner that has shown a disrespect for human rights, that has some of the lowest labour standards in Central America and where Canadian companies are involved in projects that often have quite severe environmental consequences.

I would ask the government that when it thinks about new partners, that it go back to those basic values. Yes, we want to see trade, but we want to see trade based on efficiency and innovation. We do not want to see trade on the basis of offloading environmental costs, paying low wages, dangerous working conditions and those which threaten the rights of free expression in order to proceed with those dangerous economic conditions. When we do that, I think we will find many good partners around the world to trade with and that trade will advance the interests of both nations.

Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I will be voting against the free trade agreement with Panama and I will be urging all members of the House to do so.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-24. The Liberal Party has long been in support of opening new markets on the basis of fair trade. We will be supporting this particular legislation. We do have some concerns, given the obvious bipartisan support, that this is yet another instance where time allocation has been imposed, but nonetheless, the Liberal Party stands in support of the content of the legislation.

One of the key concerns with respect to our trading relationship with Panama, and this has been evident with respect to the government's free trade agenda, is about the domestic practices within some of the countries where we are seeking to have new trade arrangements. An additional point to be kept in mind, and one the government would do well to carefully consider, was raised by Jim Stanford of the Canadian Auto Workers, who appeared recently at the international trade committee.

Part of his presentation outlined the following, with respect to the lack of apparent benefits derived from free trade agreements. Mr. Stanford, before the committee, reviewed the five longest-standing trade agreements. He said:

...with the United States, Mexico, Israel, Chile and Costa Rica. Canada's exports to them grew more slowly than our exports to non-free-trade partners, while our imports surged much faster than with the rest of the world.

Mr. Stanford went on to say:

If the policy goal (sensibly) is to boot exports and strengthen the trade balance, then signing free-trade deals is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Looking back on some of the previous free trade agreements, with Colombia there were outstanding issues with respect to labour and human rights, and the same concern applied in Jordan. With respect to Panama, one of the outstanding concerns, as I raised in my question just a few moments ago, is the issue of tax havens and issues related to money laundering.

Just to put this in context, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade , in response to issues on the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement and violations of human and labour rights and Canada's response, told the House

...what...members fail to realize is the entire issue of extraterritoriality. There are certain things we can do when negotiating with another country and certain things we cannot do because they are beyond our sphere of influence.

The question that must be raised, of course, is: What mechanisms within any agreement should be in place with countries where issues of concern are found to exist and persist?

For example, with respect to the Panamanian situation, when federal government officials were testifying before the international trade committee last fall, they could not address adequately the matters of money laundering and the tax haven issues related to Panama.

Again, as I indicated earlier in my question to the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, in December 2010, Panama signed a tax information exchange agreement with the United States. In testimony before the United States' House ways and means subcommittee back in March of last year, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch research director raised concerns with respect to the money laundering issue in the wake of the agreement signed between the U.S. and Panama. He said:

Panama promised for eight years to sign a Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA). Yet when it finally signed a TIEA with the Obama administration in November of 2010, the agreement did not require Panama to automatically exchange information with U.S. authorities about tax dodgers, money launderers and drug traffickers.

In the previous Parliament, concerns were raised with respect to Panama as a tax haven in which instances of both tax evasion and money laundering were found. Concerns were raised as to whether a free trade agreement should be proceeded with, without a clear tax information exchange between Canada and Panama in place.

There is as yet no tax treaty or tax information exchange agreement between Panama and Canada.

The history, as we understand it, is this: Panama asked that we enter into a double taxation treaty, which is more comprehensive than a tax information exchange agreement; Canada refused and asked for a more limited, less all-encompassing agreement; Panama, which at the time had only entered into double taxation treaties, insisted on a double taxation treaty; Canada has not yet responded to this second request.

All double taxation treaties include information exchange obligations between signatory countries. That is because of the model convention of the OECD. As of November 2010, Canada was party to double taxation agreements with 87 countries, with eight more signed but not yet in effect. As of November 2010, Canada had signed nine tax information exchange agreements, the less robust agreements, and they were yet to come into effect.

In testimony this past fall before the international trade committee, reference was made to the correspondence between Canada and Panama, in which the latter was asked whether Panama had responded to the concerns expressed by Canada on the tax haven issue. According to Department of Foreign Affairs officials, no such response had been received.

This past December, during debate on Bill C-24, the parliamentary secretary went to considerable lengths to express his confidence in the commitment by Panama to improve its exchange of tax information and went to great lengths to reference the OECD statement acknowledging the progress of Panama in that regard. However, the issue of tax havens and money laundering is and should be of concern to the government.

It is unfortunate that the parliamentary secretary apparently did not read the statement issued last July by the OECD, which states that the OECD's Global Forum:

...must still evaluate whether Panama's domestic laws will allow for effective availability, access to and exchange of information.... The government has introduced domestic changes so that the agreements can be effective. The Global Forum will follow up to make sure they work as intended. It is important that Panama continues to work to fully implement the standards.

Article 6 of the agreement between the United States and Panama on the issue of tax co-operation and information, entitled “Possibility of declining a request”, states that the “The competent authority of the requested Party may decline to assist”.

To conclude, the Liberal Party will be supporting this agreement. We feel, in the circumstances, that the discussions and negotiations between the two countries with respect to the exchange of tax information should be at a more advanced stage before we as parliamentarians consider this legislation and we raise that as a concern, but it will not be a significant enough concern to prevent us from supporting the agreement.

We would encourage the government to proceed as rapidly as possible to ensure that the issues with respect to tax havens and money laundering with our trade partners in Panama are properly and adequately addressed.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am no longer a member of international trade committee, but I enjoyed my time there immensely. Over a year ago, prior to the previous election, we were working on this same agreement then. Checking with one of the people in the lobby, we worked out that there were over 50 hours of debate on this minor treaty alone. To those who are wondering about whether the House sufficiently debates issues, the answer most clearly is yes. I do not blame the people of Panama or the government for being a bit frustrated with Canada that we have yet to implement this treaty.

I am pleased to rise today to talk about Bill C-24 and the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. This agreement would provide benefits to Canadians in numerous sectors, and hopefully I will have time to get through most of them. In particular, I wish to speak about the services sector.

As many hon. members I am sure are aware, the Panamanian economy is built on the service sector. Panama is not known as a manufacturing hub. It is perhaps best known for its canal and for the strategic position it provides to the world in the transportation of goods.

Panama offers opportunities for Canadian service providers in a broad range of commercial services, financial services and temporary entry for business persons. This free trade agreement would expand opportunities in these key areas and others.

In 2009, which according to my notes is the latest possible data, Canadian commercial services exports to Panama amounted to $48 million. During the negotiations with Panama, our government's approach was to develop substantive provisions to govern cross-border trade in services as well as to provide a level of market access similar to that afforded under NAFTA. Canada sought similar treatment as afforded to the U.S. under its free trade agreement with Panama. This is important because we are going to be competing with American businesses as we try to sell to Panama.

When it comes to free trade, a lot of the benefits are derived from buying and importing from countries so that we acquire lower-cost goods, but we are also interested in selling to Panama and obtaining the same treatment so that we are on level ground with the United States, one of our major competitors. This is yet another example of how our government is committed to achieving a level playing field for Canadian businesses around the world.

Free trade is a cornerstone of our economic success as a nation. Our ambitious pro-trade plan is helping to open doors for our businesses around the world, including in Panama.

The free trade agreement contains strong provisions to provide access on a competitive basis. The agreement provides market access beyond Panama's obligations under the WTO and GATT, particularly in areas of Canadian expertise and export interests, which include mining and energy-related services, professional services, which involve engineering and architectural services, environmental services, distribution and information technology.

The services and services-related provisions of the agreement would benefit Canadian exporters, particularly small to medium-sized enterprises, through the implementation of principles and conditions of regulatory stability as well as fair and equitable treatment. Regulatory stability is important not just as has been demonstrated in our current budget, but in our agreements around the world.

Canadian services exporters would also benefit from provisions designed to increase transparency of regulations, including increased transparency on access for temporary entry for a broad range of service providers.

The agreement also provides a framework for the negotiation of mutual recognition agreements respecting professional licensing and qualification requirements and procedures.

Consistent with past practice, Canada has taken reservations in this free trade agreement to maintain full policy flexibility in areas of domestic sensitivity, including social services, health and public education. There is no concern or fear-mongering necessary in those areas.

Another area of service that is of particular interest in dealing with Panama is financial services. In this area the agreement establishes NAFTA equivalent access for all financial services in respect of right of establishment, full national and most favoured nation treatment, certain cross-border commitments and various other carve-outs.

In terms of provincial government measures, the openness of the provincial financial sector framework was bound at existing levels. As members probably know, Canadian firms are among the top financial providers in the world, and we are proud of their success.

This free trade agreement would enable them to succeed in the dynamic and growing Panamanian market. In terms of sector-specific market access commitments, the levels of access Panama offered to Canada achieved parity with what was offered to the U.S. through the trade promotion agreement.

The portfolio management commitment, however, would only take effect at the time the U.S. trade promotion agreement comes into force. Importantly, Canada has achieved the same treatment as the U.S. in respect of ownership of insurance brokerages, pension fund management and securities dealers' requirements.

Canadian financial institutions expressed significant interest in expanding relations with Panama through a free trade agreement. If members have ever been to Latin America, they will have seen that Scotiabank very much plants the Canadian flag all over the continent of South America and Latin America. Scotiabank, for example, currently operates 12 branches in Panama City that offer a wide variety of banking services. These include corporate and commercial lending facilities, project and trade financing, cash management services and personal retail banking services.

These institutions supported a free trade agreement to better position Canadian business vis-à-vis competitors in this market, particularly those that already benefit from preferential trading agreements with Panama, and to institutionalize investments and dispute settlement protection for existing investments.

I will wrap up with just a few brief words about the temporary entry for business purposes, again, something that helps to expand the delivery of services to Panama and increases our service sector in Canada with its export.

The service provisions of this trade agreement address the important question of temporary entry for business people. The temporary entry chapter takes important steps to address barriers that business persons might face at the border, such as limits on the categories or numbers of workers who can enter the country to work or provide services.

Temporary entry provisions are important because they facilitate entry for covered business persons by eliminating the need to obtain a work permit for business visitors and by eliminating the need to obtain a labour market test and/or economic test for other categories. They also would exempt certain occupations from numerical restrictions, such as domestic/foreign proportionality requirements and quotas with respect to the hiring of foreign nationals at a single enterprise.

This free trade agreement would ensure the secure, predictable and equitable treatment of service providers from both Panama and Canada. It would give Canadian companies enhanced access to the Panamanian market, which offers numerous opportunities including the ongoing multi-billion dollar expansion of the Panama Canal. This is a free trade agreement that would benefit service providers and all Canadians.

Let me also add that one of the things we must always recognize with all free trade agreements is that all parties can benefit. Trade is not a zero-sum game; it is something that expands the possibilities for both consumers and exporters on both sides of the equation. This has been recognized by economists for hundreds of years. In fact there are many people who will look at trade as one of the best ways to alleviate poverty in countries that have not achieved the economic success of Canada, including in areas of income inequality, an area about which I am sure opposition members will be most interested in asking questions.

I encourage all hon. members to vote for this agreement, an agreement that would bring Canada and Panama closer together and increase the wealth of all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite for her speech, and especially for how well she addressed the House in French. It was most pleasant to listen to.

I have a fairly simple question for my colleague about Bill C-24. We know that a tax information exchange agreement has not been signed with Panama. The only thing that has been signed is a double taxation treaty. However, that is not necessarily enough because it concerns only legitimate revenues. So any revenues or means that are considered illegal are not included. Illegal revenues could be included in a tax information exchange agreement.

I would like to know why we have not signed this tax information exchange agreement, since Panama has already signed them with major partners, including the United States.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. I would like to spend a few minutes explaining how this agreement fits into Canada's larger economic plan.

The government understands the importance of trade and the benefits it brings. As an export-driven economy, Canada must open its borders. One in five Canadian jobs is dependent on international trade. Thus, bilateral and regional trade agreements are key to ensuring Canadians' continued prosperity. That is why expanding Canada's trade relations to rapidly growing foreign markets, such as Panama, is an important part of our government's pro-trade plan to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

With the challenges in concluding the World Trade Organization Doha round, regional and bilateral trade agreements have taken on increased significance. The government also recognizes that there are a growing number of countries where Canadian companies are at a competitive disadvantage because their competitors have preferential market access under some form of preferential trade agreement.

Canada cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while other countries vigorously pursue trade deals to secure better market access for their products and services for their country. That is why our government is in the midst of the most ambitious pursuit of new and expanded trade and investment agreements in Canadian history.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is yet another step this government is taking to help Canadians compete and succeed in the global market. It supports the global commerce strategy which will ensure that Canada maintains its current economic strength and prosperity in an increasingly complex and competitive global economy.

With 60% of our GDP dependent on trade, it is completely clear that jobs and communities across Canada depend on the business we do with other countries. Our Conservative government's pro-trade plan is an essential contributor to Canada's prosperity, productivity and growth.

By improving access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses, we are supporting domestic economic growth and creating new opportunities for Canadian workers. Canada's exporters, investors and service providers are calling for these opportunities. Business owners and entrepreneurs want access to global markets.

This government is committed to expanding the various opportunities created by free trade agreements. Our track record speaks for itself.

Since 2006, Canada has established new free trade agreements with nine countries: Colombia; Jordan; Peru; the European Free Trade Association countries of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland; and more recently Honduras and Panama.

We are also negotiating with many other countries, including the European Union. A free trade agreement with the European Union would be the most significant Canadian trade initiative since the North American Free Trade Agreement and could increase trade with this important partner by 20%. Such an agreement would also give a $12 billion boost to the Canadian economy, which is equivalent to a $1,000 increase in the average national family income or the creation of 80,000 new jobs in Canada.

Canadian businesses recognize the many benefits a trade agreement between Canada and the European Union would have for workers and businesses.

We are also intensifying our focus on Asia. During the Prime Minister's visit to China in February 2012, leaders announced that Canada and China will proceed to exploratory discussions on deepening trade and economic relations on the completion of a bilateral economic study.

Also, this past March, the Prime Minister announced the launch of negotiations toward a free trade agreement with Japan and the start of exploratory discussions with Thailand.

Canada also continues to explore the possibility of participating in the trans-Pacific partnership, the TPP negotiations.

The potential benefits of these initiatives are enormous. However, that is not all. Canada is also committed to advancing our ongoing free trade negotiations with other partners, including India, Ukraine, Morocco, the Caribbean community and Korea. In addition, Canada is working to modernize its existing bilateral free trade agreements with Chile, Costa Rica and Israel, as encouraged in the exploratory discussions with Mercosur, the largest trading bloc in Latin America, made up of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.

All of these initiatives are critical for the economic future of our country. With the global economic recovery remaining fragile, it is important that Canada continue to deepen its trade and investment ties with strategic partners. Expanding Canada's trade and investment ties around the world will help protect and create new jobs and prosperity for our hard-working neighbours and for all Canadians.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is be yet another step in the right direction. This agreement represents an opportunity for Canadian businesses to grow and expand their operations in the growing and dynamic Panamanian economy.

The agreement would also reduce tariffs for Canadian producers who want to export to Panama. Upon implementation of the free trade agreement, Panama will immediately lift tariffs on 89% of all non-agricultural imports from Canada, with the remaining tariffs to be phased out in five to fifteen years. Tariffs will also be lifted on 89% of Canada's agricultural exports to Panama. This reduction in trade barriers will benefit a wide range of sectors across the Canadian economy, including fish and seafood products, paper products, vehicles and parts in the greater Toronto area, construction materials and equipment, industrial and electrical machinery and many more. This agreement will provide Canadian service providers with a secure, predictable, transparent and rules-based environment, which will facilitate access to Panama's $20 billion services market.

Panama is an established destination for Canadian direct investment abroad, particularly in the banking and financial services and construction and mining sectors. This proposed agreement will provide greater stability, transparency and protection for Canadian investments in Panama.

The free trade agreement will also better enable Canadian companies to participate in large projects, such as the $5.3 billion expansion of the Panama Canal, by providing non-discriminatory access to a broad range of government procurement opportunities in Panama to Canadian suppliers. This is an enormous opportunity for Canadian companies to compete.

For all these reasons, the free trade agreement between Canada and Panama is a good thing. It will support more Canadian jobs by improving our ability to export more products and services to this market. That is why implementing free trade agreements is a priority for our government.

I ask all hon. members to support Bill C-24, which aims to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Panama, as well as the side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in this House today to express my opposition to Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

In spite of what Conservatives accuse, New Democrats do believe in trade. We do want to expand Canadian business and we do want to generate economic growth. However, the bill overlooks distressing concerns when it comes to Panama's record on environmental issues and workers' rights. New Democrats believe that we can do trade without it being ultimately harmful to the citizens of those countries and to the environment.

The NDP believes in free trade that is fair, viable and realistic, a fair trade policy that, as part of an effective trading strategy, prioritizes social justice, strong public sector social programs, poverty elimination, and a trade policy based on sustainable fair trade. These should be the guiding principles for trade negotiations, not afterthoughts.

The NDP is calling on the federal government to stop focusing exclusively on the NAFTA-based model and consider other alternatives. It should explore other ways to increase trade. There is another, better model of trade relations that could be established with Panama or any other country, a model that would include the following elements within a comprehensive fair trade strategy.

First, it includes a comprehensive and rational impact analysis for all international agreements to determine whether the trade agreements being negotiated by Canada are good for Canadian families, Canadian workers and Canadian industries. The government should not sign any trade agreement that is likely to lead to a net loss of jobs.

Second, this model includes a guarantee that trade agreements negotiated by Canada will strengthen Canada's sovereignty and its freedom to establish its own policy, that they will help make us a force to be reckoned with on the world stage and that they will support the principles of a fair multilateral trade system.

Third, this model follows the fundamental principle whereby all trade agreements must protect and promote human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any products considered to have been manufactured in sweatshops, by forced labour, or under any other conditions that do not meet basic international standards for labour or human rights.

Fourth, this model includes the fundamental principle whereby all trade agreements should respect the notion of sustainable development, as well as the integrity of all ecosystems.

Fifth, under this model, every time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to adopt the enabling legislation must be submitted to a mandatory vote on whether or not the terms of the agreement are acceptable. The current system, which consists of tabling a free trade agreement in the House for a period of 21 sitting days prior to ratification, is not mandatory and does not bind the government to accept a decision of the House.

Canada's trade policy should be based on the principles of fairness, sustainability and equity. This is how we can and should pursue real and sustainable economic growth, because sustainability will result in long-term economic health and prosperity for our country and the countries with which we do trade.

The NDP opposes this bill on free trade between Canada and Panama for one specific reason: we are worried about the rights of workers in Panama and we suspect that this trade agreement contains no provisions to ensure that the rights of Panamanian workers are not violated, as they have been in the past.

The New Democrats want the kind of growth that is mutually beneficial for our trading partners and their citizenry, not only because it is ethically right to do so but also because it is a safer long-term investment that will yield better growth over time.

Canada and Panama are not equals in trade, but the types of agreements and trade policies in the bill are meant to be between equal industrialized nations. One size does not fit all. We cannot be using this kind of trade agreement when we are talking about a country that is developing.

The reality is that our negotiations with Panama are exploitative. One-third of its population lives in extreme poverty. We want its resources but it will not act in good faith with its citizens to sell them to us. Canada must not take advantage of the needy in developing countries for us to grow economically.

We need to be more flexible in our trade policies so that they are suitable to the countries that we are brokering our deals with.

It should be clear by now that the NDP can only support trade deals when Canada can ensure that the foreign workers who labour to put money in our pockets and in the pockets of Canadian corporations and shareholders are entitled to the same human rights that Canadian workers enjoy. To strive for anything else would be pure hypocrisy.

If we sign a deal with Panama, it should offer Panamanians the right to collective bargaining, just like Canadians enjoy.

Panama has a bad human rights record. The House of Commons committee that studied this agreement heard some very compelling testimony about the fact that the Republic of Panama is a tax haven.

A tax haven is not exactly the type of country with which we should be negotiating this type of agreement. We should be negotiating with industrialized countries. This is a sign of problems to come for Canada.

Panama has refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement, which is a red flag. It is very troubling, given the high volume of money laundering activities in Panama, including laundering of money from drug trafficking.

This is extremely worrying. Panama refusing to sign a tax exchange information agreement is hugely problematic because such an agreement tracks illegal income, as well as legal income. There is an utter lack of transparency around Panama's tax system because, as the OECD has recognized, it is a tax haven for illegal activities, such as harbouring drug cartel money from Mexico and Guatemala. These drug cartels are wreaking havoc on the populations of countries like Mexico and Guatemala.

A few weeks ago, I was in Chile at the ParlAmericas delegation meeting about the summit for women parliamentarians of the Americas. We were talking about the violence against women in these countries, which is often linked to drug money, to illegal trafficking and to very well-coordinated problems that happen in South America, in Central America specifically. We should not be negotiating trade agreements with countries like Panama that do not allow us to see where this money is going when there is a problem that, collectively as the Americas, we are trying to solve. Canada cannot turn a blind eye to this extremely destructive source of illegal drug trade and the systems that facilitate that trade, such as Panama's tax havens.

The NDP cannot support this bill. We have tried to propose amendments to it. For example, my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster proposed amendments on sustainable development and responsible investment. Since the amendments were rejected by both the Conservatives and the Liberals, it is clear that there is no hope left of working together to conclude a good agreement.

That is why the New Democrats will not be supporting Bill C-24.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this bill today.

This bill started life as Bill C-46 in the last Parliament. The bill came to an end when the election was called. It was introduced in November of this past year and is now called Bill C-24.

I point that out because nothing has changed. There was an opportunity for the government to listen to all the debate, in committee and in this House, on the old bill and to make some adjustments and changes so the rest of the House could find it acceptable, and it did not. As a result, New Democrats continue to oppose this bill, for that reason and a number of others.

In the last Parliament, compelling testimony was heard from witnesses regarding the tax haven situation in the Republic of Panama, as well as the poor record of labour rights in the country. Motions and amendments that would address the glaring issues in the agreement were introduced by our member for Burnaby—New Westminster, but were opposed and defeated by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. The new legislation, despite a new and inspirational short title, does nothing to address the fundamental flaws of its previous manifestation, most importantly the tax disclosure issues that have yet to be meaningfully addressed, despite protestations to the contrary from the Panamanian government, and undoubtedly from the Conservative government, as we raise this issue.

Just before the clause-by-clause review of the old Bill C-46, our member for Burnaby—New Westminster proposed to the Standing Committee on Internation Trade a motion that would stop the implementation of the Canada–Panama trade agreement until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement. The member's motion was defeated by both the Conservatives and the Liberals, who argued that the double taxation agreement Panama had agreed to sign was satisfactory.

Unfortunately, the double taxation agreement only tracks legal income, while a tax information exchange agreement would track all income, including that made through illegal means. Considering Panama's history and reputation on such matters, it should be clear why such an agreement is necessary before signing a free trade deal.

Another issue is human rights in Panama and the complete failure of this trade agreement to ensure that these rights would not be denied to Panamanian workers as they have been in the past. Two amendments put forth in committee would have protected trade union workers in Panama by offering the right of collective bargaining as well as requiring the Minister of International Trade, as the principal representative of Canada on the joint Panama–Canada commission, to consult on a regular basis with representatives of Canadian labour and trade unions.

Like all other amendments, these were defeated by the Conservatives and Liberals. Unfortunately, this would create a free trade zone that belittles the rights of labour, a serious problem already prevalent in Panama.

In addition, two amendments regarding definitions were proposed. The first was regarding the definition of sustainable development. The amendment would define sustainable development as:

development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, as set out in the Brundtland Report published by the World Commission on Environment and Development.

The second amendment was regarding the definition of sustainable investment. The amendment would define sustainable investment as:

investment that seeks to maximize social good as well as financial return, specifically in the areas of environment, social justice and corporate governance, in accordance with the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment.

The NDP prefers a multilateral approach, based on a fair and sustainable trade model. In fact, bilateral trade deals amount to protectionist trade deals, since they give preferential treatment to a few partners and exclude the rest. This puts weaker countries in a position of inferiority vis-à-vis the larger partners. A multilateral fair trade model would avoid these issues while protecting human rights and the environment.

New Democrats reaffirm our vision for a fair trade policy that puts the pursuit of social justice, strong public sector social programs and the elimination of poverty at the heart of an effective trade strategy.

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

The federal government should stop exclusively pursuing the NAFTA model at the expense of all other alternatives, and then it should invest in other avenues of trade growth, including, above all, a vigorous trade promotion strategy that builds the Canadian brand abroad, along the lines of the Australian experience.

For example, it is shocking to see that the European Union spends in excess of 500 times more than Canada in promoting one single industry—in this case, its wine industry.

Fair trade should be the overarching principle, not just an afterthought of trade negotiations. The NDP strongly believes in an alternative and a better form of trading relationship that can be established with Panama and any other country, one that includes within an overall fair trade strategy the points that follow.

The first is to provide a comprehensive common sense impact assessment on all international agreements that demonstrates that trade deals Canada negotiates are beneficial to Canadian families, workers and industry. The government does not sign any trade agreement that would lead to a net job loss.

Second is ensuring that the trade agreements Canada negotiates support Canada's sovereignty and freedom to chart its own policy, support our ability to be a competitive force on the world stage and support the principles of a multilateral fair trade system.

Third is the fundamental principle that all trade agreements must promote and protect human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any product that is deemed to have been created under sweatshop conditions, forced labour or other conditions that are not in accordance with fundamental international labour standards and human rights.

The fourth is the fundamental principle that all trade agreements should respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems.

The fifth is that any time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to proceed with enabling legislation must be subject to a binding vote on whether or not to accept the terms of the agreement. The current system, which consists of tabling FTAs in the House for a period of 21 sitting days prior to ratification, is not mandatory and does not bind the government to a decision in the House.

In the last Parliament during the study of the bill, the committee heard testimony from Todd Tucker of the Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. Mr. Tucker made a compelling case that Panama is one of the world's worst tax havens and that the Panamanian government has intentionally allowed the nation to become a tax haven. The tax haven situation in Panama is not improving under the current government and conditions in Panama. In addition, a trade agreement with Canada would only worsen the problem and could cause harm to both Panama and to Canada.

Teresa Healy of the Canadian Labour Congress spoke to the committee regarding the agreement on labour co-operation. She testified that while the International Labour Organization's core labour standards are invoked, the agreement is still weaker than it should be. As well, the current Panamanian government has been increasingly harsh on labour unions and workers in recent years.

It is interesting to note that when my colleague from London West spoke, he indicated that there is some agreement on another trade deal, the Canada-Jordan trade deal.

While New Democrats are not against free trade, we believe it is important that it should always be fair trade. Unfortunately, in this situation it does not happen.

To be fair to the Conservatives, they have moved a little toward the centre. There was a time not so long ago when they would not have even talked about the environment or human rights.

I see my time is up. I look forward to any questions the House may have.

The House resumed from June 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to start my one-day-late Thursday statement with the Conservatives' deep gratitude to all of the staff and pages of the House of Commons, who were forced to endure a rather long Wednesday sitting. I thank them for that and I apologize that they were subjected to it.

On to the remaining business of the House, this afternoon will we complete third reading debate of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. On Monday we will have the third reading debate of Bill C-38, the jobs, growth and long-term prosperity act, now that we are past the opposition's theatrical and ideologically driven delay tactics at report stage, which caused you, Madam Speaker, to have to spend an undue length of time here, in particular during the unfortunate act of slow votes, which really achieved nothing but inconvenience to the staff and pages of the House of Commons.

If we have extra time on Monday, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. For the remainder of the week, I want to see the House dispose of the many bills that are still awaiting our work and attention. To accommodate the House, we have voted to sit into the evenings next week.

I would welcome any co-operation from my counterparts on moving these bills forward efficiently. I would like to start with securing second reading and referral to committee before the fall sitting of the following bills: Bill C-24, the Canada—Panama economic growth and prosperity act; Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act; Bill C-36, the protecting Canada's seniors act; Bill C-15, the military justice bill that I mentioned moments ago; Bill C-27, the first nations financial transparency act; and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Of course, this is only the start of my list, but it would be a good message for us to send to Canadians to show that we are actually willing to do our jobs, the jobs they sent us here to do, and actually vote and make decisions on the bills before us. A productive last week of the spring sitting of our hard-working Parliament would reassure Canadians that their parliamentarians are here to work.

To get on in that direction, since today is World Elder Abuse Day, I want to draw attention to our Bill C-36, the protecting Canada's seniors act. I believe this bill to combat elder abuse has the support of all parties. I have heard the suggestion of the opposition whip, but I would like to suggest we go one step further. I know the opposition has shown it likes to talk about things; we actually like to make decisions and get things done on this side of the House. With that in mind, and in recognition of this day, it is appropriate to advance this important bill right now and send it to committee for study. Therefore, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (elder abuse) be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Bill C-38—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am rising in response to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

Standing Order 78(3) states that the amount of time allotted to any stage of a bill shall be not less than one sitting day. However, it also does not mean we should not take that particular reference to be interpreted as the length of the sitting day on which the bill is scheduled for debate or when the motion is moved.

Standing Order 78(3) affords the government the option to allot a specific number of “days” or “hours”. Sometimes time allocation motions allot sitting days. When a motion refers to a sitting day, we take the timeframe of a sitting day literally. It does not mean how long the day is or what the circumstances dictating the time available for government orders might be. On other occasions, time allocation motions have allotted hours. The hours allotted in those motions were respected.

Let me give some examples. On November 13, 1975, a motion allotting five further hours for the second reading stage of Bill C-58, which amended the Income Tax Act, was adopted; similar motions were adopted on March 10, 1976, for Bill C-68 amendments to the then Medical Care Act; on March 29, 1977, for Bill C-27, the Employment and Immigration Reorganization Act; and on November 22, 1977, for Bill C-11, another bill to amend the Income Tax Act. In relation to Bill C-18, the National Transportation Act, 1986, a motion allotting four hours for report stage and four hours for third reading was adopted on June 15, 1987.

Most recently, the House adopted two such motions last Thursday, June 7, 2012. One allotted five hours for third reading of Bill C-25, pooled registered pension plans act, and the other allotted seven hours for second reading of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama free trade bill. Needless to say, both motions were in order last week and each was adopted by the House.

Of interest, regarding the 1987 case, the report and third reading stages happened to be the second order of the day called by the government on each sitting day, and the debates were interrupted by the Speaker after the expiry of the time provided for in the time allocation motion but before the end of government orders. It should be further noted that on both occasions, after Bill C-18 was dealt with, the government called a third order of the day.

Looking at our recent example of Bill C-25, yesterday's order paper said we had 2 hours and 24 minutes of debate remaining on the bill. Had we resumed debate on it at 3:00 p.m., after question period last Thursday, the debate would have ended before the end of government orders at 5:30 p.m. With routine proceedings and the consideration of procedural motions, it is not inconceivable to end up with a situation where only a few minutes are available to debate a bill on a given ordinary sitting day. Those few minutes would satisfy the minimum requirement of Standing Order 78(3) if the motion allotted one sitting day.

Our motion refers to hours. When dealing with hours, it makes more sense to interpret the minimum requirement of one sitting day differently because the number of available hours could vary from day to day.

As members are aware, not every sitting day is the same. Under the usual calendar, five and a half hours are set aside for both routine proceedings and government orders on Mondays; six and a half hours on Tuesdays and Thursdays; two and a half hours on Wednesdays and Fridays. The longer routine proceedings take, the less time there is for government orders. When allotting hours, the reference to one sitting day should be interpreted as a sitting day and not the sitting day on which the bill has been scheduled for debate.

I would argue that when referring to hours in a time allocation motion, the minimum allotment of hours should be consistent with the shortest day available under the current Standing Orders, and that is two and a half hours, and that assumes we breeze through routine proceedings in a heartbeat. Of course, our motion contemplates ten hours of debate for report stage and a further eight hours for third reading, which in both cases is at least three times the two and a half hour figure I just cited.

On three of the five sitting days each week, the time available for government business is routinely no more than five hours. Some may ask what impact there may be, given that we are operating under extended hours. I would say it should not be a relevant consideration. Calling government orders is the prerogative of the government. In other words, any item on the order paper could be called this week or this fall, when we are not in extended sittings. However, should the fact we adopted a motion yesterday under Standing Order 27(1) bear relevance to the chair's consideration, let me advance two further points.

First, Wednesday, tomorrow for example, would have at most eight hours for government orders, and the coming Friday is operating in the usual schedule, with two and a half hours for government business.

The government could, if it so chooses, call Bill C-38 on either of those dates, and yet 10 hours could not be fully used in a single day. In fact, I believe everyone understands that we will be calling Bill C-38, in part, tomorrow.

Second, the 1987 precedent that I cited earlier speaks to our present circumstances. On Friday, June 12, 1987, the House adopted a special order respecting sitting hours, effective the following Tuesday. Now, recall that the time allocation motion was adopted on Monday, June 15. The House, knowing that extended hours were upon it, adopted the time allocation order for four hours for each of two different stages of the bill.

Report stage was called on Tuesday, June 16, as the second order of the day, and after all of the recorded votes at report stage there were still a couple of hours left in the day for a third item of government business. Third reading followed the next day, when again there was more than ample time in the day to accommodate that debate.

Looking at the cases I cited earlier, but in both the case of Bill C-18 in 1987 and Bill C-25 on Thursday last week, the minimum requirement of one sitting day was not interpreted by the Speaker as the length of the days on which either bill was scheduled.

Although no ruling was then given in 1987, I would submit that Mr. Speaker Fraser likely interpreted the length of the shortest available day to be the minimum time required by the Standing Orders, and as far as I can surmise, it would also have been the view of the Speaker last week.

Accordingly, I believe our motion should be allowed to stand for the same reason that it allots a greater number of hours than the shortest day on which it could be scheduled. Indeed, it will be a longer number of hours than in the normal circumstance would be provided any day at any other time of the year that we would be debating it in the House.

I believe the precedents are amply demonstrative that the motion you have before you, Madam Speaker, is in order.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, commencing on Monday, June 11, 2012, and concluding on Friday, June 22, 2012, but not including Friday, June 15, 2012.

Today I rise to make the case for the government's motion to extend the working hours of this House until midnight for the next two weeks. This is of course a motion made in the context of the Standing Orders, which expressly provide for such a motion to be made on this particular day once a year.

Over the past year, our government's top priority has remained creating jobs and economic growth.

Job creation and economic growth have remained important priorities for our government.

Under the government's economic action plan, Canada's deficits and taxes are going down; investments in education, skills training, and research and innovation are going up; and excessive red tape and regulations are being eliminated.

As the global economic recovery remains fragile, especially in Europe, Canadians want their government to focus on what matters most: jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. This is what our Conservative government has been doing.

On March 29, the Minister of Finance delivered economic action plan 2012, a comprehensive budget that coupled our low-tax policy with new actions to promote jobs and economic growth.

The 2012 budget proposed measures aimed at putting our finances in order, increasing innovation and creating suitable and applicable legislation in the area of resource development in order to promote a good, stable investment climate.

The budget was debated for four days and was adopted by the House on April 4. The Minister of Finance then introduced Bill C-38, Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, the 2012 budget implementation bill. The debate at second reading of Bill C-38 was the longest debate on a budget implementation bill in at least two decades, and probably the longest ever.

On May 14, after seven days of debate, Bill C-38 was passed at second reading.

The bill has also undergone extensive study in committee. The Standing Committee on Finance held in-depth hearings on the bill. The committee also created a special subcommittee for detailed examination of the bill's responsible resource development provisions. All told, this was the longest committee study of any budget implementation bill for at least the last two decades, and probably ever.

We need to pass Bill C-38 to implement the urgent provisions of economic action plan 2012. In addition to our economic measures, our government has brought forward and passed bills that keep the commitments we made to Canadians in the last election.

In a productive, hard-working and orderly way, we fulfilled long-standing commitments to give marketing freedom to western Canadian grain farmers, to end the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, and to improve our democracy by moving every province closer to the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons.

However, in the past year our efforts to focus on the priorities of Canadians have been met with nothing but delay and obstruction tactics by the opposition. In some cases, opposition stalling and delaying tactics have meant that important bills are still not yet law. That is indeed regrettable.

In the case of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act, a bill that will help to create good, high-paying jobs in Canada's creative and high-tech sectors, this House has debated the bill on 10 days. We heard 79 speeches on it before it was even sent to committee. This is, of course, on top of similar debate that occurred in previous Parliaments on similar bills.

It is important for us to get on with it and pass this bill for the sake of those sectors of our economy, to ensure that Canada remains competitive in a very dynamic, changing high-tech sector in the world, so that we can have Canadian jobs and Canadian leadership in that sector.

Bill C-24 is the bill to implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. It has also been the subject of numerous days of debate, in fact dozens and dozens of speeches in the House, and it has not even made it to committee yet.

Bill C-23 is the Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act. It also implements another important job-creating free trade agreement.

All three of these bills have actually been before this place longer than for just the last year. As I indicated, they were originally introduced in previous Parliaments. Even then, they were supported by a majority of members of this House and were adopted and sent to committee. However, they are still not law.

We are here to work hard for Canadians. Adopting today's motion would give the House sufficient time to make progress on each of these bills prior to the summer recess. Adopting today's motion would also give us time to pass Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act. It is a much-needed piece of legislation that would give Canadians in small businesses and self-employed workers yet another option to help support them in saving for their retirement. Our government is committed to giving Canadians as many options as possible to secure their retirement and to have that income security our seniors need. This is another example of how we can work to give them those options.

In addition to these bills that have been obstructed, opposed or delayed one way or another by the opposition, there are numerous bills that potentially have support from the opposition side but still have not yet come to a vote. By adding hours to each working day in the House over the next two weeks, we would allow time for these bills to come before members of Parliament for a vote. These include: Bill C-12, safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; and Bill C-15, strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. I might add, that bill is long overdue as our military justice system is in need of these proposed changes. It has been looking for them for some time. It is a fairly small and discrete bill and taking so long to pass this House is not a testament to our productivity and efficiency. I hope we will be able to proceed with that.

Bill C-27 is the first nations financial transparency act, another step forward in accountability. Bill C-28 is the financial literacy leader act. At a time when we are concerned about people's financial circumstances, not just countries' but individuals', this is a positive step forward to help people improve their financial literacy so all Canadians can face a more secure financial future. Bill C-36 is the protecting Canada's seniors act which aims to prevent elder abuse. Does it not make sense that we move forward on that to provide Canadian seniors the protection they need from those very heinous crimes and offences which have become increasingly common in news reports in recent years?

Bill C-37 is the increasing offenders' accountability for victims act. This is another major step forward for readjusting our justice system which has been seen by most Canadians as being for too long concerned only about the rights and privileges of the criminals who are appearing in it, with insufficient consideration for the needs of victims and the impact of those criminal acts on them. We want to see a rebalancing of the system and that is why Bill C-37 is so important.

Of course, we have bills that have already been through the Senate, and are waiting on us to deal with them. Bill S-2, which deals with matrimonial real property, which would give fairness and equality to women on reserve, long overdue in this country. Let us get on with it and give first nations women the real property rights they deserve. Then there is Bill S-6, first nations electoral reform, a provision we want to see in place to advance democracy. Bill S-8 is the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill S-7 is the combatting terrorism act.

As members can see, there is plenty more work for this House to do. As members of Parliament, the least we can do is put in a bit of overtime and get these important measures passed.

In conclusion, Canada's economic strength, our advantage in these uncertain times, and our stability also depend on political stability and strong leadership. Across the world, political gridlock and indecision have led to economic uncertainty and they continue to threaten the world economy. That is not what Canadians want for their government. Our government is taking action to manage the country's business in a productive, hard-working and orderly fashion. That is why all members need to work together in a time of global economic uncertainty to advance the important bills I have identified, before we adjourn for the summer.

I call on all members to support today's motion to extend the working hours of this House by a few hours for the next two weeks. For the members opposite, not only do I hope for their support in this motion, I also hope I can count on them to put the interests of Canadians first and work with this government to pass the important bills that remain before us.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama. The title of this bill, which suggests this legislation will provide excellent economic spinoffs for our country and for the country with which the agreement was reached, is somewhat misleading. Over the course of my speech, hon. members will come to understand what I mean by that. They will also understand that, for obvious reasons, my party and I are against this bill.

Let us begin with some background. Bill C-24 came out of the 2010 negotiations between the Government of Canada and Panama. At the time, Panama was still considered to be a tax haven under OECD tax haven criteria. Does wanting to conclude a free trade agreement with such a country not strike my colleagues as questionable? Let us not forget the problems related to tax havens.

Each year the Government of Canada loses $9 billion in taxes to tax havens. Obviously, this $9 billion is not being spent on programs and services for Canadians. By signing agreements with countries like Panama, the government is indirectly encouraging the rich and corporations to avoid paying their fair share to Canadian society, which means Canadians lose money. Clearly, that forces the middle class and the poor to make up the difference. Where is the logic in this?

The Prime Minister is also making cuts to several programs, organizations and services, such as Rights and Democracy, employment insurance, old age security, the experimental lakes program, the Canadian fisheries sector, and the list goes on.

An application for a lousy $12,000 to install a ramp for the disabled was denied recently in my riding on the pretext that the government has to tighten its belt and make cuts. The application was rejected in spite of the fact that it met all the eligibility criteria set by the minister. This application was denied at a time when $9 billion is being lost to tax havens. Again, where is the logic in that?

Evidently, cuts are often made to services that benefit the middle class and the poor. The government justifies that by saying that there is not enough money in its coffers, when on numerous occasions it could have replenished the government coffers, as is currently the case.

Of course, the government will say that Panama no longer meets the criteria because it signed 12 tax information exchange agreements with France. That is what the minister of state just told us. I would like to remind members, however, that that is the minimum number of agreements to get through the crisis. So, evidently, the government is expecting the minimum. What kind of logic is this?

This is not evidence of the Panamanian government's genuine intention to resolve these issues because these problems are due to the fact that Panama is a tax haven. All this demonstrates is Panama's desire to no longer be labelled a tax haven, because otherwise I would imagine that Panama would take a number of other steps to ensure that it in no way meets the four criteria for tax havens.

Furthermore, the New Democrats and many people in my riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and that of my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord—who was unable to speak because closure was invoked by this government—as well as people in the 308 ridings in our country, cannot believe that Canada would enter into a free trade agreement with a country that refuses to sign a tax information exchange agreement, given Panama's reputation.

The government believes that the double taxation convention is enough. Let us be serious. Given that Panama engages in many illegal financial activities such as money laundering, it is quite naive to be satisfied with a convention that requires Panama to disclose only its legitimate revenues. Come on.

It is as though the government were unaware of the importance of money laundering to the country's business and unaware that Panama's tax haven policies make it a place that cannot be ignored.

As Todd Tucker said in November 2010, when he appeared before the committee studying this matter, “major Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, as well as Colombian illegal armed groups, use Panama for drug trafficking and money laundering purposes. The funds generated from illegal activity are susceptible to being laundered through Panamanian banks, real estate developments, and more.”

The government does not seem to realize that by doing business with Panama, it is encouraging this whole industry. That is what the Conservatives want. Well, no. They are muzzling us in order to hide the truth from Canadians and to make sure they get this agreement, no matter what the consequences. They are invoking closure to ensure that the opposition does not say anything embarrassing.

The government cannot remain indifferent to these facts, for as Françoise Héritier said, “Evil begins with indifference and resignation.” We in the NDP still believe that fair trade is possible and that we do not have to remain indifferent to the challenges that exist in other countries in order to create economic agreements that are sound and beneficial for all parties involved.

Another key point in this bill that prevents the NDP from supporting it is the notion of respect for workers' rights. There is absolutely nothing in this agreement to protect the fundamental rights of workers. There is nothing to ensure that these rights will not be denied in the future, as they were in 2010, when collecting mandatory union dues was prohibited, when the boss could fire striking employees, when roadblocks became illegal and when the police were protected from all criminal charges, legitimate or not. There is no protection against this.

The Conservatives seem to think that we can enter into an agreement with Panama and everything will magically work itself out, unless the Conservatives do not like workers' rights and are not really interested in them. Who knows. Clearly, I could talk about other questionable aspects, but there is not enough time.

At least I had time to speak. Many of my colleagues have not been able to represent their constituents because of the Conservatives' time allocation and closure motion.

I repeat: the NDP believes that it is possible, and desirable, for an effective trade strategy to make room for social justice, public-sector social programs and the gradual elimination of poverty.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have had copious and lengthy debate on the bill already but we will continue to debate the bill because it is an important bill for Canadian businesses, for Canadian industry, for Canadian workers and, quite frankly, for Panama.

The biggest issue for me when we look at these free trade agreements, regardless of which countries around the world we are entering into an agreement with, is that we are already trading with Panama. The NDP want us to spell it out that somehow this is a rogue nation with which no one is trading. When the Panama Canal is finished, 5% of all the containers on the world's oceans will go through the Panama Canal. That is an extremely important nation in our hemisphere. We are trading with it already. How can it hurt to put a rules based system in place so we know and can expect how our trading relationship will unfold?

I find it extremely troublesome that all the NDP members can do is find a reason not to support something, instead of looking for all of the good parts and the positive parts of this agreement.

As I said when I stood up, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-24, the legislation to implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. I will spend a few moments today talking about how this agreement fits into Canada's engagement in the Americas.

Five years ago, while on a week-long tour of the Americas that included Bogota, Colombia and stops in Barbados and Haiti, the Prime Minister declared that reviving and expanding Canada's political and economic engagement in the Americas would be a major foreign policy goal of our government.

Last summer, the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade made a highly successful visit to Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica and Honduras. During that visit, the Prime Minister made it clear that Canada was an active player in the hemisphere, strengthening economic ties with its partners, improving market access and promoting security, all things that I would think every member in this House could support.

Our commitment to the Americas is evident through the 175 ministerial visits to Latin America since we formed government in 2006, and the 20 countries in the Americas with which we have signed or are pursuing free trade agreements.

Canada is committed to playing an even larger role in the Americas, and doing so for the long term. Part of this commitment involves fostering closer economic ties with regional partners to promote trade, investment and prosperity across the hemisphere.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement will support job creation and economic growth in Canada and Panama, which, in turn, will contribute to advancing security and democratic governance in the region. It is an important part of our job creating free trade plan.

Our government is in the midst of the most ambitious free trade plan in Canada's history. Our government understands that one in five jobs and 60% of our GDP depends upon trade. Jobs and prosperity in communities across Canada depend on the opportunities that free trade agreements, like the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act, create.

Since 2006, we have concluded free trade agreements with nine countries and we are in negotiations with many more. That includes negotiations with the European Union and India. Just recently, the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Noda of Japan announced the launch of negotiations toward a free trade agreement that will deepen the trade and investment ties between Canada and Japan.

Free trade agreements help our businesses compete in global markets and, when our business succeed in global markets, Canadians succeed.

I will take a moment to talk about the opportunities in Panama for Canadian business, for Canadians and s for Panamanians in Canada. Panama is often referred to as the gateway to Latin America and its critical role in connecting the Latin American region also enhances the importance of a Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

Panama has long been considered a logistic centre and international connection point in the Latin American region. Over the years, Panama has evolved to become the pre-eminent air transportation hub and is now ranked as having the highest air connectivity in the Americas by the International Air Transport Association. Panama is also a central point for goods travelling to Latin America, a nexus for international trade and a strategic hub for the region.

According to Panamanian estimates, 5% of the world's trade passed through the Panama Canal in 2010. The Panamanian government's large investment to expand the Panama Canal means that Panama is positioned to play an increasingly important role in the Latin American region.

Panama's unique and influential position in the global trading system is significant. It represents an entry point for the broader region thereby enabling access to neighbouring markets. A free trade agreement with this strategically positioned partner would serve as a gateway for an increased Canadian commercial presence in both the Caribbean and Latin America.

As our results clearly demonstrate, Canada has provided global leadership throughout these difficult economic times by encouraging free trade and open markets. Our commitment to free trade is key to Canada's economic strength.

We will continue to open doors for Canadian companies in the Americas and around the world. We are enhancing trade and investment in the Americas by encouraging deeper commercial relationships and engaging in free trade negotiations, and with great success.

For example, our free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia are now enforced, and Canadian companies are taking advantage of the new opportunities these agreements have produced.

In August 2011, Canada and Honduras announced the conclusion of negotiations toward a Canada-Honduras Free Trade Agreement. The same month, Canada also announced that it would work with Costa Rica to modernize and broaden the scope of the Canada-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement. An updated free trade agreement with Costa Rica stands to lower remaining tariffs on goods and would remove trade barriers in a broad range of sectors, creating new potential opportunities for Canadian construction, manufacturing and agriculture industries.

In April 2012, Canada and Chile signed an agreement to amend the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement, including the addition of a financial services chapter, which will ensure that Canadian financial institutions enjoy preferential access to the Chilean market.

We are not stopping there. As was announced last year, Canada is also engaged in exploratory discussions with Mercosur to enhance our trade relationship with this regional bloc, which includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.

The trade agreements that Canada has negotiated or is looking to negotiate give our businesses an additional competitive edge that will help them succeed in these regional markets. That is why I am asking members to pass Bill C-24, implementing the Canada free trade agreement.

Our commitment to further liberalize trade and investment is a key component to our engagement in the Americas. Through the lowering of tariffs and the promotion of investment and commercial relationships, our government is supporting the efforts of Canadian businesses by helping them establish a strong presence in these foreign markets.

I am pleased to say that our businesses have seized the opportunity. Canadian firms have been forging commercial ties in the region for decades. Today we can find Canadian businesses, goods, services, expertise and investment dollars at work throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. This is a result of diverse opportunities and strong commercial ties throughout the region that are facilitated through free trade agreements. Many products manufactured in the region are using Canadian inputs before being sold domestically across Latin America and around the world.

I would repeat, once again, that I ask my Liberal and NDP colleagues here in the House to put partisan politics aside and look at what is to be gained here. This is not a complicated trade agreement. For example, there is a small company that makes oil and gas equipment in my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's, in Nova Scotia. They have another company in Mexico. Mexico has no tariff for goods going into Panama. However, we pay an 18% tariff. The product that the company is making today and selling in Panama is being made in Mexico so it can avoid the 18% tariff.

If we bring down the tariff walls, there are advantages there for Canadian businesses and for Panamanian businesses. Everybody gains. The hemisphere gains. Canada is a sought-after partner in the Americas.

We need to take advantage of the position we are in, the hard work that our government and other—

The House resumed from May 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Bill C-24 — Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation 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, not more than seven further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

at the expiry of the seven hours, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite as enthusiastic as the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, but I will try.

This morning, my hon. friend, the member for Edmonton—Leduc and chair of the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance reported to this House that Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, has passed the committee and been recommended for adoption by the House.

I am pleased that the Standing Committee on Finance followed the lead of the House with respect to the longest debate on a budget bill in the past two decades. The committee gave this bill the longest consideration for a budget bill in at least two decades. That is in addition to the subcommittee spending additional time to consider the responsible resource development clauses.

This very important legislation, our budget implementation legislation, economic action plan 2012, will help to secure vital economic growth for Canada in the short, medium and long term. Given the fragile world economy that is around us, this bill is clearly needed, so we must move forward. Therefore, I plan to start report stage on the bill Monday at noon.

In the interim, we will consider second reading of Bill C-24 this afternoon. This bill would implement our free trade agreement with Panama, which I signed when I was international trade minister, some 755 days ago. It is now time to get that bill passed.

Tomorrow, we will consider third reading of Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act, so the Senate will have an opportunity to review the bill before it must become law, within a few weeks' time.

Next week I plan to give priority to bills which have been reported back from committee. It goes without saying that we will debate Bill C-38, our budget implementation bill. I am given to understand that there is a lot of interest this time around in the process of report stage motion tabling, selection and grouping.

Additionally, we will finish third reading of Bill C-25, the pooled registered pension plans act, and Bill C-23, the Canada–Jordan economic growth and prosperity act.

The House will also finish third reading of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. The bill is a vital tool to unlock the potential of our creative and digital economy. It is time that elected parliamentarians should have their say on its passage once and for all. I would like to see that vote happen no later than Monday, June 18.

If we have time remaining, the House will also debate second reading of Bill C-24, the Panama free trade act, if more time is necessary, as well as for Bill C-7, the Senate reform act, and Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act.

Bill C-24—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, while I am on my feet, I might add that I did have the great pleasure of being Canada's international trade minister in representing Canada around the world. On May 14, 2010, in that role, I signed the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement. This agreement will help Canadian businesses create jobs and economic growth through expanded exports, but only if it becomes law.

It has been 754 days since I signed that agreement. Unfortunately, we have had an opposition that is ideologically opposed to free trade and unwilling to let the bill get to a vote. Thus, I regretfully again must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will continue with the NDP's opposition day motion.

Tomorrow, we will finish report stage on Bill C-31, the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act. Including second reading, this will be the eighth day of debate on the bill, in addition to many committee meetings. As the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism told the House on Tuesday, this bill must become law by June 29.

On Monday, we will resume the third reading debate on Bill C-25,, the pooled registered pension plans act. Following question period that day, we will mark Her Majesty the Queen's jubilee and pay tribute to her 60 years on the throne. After that special occasion, we will get back to the usual business of the day, debating legislation. Bill C-23, the Canada–Jordan economic growth and prosperity act, will be taken up at report stage and third reading.

Jumping ahead to next Thursday, we will resume debating Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama economic growth and prosperity act, at second reading. I would also call Bill C-25 that day if the debate does not finish on Monday.

Finally, June 5 and 6 shall be the seventh and eighth allotted days, both of which will see the House debate motions from the NDP.

I can confirm notice of a motion for unanimous consent regarding the private member's bill, Bill C-311. This is the bill to amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act that the NDP filibustered the other day. I understand the NDP has now agreed that was a mistake and it is willing to allow it to proceed to a vote at this time. Therefore, we anticipate we will be consenting to that motion to undo the damage that the NDP unwisely did when it filibustered the bill previously.

Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I am rising in the House today to speak about Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

As many of my colleagues have already pointed out, Bill C-24 is a new version of a bill that was introduced in the House during the previous Parliament, but that died on the order paper at the time.

In August 2009, the Conservative government entered into negotiations surrounding the future free trade agreement with the Republic of Panama. The agreement also included side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment.

This free trade agreement was signed on May 14, 2010, and tabled in the House of Commons as Bill C-46, but the legislative process ended at the clause-by-clause review by the Standing Committee on International Trade.

This same bill is now being reintroduced without any significant improvements over the previous version.

The NDP was opposed to Bill C-46 in the 40th Parliament for the many reasons that have already been enumerated here in this House.

Again, we are going to have to oppose Bill C-24, because there are no provisions in it to remedy the fundamental flaws that have already been cited in this House.

The Canada-Panama agreement negotiated by the Conservative government is in fact only a slightly improved version of the approach to trade taken by former American President George Bush. Once again, in this free trade agreement, big corporations come ahead of the Canadian and Panamanian people, and absolutely nothing is being done to ensure respect for human rights, and very little to protect the environment.

More specifically, it is obvious to my colleagues in the NDP and myself, at least, that there are no provisions in the Canada-Panama agreement to ensure respect for workers’ rights in Panama. If the agreement is ratified by Parliament as it stands, there is absolutely no guarantee that the rights of Panamanian workers will not be flouted as they have so often been in the past.

But honestly, is anyone here surprised by this? If we look at the Conservatives’ record since the May 2, 2011, election, it is clear that workers’ rights are the very last thing on this government’s list of priorities.

In barely a year, they have introduced a record number of bills to force workers back to work and violate their fundamental right to negotiate their conditions of employment in good faith. Given this kind of contempt for the rights of Canadian workers, it is really not surprising that there would be no provisions in the Canada-Panama agreement to protect the rights of Panamanian workers.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster had already proposed two amendments at the Standing Committee on International Trade to remedy this major flaw in the bill.

Those amendments would, first, have protected unionized workers in Panama by guaranteeing them the right to bargain collectively, as is the case here in Canada, or at least as it was before this government came to power.

The amendments presented by my colleague would also have forced the Minister of International trade to consult regularly with representatives of Canadian workers and with Canadian unions.

We know that this kind of consultation seems somewhat repugnant to this government, but New Democrat members think this measure is essential before we can ratify a free trade agreement with Panama.

Of course, in spite of Panama’s bad record when it comes to defending workers’ rights, those amendments were naturally defeated by the Conservatives, with the support of the Liberals.

With the Conservatives confirming on a daily basis their bias in favour of businesses and management—with their brutal attacks on workers' basic rights—it was hard to expect a different outcome.

Another major problem with Bill C-24 is the fact that it does not include any measure to prevent tax evasion. It is important to note that the Republic of Panama is still regarded as a tax haven. In fact, Nicolas Sarkozy, the former president of France, recently said so.

Even though these issues were raised by my colleagues during the 40th Parliament, Bill C-24 is still seriously flawed when it comes to tax disclosure.

Despite repeated requests from Canada, the Republic of Panama has refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement.

This is very troubling, considering the large amount of money that is laundered in the Republic of Panama, including money from drug trafficking.

The Conservatives are constantly boasting about the importance they attach to law and order in Canada and about the fact that they are prepared to put Canadians in jail for years just because of a few marijuana plants. However, they refuse to do anything to create obstacles for big drug traffickers. It is really impossible to understand this government.

In its present form, Bill C-24 is not acceptable to the NDP. This trade agreement, which is quite similar to NAFTA, unjustly favours multinational corporations at the expense of workers and of the quality of our environment. This type of agreement with various countries that are often at an economic disadvantage compared to Canada, increases social and economic inequalities, while also significantly reducing the quality of life of workers and their families.

The rights of workers all over the world are important to my NDP colleagues and to myself. We cannot, in good conscience, support an agreement that does not do anything to protect the basic rights of the country with which that agreement is reached. We already have enough problems protecting our own Canadian workers against this government, which is barely able to conceal its contempt for their rights. We should not, in addition, start interfering with the rights of workers in Panama. It just makes no sense. We must ensure there are guarantees, so that they can negotiate their collective agreements freely and in good faith, as should be the case in any democratic society.

Since the beginning of the debate on Bill C-24, Conservative members keep repeating the same old arguments dictated by their government, without trying to understand our position on this issue.

My colleagues and I have made speeches in this House that are very clear. Our position on international trade is clear: we believe in the importance of international trade, but it has to be fair, sustainable and equitable trade. It is totally false to say that the NDP does not support international trade. I think I will say that again for the benefit of my colleagues opposite: it is totally false to say that the NDP does not support international trade. We simply believe that the trade agreements being negotiated have to respect and support the principles of social justice, sustainable development and human rights, which is not to say that we have to neglect the need to expand our trading opportunities.

We are aware that Canada has to trade with other countries; to import and to export. That is the system we are in. That is how things work and we are very aware of these realities. However, my colleagues and I in the NDP do not think that Canada's economic prosperity needs to come at the expense of workers' rights in other countries, people who are less fortunate than we are and who do not enjoy all the freedoms we had before this Conservative government came on the scene. We can indeed see that the rights to free association and to collective bargaining are fading away as the weeks go by.

It is completely absurd and false to say that the NDP wants to close our borders to commercial products from other countries. We do believe, however, that the government should stop focusing exclusively on the NAFTA model and should remain open to exploring other possible solutions to establish trade ties with other countries.

We must ensure that Canada puts the pursuit of social justice, strong public-sector social programs and the fight against poverty at the heart of its trade strategy. As soon as this government presents us with a free trade agreement that respects the principles of social justice and sustainable development, we would be pleased to support and vote in favour of such a bill. So far, however, we have yet to see such a thing in the history of Canada. The Liberals did not present any such agreements, nor have the Conservatives.

So, until that time, we will continue to oppose them. However, there is still time to amend this bill and ensure that the principles of social justice, sustainable development and the fight against poverty are respected.

I invite my Conservative colleagues to reflect on this and remain open to the kind of amendments that my colleagues are proposing.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act.

To be acceptable and really effective, free trade agreements have to do more than just open new markets like Panama. They have to be based on fair, sustainable principles that benefit both countries. The free trade agreement we are debating today does not really meet these criteria. In fact, this agreement has problems that are common to many of our free trade agreements. I would like to talk about these problems, as some of my colleagues have done.

One of the most disturbing parts of the agreement is in chapter 9, which has to do with investment. This chapter covers the same principle as chapter 11 of NAFTA, which allows a company to sue a government if it creates regulatory barriers to trade.

According to Todd Tucker of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, who testified before the Standing Committee on International Trade on November 17:

Panama is one of the world's worst tax havens. It is home to an estimated 400,000 corporations, including offshore corporations and multinational subsidiaries. This is almost four times the number of corporations registered in Canada. So Panama is not just any developing country.

Indeed, for decades, the Panamanian government has been deliberately pursuing a tax haven strategy. It offers foreign banks and firms a special offshore licence to conduct business there. Not only are these businesses not taxed, but they are subject to little to no reporting requirements or regulations.

According to the OECD, the Panamanian government does not have the legal capacity to verify key information on these businesses, such as, for example, their capital structure. Panama's shadowy financial practices also make it a very attractive place to launder money that comes from all over the world.

According to the U.S. state department, major Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, as well as Colombian illegal armed groups, are using Panama for drug trafficking and money laundering purposes.

The Canada-Panama trade agreement could even exacerbate the problem posed by Panama's status as a tax haven. As the OECD pointed out, signing a trade agreement without first tackling Panama's shadowy financial practices may lead to greater tax evasion. So, an agreement with Panama would facilitate tax evasion, which would result in large sums of money not being collected by the taxman, Need I remind the House that this is a period of budget austerity, when that money is badly needed for our public services.

There are no restrictions on capital entering or exiting Panama. Transactions are protected by banking secrecy, and financial activity is not monitored. There is also a somewhat more specific problem in this case, and that is the absence of a tax information exchange agreement. The negotiation of a free trade agreement should be an opportunity to encourage Panama to be more transparent about tax evasion.

Although the importance of dealing with problems caused by tax havens was highlighted at the 2009 meeting of the G20 in London, Canada is moving in the opposite direction and is creating a new means of facilitating the flight of capital. This type of strategy is just irresponsible.

We should also note the serious environmental problems in Panama. While this deal includes an agreement on the environment, as we saw with the free trade agreement with Colombia—which has a separate agreement on the environment—it actually provides no enhanced protection for the environment or the resources in affected communities. Given Panama's very lax environmental regulations, especially when it comes to mining, this oversight is extremely worrying.

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

Why is the government so willing to ignore the huge threats to Panama's environment? All trade agreements, including this one, should respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems.

But seeing that this government cut eight ecotoxicology positions at the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne, I imagine that it does not understand the importance of preserving these ecosystems.

There are also problems when it comes to protecting workers. Panama is currently enjoying relatively high rates of growth, but it is ranked second among countries in the region in terms of inequality: 40% of Panama's inhabitants are poor, 27% are extremely poor, and the rate of extreme poverty is particularly high among indigenous populations. In recent years, the country has undergone considerable liberalization and privatization, but they have not trickled down to financially benefit the population.

The Canada–Panama agreement does not include specific protection for the right to associate and the right to strike. Instead, it provides effective recognition for the right to bargain collectively. As far as union rights are concerned, the agreement is, therefore, weaker than previous agreements.

The trade agreement does not level the playing field for investors and workers. Furthermore, this trade agreement does not create a level playing field for investors and workers. Under chapter 11, investors have the right to request compulsory arbitration that they can conduct independently, however a union in Panama would not be allowed to take a case to arbitration. It can file a complaint, which would lead to an investigation followed by a report, but it would be up to the government to seek and obtain remedies. Based on our experience with agreements modelled on NAFTA, governments are not inclined to go down that road.

Unfortunately, the trade agreement with Panama does not address any of these issues. In fact, the agreement does not refer to drug trafficking, tax havens or money laundering. It does have a side agreement to deal with labour, but we already know from previous efforts with such side agreements that they have no real effect on improving labour conditions in a country.

Quebeckers and Canadians will not benefit from the agreement any more than Panamanians. Moreover, in the agreement, there are several measures modelled on World Trade Organization agreements, which have been contested for some time by southern countries.

The Canadian government justifies this accord by the fact that Panama is an established market for Canada, and that bilateral trade and investment relations show strong, long-term growth potential. Some big Canadian businesses have sniffed out good deals and believe that the accord will facilitate trade relations with Panama, despite its dubious reputation. But what price will be paid by Canadians, Panamanians and all future generations?

We, the members of the opposition, proposed changes to improve this agreement. During the clause-by-clause study, we proposed 11 amendments that would have made this bill more progressive. For example, we suggested adding certain essential concepts, such as sustainable development and investment and, more importantly, transparency requirements for taxation. The Conservatives, together with the third party, rejected our amendments. That shows how backwards those two parties are when it comes to responsible, appropriate fiscal policy.

The NDP, for its part, prefers a multilateral approach based on a sustainable trade model. That might be the main difference. Bilateral trade agreements are usually protectionist trade agreements that grant preferred treatment to some trading partners to the exclusion of others. Weaker countries typically find themselves in an inferior position relative to bigger partners. A sustainable multilateral trade model avoids those problems and protects human rights and the environment. That is why these elements should be more prominent not only in this agreement, but also in other free trade agreements. That could be one way to solve the problem. That is our proposal.

I would like to end by talking about values, because I think values are also involved. This free trade agreement could allow us to assert our own Canadian values almost everywhere in the world. Our values could be reflected in our free trade agreements; they could be understood; they could be seen; and they would be clear. This would be interesting. In fact, I do not want to speak against the people of Panama. I just think that this agreement is not good for us, nor is it good for them.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to say a little bit about Bill C-24 on the implementation of the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

As you are aware, the NDP is strongly opposed to this agreement because of all its deficiencies and inconsistencies. It is based on the former Bill C-46, which was not passed in the previous Parliament. Let us remember the proposals and amendments suggested by our colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster. He submitted 11 amendments without success and the bill was never passed.

In this Parliament, the Conservative caucus decided to introduce this bill again as Bill C-24. Among other things, the Conservatives proposed that, for tax purposes, Panama should still be considered a tax haven. This is unacceptable in the eyes of the global financial community. The Conservatives are sending the message that we are not asking any questions and that we are not imposing any constraints on countries regarding the disclosure of useful or important tax information. It seems that the negotiators of this type of agreement have not shown the importance of this and have not sent the message to the officials negotiating for the other countries involved—such as Panama in this case—that this was perhaps not a binding requirement for signing this agreement. As we know, these countries have refused to disclose this financial information. It would appear that the Canadian negotiators said that there was no problem and that negotiations could continue.

Our country places a great deal of importance on workers’ rights, as demonstrated by all the collective agreements signed throughout Canada, by the existence of unions and by legislation that permits free collective bargaining. However, the hon. members can see for themselves what is happening right now, in our country.

The Conservatives want to sign a free trade agreement with a country where there are few guarantees that there will be at least minimal respect for the working conditions of employees. In reality, that is not a binding condition, either. It sends the wrong message. In fact, Panama can say in return that it understands very clearly that, in reality, the aim of this free trade agreement is just to grant certain advantages to mining companies, oil companies or Canadian casinos. These companies will be able to operate more profitably, considering the competitive advantage they will obtain from the lower wages and all goods that they can purchase more cheaply.

The countries that should be our partners have flatly refused to sign this agreement. However, this tax information exchange agreement was one of the critical points in the negotiations that Panama entered into with European countries. The OECD has made a number of statements and has even drawn up grey lists and black lists and lists of every colour imaginable in order to categorize certain countries whose economies are dysfunctional.

However, as everyone knows, the result of this is that there was never really a positive agreement between Panama and Europe, and particularly between Panama and France. Now, Canada comes along and wants to be the sheriff. It wants to sign a free trade agreement and it tells Panama what it must commit to do. It also tells Panama that what it is asking for in return is negotiable in a very unfair fashion.

Recently, I was stunned to hear a member of this House call one of our colleagues on this side a pompous socialist, because that member thought the New Democratic Party was fiercely opposed to international trade. It does not make any sense. We were misunderstood. That is really misquoting and mischaracterizing what we want to propose, or what was already proposed on numerous occasions by our colleagues in this House.

When it comes to trade, I feel that all the proposals made by the New Democratic Party are good. These include: protecting the environment and workers' rights—and I will say it again—and total honesty regarding the financial information that must be shared to avoid shenanigans. International trade is plagued by money transfers, money laundering and similar activities.

Our dear colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, proposed amendments, but the Conservatives and the Liberals always refused to accept them. At the time, there was a deadlock because we were proposing to secure “win-win” free trade agreements, instead of “win-lose” agreements like this one.

As for the member who called our colleague a pompous socialist, it is all a matter of interpretation, because if I said the opposite, they would then be deemed to be imperialists and even colonialists. That is all part of history and those days are over.

As we will see, international trade will evolve in a way where good faith will prevail, followed by everything related to financial interests and to profits from that trade.

Instead of collecting interests or buying bank drafts, we are going to go back to the ancient basic form of trade, namely the trading of natural resources for another form of financial resources.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

I would like to make something clear at the outset. We oppose this bill. In the NDP, we do not want a free trade zone where workers’ rights are sold at discount prices; that is already a serious problem in Panama. Nor do we want a bill without a clear definition of sustainable development and responsible investment.

I would like to remind the House that when the committee considered the predecessor to Bill C-24, Bill C-46, it heard persuasive testimony that the Republic of Panama is a tax haven and that its record on human rights is debatable, to say the least. The situation has not changed since then.

Bill C-24 has a new title but does nothing to address the fundamental shortcomings of its predecessor. It does not incorporate the amendments moved by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, which would have addressed the most contentious aspects of the agreement. During the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-46, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster proposed 11 amendments that would have made progressive changes to the bill.

The changes proposed by our member concerned the addition of the crucial concepts of sustainable development and responsible investment, the obligation of fiscal transparency and some provisions that would have integrated into the bill the protection of workers' rights, especially the right to collective bargaining. Other amendments proposed by my colleague would have required the Minister of International Trade to consult workers and unions, and to work with experts and human rights organizations in order to conduct analyses of the impact of the trade agreement. All these amendments were rejected by the Conservatives with the support of the Liberals.

There are many reasons why we cannot vote in favour of Bill C-24. First of all, the Canada-Panama agreement, which follows the NAFTA model, puts large corporations before people. That is unacceptable. Agreements like NAFTA were initially designed for trade between highly industrialized, developed countries, but Panama is a developing country. This trade agreement will not help Panama to grow sustainably or improve the living conditions of its people. Instead, the agreement will increase the influence of multinational firms and increase inequalities, and this will happen much faster and more definitively than it did in the case of NAFTA.

Furthermore, this trade agreement does not create a level playing field for investors and workers. Under chapter 11, investors have the right to request compulsory arbitration that they can conduct independently, however a union in Panama would not be allowed to take a case to arbitration. It can file a complaint, which would lead to an investigation followed by a report, but it would be up to the government to seek and obtain remedies.

In addition, the Canada-Panama agreement does not ensure respect for human rights. Also, while Bill C-24 appears to protect the environment on the surface, it does not implement any real measures or mechanisms to resolve disputes. We also have to wonder about the degree of Panama's fiscal transparency. It is important to bear in mind that, despite the Canadian government's requests, Panama refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement.

We believe that Canada's trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade that builds partnerships with other countries that support the principles of social justice and human rights, without ignoring the need to broaden trade opportunities.

The federal government needs to stop focusing exclusively on NAFTA-type free trade agreements at the expense of other options, and it should explore other ways of increasing trade, in particular by adopting a vigorous trade promotion strategy, one that would spread Canada's brand abroad the way Australia has succeeded in doing.

The NDP firmly believes that there is another, better model of trade relations that could be established with Panama or any other country, a model that would include the following in a global fair trade strategy.

First, it should include a comprehensive and rational impact analysis for all international agreements, to determine whether the trade agreements being negotiated by Canada are advantageous to Canadian families, Canadian workers and Canadian industries. The government should not sign any trade agreement that is likely to lead to a net loss of jobs. Once again, that is unacceptable.

Second, there should be a guarantee that the trade agreements Canada negotiates will strengthen Canada's sovereignty and its freedom to establish its own policies, that they will help make us a force to be reckoned with on the world stage and that they support the principles of a fair multilateral trade system.

Third, there is the fundamental principle according to which all trade agreements must protect and promote human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any products considered to have been manufactured in sweatshops, by forced labour, or under any other conditions that do not meet basic international standards for labour or human rights.

Fourth, the model includes the fundamental principle according to which all trade agreements should be consistent with sustainable development, as well as the integrity of all ecosystems.

Fifth, every time the government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to adopt the enabling legislation must be submitted to a mandatory vote on whether or not the terms of the agreement are acceptable.

The current system, which consists of tabling a free trade agreement in the House for a period of 21 sitting days prior to ratification, is not mandatory and does not bind the government to accept a decision of the House.

I am now ready to answer questions.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this afternoon to speak to the bill, which our party is opposing, Bill C-24, a free trade agreement with Panama.

Many people on the other side of the aisle have been asking us today what kind of deals we support. We stand very clearly in support of fair trade.

This agreement is a marginally improved copy of the George Bush era style. It puts big business before people. There is no effective enforcement of human rights. There is lip service to environmental protections without any real tough measures or dispute mechanisms. It is a NAFTA copycat. These agreements have been in the past designed for trade between two industrialized countries. We have ourselves and Panama which is currently a developing nation.

This is a deal that was negotiated, like others, in record time, without consultation with trade unions, environmental groups, civil society or citizens.

A fair, sustainable trade deal would not only address the needs of business but it would also address the needs of workers and the concerns over the environment. We have global environmental issues. We have global issues around workers' wages and workers' rights. These need to be reflected in any deal that Canada signs internationally because what we sign internationally speaks to who we are as a country.

According to, not just us, but the U.S. department of justice and other entities, Panama is a major conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers and their money laundering activities.

The OECD has noted that having a trade agreement without first tackling Panama's financial secrecy practices could incentivize even more offshore tax dodging. There is a reason to believe that the trade deal would not only increase tax haven abuses but it would also make fighting them that much harder.

It is one of the many ironies that we experience in this House daily. We have a government that pretends to trumpet this belief in law and order domestically but will play footsie internationally with regimes that do not have proper transparency or accountability when we are talking about organized crime, drug cartels, when it is clear that Panama has not tightened up its measures around tax.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster put forth several moderate amendments that dealt with some of the fundamental issues that Canada stands for: fairness, treating workers fairly, allowing for collective bargaining and protecting workers and the environment. We on our side do not believe that economic development, economic activity and stewardship of our environment are mutually exclusive terms. We believe they can work together. In fact, we believe that is the key to future prosperity, not just for Canada but for countries like Panama.

The NDP has consistently opposed NAFTA-style trade templates that focus on the interests of multinational corporations and ignore these other basic important elements of any free, democratic civil society, and that is workers' rights and the environment.

This trade model ultimately rejects fair and sustainable trade which, in turn, generates discontent and protectionism. The NAFTA model has shown unparalleled efficiency in driving and entrenching the political and economic domination of large transnational corporations and is currently at the heart of the ongoing drive for bilateral FTAs.

In our country and in my riding, there are many immigrants and new Canadians who are desperate for work. They are sometimes working three jobs at minimum wage just to make ends meet. We do not need one more instrument in the race to the bottom for wages, not just in Canada but internationally. We need to create good jobs, protect workers' wages and allow workers to bargain collectively not just here but in countries that we deal with. In fact, trade agreements are economic agreements and partnerships between us and other countries but, as I have already said, they also speak to who we are as a country. Are we a country that is willing to toss aside, throw overboard, throw under the bus, whatever metaphor one wants to use, those things which our forefathers and foremothers fought for?

I go back to workers' rights. This deal echoes the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I know the party in the corner seemingly had no problem with the ways in which workers' rights were not protected in that agreement. It is willing to throw workers under the bus in this instance, too. We expect that from the government and we are getting used to it from the Liberals but we on our side will not do that.

What do we stand for? What does fair trade look like to us? We believe in an alternative and better form of trading. As an aside, which is not a minor aside, there are other countries that aggressively promote their businesses internationally and locally. There are countries that spend hundreds of times more than we do promoting, for example, their wine industries abroad and we are not doing that here. In other words, we have many ways in which to promote trade with other countries, celebrate and promote the innovation, technology and things we produce here in Canada and we are missing out on those opportunities. We are missing out on them in the ever-expanding arts and culture sector. I can say that from first-hand experience.

The New Democrats believe in an alternative, in a better form of trading, in providing a comprehensive and commonsense impact assessment on all international agreements that demonstrate that the trade deals Canada negotiates are beneficial to Canadian families, workers and industries, and that the government does not sign any trade agreement that would lead to a net job loss. What could be controversial in an amendment like that? That seems like due diligence to us. It seems like a no-brainer. We want to ensure that the deal we sign will not create net job losses. There should be a means test of assessing whether this agreement is good for the Canadian economy, not just a few large multinational corporations that get backdoor access to government ministers.

Those are some of the ways in which we believe that international trade agreements should be negotiated. We also know that many Canadian workers, families and businesses support this direction.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from St. John's East, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-24 at second reading. This bill deals with the implementation of the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the agreement on the environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the agreement on labour cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

It is certainly clear that we feel proud every time we see agreements. We feel that other countries want to trade and do business with us. All this seems really nice on paper. On the other hand, sometimes there are little surprises in the fine print. While I cannot claim that I am a specialist in international trade, there are some basic things that we, as a free and democratic country, should insist on when we do business with other countries. This is one of the reasons why our party is opposed to this bill. It is not because we are against international agreements, free trade agreements or attempts to try to remove trade barriers between countries. In fact, if we believe in certain values, I think we must make sure that the countries with whom we do business are not rogue countries or countries that mistreat their people in order to acquire, create, build, produce or manufacture articles that will be freely traded with our country.

I think that when we have principles, we must express them all the way. If not, we should stop going around the world saying that we defend rights and freedoms, and we should just go ahead and do whatever we want.

For those who do not know much about Bill C-24, it is a bill that was previously introduced, if memory serves, on August 11, 2009. The Conservative government had entered into negotiations on a comprehensive agreement with the Republic of Panama. The same day it signed that agreement, the Conservative government presented the agreements in the House of Commons as part of Bill C-46. This was back in 2010. The bill was passed at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade for clause-by-clause consideration.

If you followed the speech by my colleague from St. John's East, you know that international trade is one of his passions. I would like to take this opportunity to commend him. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster also worked extremely hard on this issue and his advice was always very wise. He showed us the importance of conducting what is called reasonable and fair trade when these kinds of agreements are negotiated with other countries. Responsibility for this file was passed on to the member for Windsor West, who has also done excellent work.

I think it is important to listen, instead of simply playing cheap politics, as is frequently the case in this House. On the government side, they reduce the speeches made on this side of the House to one-liners, as if the NDP were anti-international trade or anti-free trade just because we ask questions and we ask that the countries with whom we do business do not, for instance, use child labour or exploit children as cheap labour, because we ask questions about specific environmental rules or because we ask that these countries not be obvious tax havens.

I was absolutely shocked when I read about the circumstances surrounding Bill C-24 in a little more depth and when I noted that Panama—which is, by the way, a very beautiful country—is what some people call a tax haven. On both sides of the House, there are people who rise frequently to say that we must try to put an end to anything that is called a tax haven. The problems with tax havens do not just occur away down there; their impact reaches into our country. Considerable amounts of money are taken and sent somewhere else to be hidden because certain countries have rules that are a little too lax. They allow any kinds of company throughout the world to go to their country and hide money from the government in the company's own home country.

Even the OECD has called Panama a tax haven. The United States considers Panama to be a tax haven. The OECD even specified that Panama was on the grey list. I learned there is a white list, a fray list and a black list. I have learned about a great number of things in this House. I also like it when we have the time to express our views on all these bills that often have, unbeknownst to us, an impact on all our constituents, in every one of our ridings.

We have a tendency to believe that when we talk about international trade, we are talking primarily about major trading centres within a country. However, when we do business with certain countries and give them certain privileges with regard to our goods and our services, it has an impact on all our population. Sometimes we have to look at the ramifications of this type of bill.

It is really worrying that a country like Panama still refuses to send information about its tax measures and about various issues and fields, and I am surprised. Although sometimes I am not surprised when we know that we are dealing with a government that is so lacking in transparency. The government may be happy to deal with a country that also has little fiscal transparency, but on this side of the House, we are not.

We definitely do not want to see that country become a place where some of our companies doing business there shelter money from taxation. All MPs should be concerned about that. We are debating a back-to-work bill because the government wants to force people to accept a collective agreement or poorer working conditions, but at the same time, it wants to carry on international trade with a country that allows big companies that make millions or billions in profits to diversify some of their income in order to avoid paying taxes, taxes that enable the government to provide services to Canadians.

I think it is inappropriate and simplistic for MPs on the other side of the House to ask whether the NDP has ever supported a free trade agreement. Bilateral agreements have taken the place of broad territorial agreements. Still, talks are under way between my province, Quebec, and the European Union. Every nation is trying to open its borders to ensure that its goods and services can circulate and be purchased. Once again though, we have to remember how that money is made, and I am proud to be a member of a party that is concerned about making money without having a negative effect on trade. There are ways to do that.

If these people are truly interested in doing business with us, then it is up to them to follow the rules of human decency. For example, I am extremely concerned about the whole section of the agreement concerning labour. When certain people see the number of times this government has resorted to back-to-work legislation, they could simply say that we are in no position to preach. What bothers me is that we are doing business with countries who do not pay much attention to the rights of workers and of those who, by the sweat of their brow, make things that we all take a great deal of pleasure in using.

To conclude, I am happy to have had the opportunity to comment on this bill. I am in favour of international trade, but not at any price.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-24, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

This trade agreement is one of a series of agreements that the government has gotten into very hastily. This is another one that was negotiated in record time, without proper consultation, and our party has opposed it.

I do not want anyone to think that our party is opposed to trade. I know it is a common mantra for those opposite that New Democrats are opposed to trade; we are not opposed to trade. However, we are opposed to this trade deal.

I only have 10 minutes, so I will try my very best to be succinct in stating why we are opposed to this particular trade deal.

As I mentioned, it was done hastily and without consultation with relevant stakeholders, as well as without consultation with trade unions and environmental groups in Panama. It was done without consultation with civil society or citizens in Canada and Panama who have an interest in these agreements. It was done without respect for labour standards and collective bargaining, despite the addition of a labour agreement.

There is no protection against money laundering and tax cheating in a country that has been decried a tax haven.

There is no commitment in the agreement to sustainable development and sustainable investment, which should be an important part of any free trade deal.

When we talk about trade in this country, we should not just be talking about the movement of goods. We need to be talking about a partnership, but what we have seen is the government making hasty trade deals that do not respect what Canada wants and needs.

If trade was all about free trade deals, Canada's trade would be increasing and improving, not getting worse. The government members talk about how they are very interested in trade and carrying on with these trade deals, but where are the results? When we look at the difference between signing free trade deals and actually increasing trade, Canada's trade has actually deteriorated. The quantity of goods and services shipped abroad from Canada is actually 7% lower than when the government took office. It is lower than it was back in the year 2000. What we do see in trade is an ever-increasing proportion of raw materials and raw resources, especially oil, making up that trade.

At one time, we had a very impressive trade surplus with other countries. That has now gone into a deficit. Even though we have increasing petroleum sales, 3% of GDP per year is in fact a decrease in sales.

This is from a report by Jim Stanford, an economist with the Canadian Auto Workers, that was published in The Globe and Mail on May 21. He is obviously very concerned about issues, particularly in the manufacturing trade. He has done a study of our longest-standing free trade pacts, which are with the United States, Mexico, Israel, Chile and Costa Rica. What is interesting is that our exports to those countries have in fact grown more slowly than our exports to non-free trade partners, while our imports from these countries have surged much faster than with the rest of the world.

Therefore, if our goal—which is a sensible one, according to Mr. Stanford—is to boost exports and to strengthen the trade balance, then signing free trade deals, as we have done, is exactly the wrong thing to do.

What is very interesting is that the five biggest trade deals we have had have resulted in more imports to us from these country, which is good for them, but fewer exports to them. We have not increased our trade nor boosted our proper partnerships.

The problem is pretty difficult, particularly for some aspects of our economy. We are seeing an endorsement by the government of an over-valued currency. We have heard our leader talk about that. I know many people in this country do not want to talk about that. The members opposite do not like to talk about the fact that our currency is over-valued and is trading at some 25% above its purchasing power parity with other countries,. However, it does hurt Canada's exports and skews our trade with other countries, particularly the kind of trade that takes place when we are exporting unprocessed materials, including crude oil, bitumen in particular, without refining it. If we are not refining the stuff here and we are not making mining machinery here, our capacity to produce higher-end products will further diminish.

We do have a significant problem with trade and we have a problem that is not being fixed by these free trade deals.

What does the NDP support? We support trade, but we support fair trade. We want to ensure that the trade agreements we sign with other countries are fair and reasonable for both parties, partnerships that build positive relationships and not just open doors.

For example, in Panama we have situation where the government of Panama has refused various Canadian requests to sign an agreement to share tax information. It is extremely important in terms of transparency to have a tax information exchange agreement. The Government of Panama has refused, but Canada goes along with it anyway.

What is it we want as New Democrats? What do we want to have in trade agreements? First, in order to have a totally fair trade strategy, we want to have a comprehensive, common sense impact assessment for each agreement that we enter into that demonstrates that trade deals with Canada are beneficial for Canadian families, workers and industries, and that we do not have a trade agreement that will lead to a net job loss.

Second, we want to ensure that any agreement we negotiate supports our own sovereignty, our freedom to chart our own policy in the future and our ability to be competitive on the world stage, and that it supports the principle of a multilateral fair trade system.

Third, it is fundamentally important that all trade agreements promote and protect human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of products that are deemed to have been created under sweat shop conditions, forced labour or conditions that are not in accordance with fundamental labour standards and human rights.

Fourth, we also want to ensure that all trade agreements respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems.

Fifth, we want to be clear that before we go ahead with any enabling legislation, it be subject to a binding vote on whether we accept the terms of the agreement. The current system of tabling agreements in the House for a period of 21 days prior to ratification is neither mandatory nor binding.

In the case of the Panama trade deal, we see a repetition of the failures of previous trade deals to be fair, to be reasonable, to respect human rights, to provide the kind of protections that Canadians need and actually lead to increased trade from Canada to these countries.

The House resumed from March 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that the question be now put.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

However, before I do that I will take a moment to share with the House my meeting yesterday evening with the participants in the Forum for Young Canadians. I met with a number of young people from across this country and I can tell this House that our country has a bright future. These young people were very much tuned into the issues that we are discussing in this House and issues that matter to Canadians. We talked about the budget, the economy, health care, crime prevention and many more subjects. These young people were very well-informed about the issues that we discuss in this House.

I want to acknowledge those young people who I met last night. I met with Liane Hewith, a grade 12 student from Vancouver Quadra; Bronwyn Vaisey, a grade 9 student from Port Moody Gleneagle Secondary School; and Faythe Lou, a grade 11 student from Kwantlen Park Senior Secondary from my riding of Surrey North.

Indeed, Canada does have a bright future.

Today, because of the meeting last night, I am more committed as a parliamentarian to work harder to create opportunities for young people, such as the ones I met last night.

I will now move on to speak to the free trade agreement and talk about some of the basic principles of this trade deal, in other words, what should be a framework for Canada when we start these trade negotiations with other countries.

First, we should pursue a multilateral approach based on a fair and sustainable trade model. In fact, bilateral trade deals amount to protectionist trade deals since they give preferential treatment to a few partners and exclude others. This puts countries with smaller economies in a position of inferiority vis-à-vis larger partners. A multilateral fair trade deal model avoids these issues, while protecting human rights and the environment.

The Canadian government needs to have a vision for a fair trade policy that puts the pursuit of social justice, strong public sector social programs and the elimination of poverty at the heart of an effective trade strategy. Canada's trade policy should be based on principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade that builds trading partnerships with other countries that support principles of social justice and human rights, while also expanding business opportunities.

In free trade agreements involving countries, such as Panama, we have the opportunity to better the human rights situation within that country. When will the Conservatives start putting the concerns of everyday people before those of big businesses? Fair trade should be the overarching principle, not just an afterthought, of trade negotiations.

The NDP on this side of the House strongly believes in an alternative and a better form of trading relationship that can be established with Panama and any other country, one that includes, within an overall fair trade strategy, the following points: first, providing a comprehensive, common-sense impact assessment on all international agreements that demonstrates that the trade deals Canada negotiates are beneficial to Canadian families, workers and industries. The government does not sign any trade agreements that would lead to net job losses for Canadian families.

Second, ensuring that the trade agreements Canada negotiates support Canada's sovereignty and freedom to chart its own policy, support our ability to be a competitive force on the world stage and support the principles of a multilateral fair trade system.

The third point is the fundamental principle that all trade agreements must promote and protect human rights by prohibiting the import, export or sale in Canada of any product that is deemed to have been created under sweatshop conditions, forced labour or other conditions that are not in accordance with fundamental international labour standards and human rights.

The fourth point is the fundamental principle that all trade agreements should respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems.

The fifth point is that any time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to proceed with enabling legislation be subject to a binding vote on whether to accept the terms of the agreement. The current system, which consists of tabling FTAs in the House for a period of 21 sitting days prior to ratification is neither mandatory nor does it bind the government to a decision of the House.

The points that I have just highlighted should be the guiding principles for negotiations for any free trade agreements.

In this agreement, I did not see the Conservative government use any of those principles. Rather, it appears to be once again resorting to making up facts to suit its interests rather than looking out for the interests of Canadians.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is another marginally improved copy of the George Bush style approach to trade. It still puts businesses and big corporations ahead of everyday working-class people, it has no effective enforcement of human rights and it pays lip service to environmental protection without any real tough measures or dispute resolution mechanisms.

It is another one of those NAFTA copycat agreements that were initially negotiated and designated for trade between highly industrialized countries. However, Panama is not a highly industrialized country. This trade deal would not help Panama grow substantially nor would it increase the standard of living for its citizens. Instead, it would increase the role and incentive for exploitation by multinational corporations and inequality at a far greater pace and scale than in the case of NAFTA.

Another factor is that Panama is not a major trading partner of Canada. Two-way merchandise trade between the two countries reached only $149 million in 2008, which is less than 1%.

According to the United States department of justice and other entities, Panama is a major financial conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers' money laundering activities. That is a major concern that has been raised by the opposition in the House and in committee. The issue of tax havens also needs to be considered when we enter into these sorts of agreements. The government needs to consider more than the dollar value of the contract that it is entering into.

This is yet another trade deal negotiated in record time, without any consultation with trade unions, environmental groups, civil society or any citizen of the country. A fair and sustainable deal would not just address the needs of business but also the needs of working families and the environment.

The trade agreement does not provide investors and labour with a level playing field. While, under chapter 11, investors have the right to seek binding arbitration that they can pursue independently, a trade union in Panama does not get to pursue a case to arbitration. It can file a complaint that would lead to an investigation or report but it is up to the government to seek remedies and damages.

Empirical evidence strongly suggests that the minister of the day will not pursue the matter. The trade agreement includes enforceable protections of patents, trademarks and copyrights but no meaningful protection of workers and no meaningful protection of the environment.

Rather than imposing a one size fits all model, convenient to the U.S. finance system, and helping transnational corporations and repressive governments play off workers in different countries, we must recognize that different countries choose different development strategies and must be allowed to pursue fair and sustainable trade.

I want to urge my colleagues in the Conservative government to put the interests of Canadian families first before the interests of big corporations and their friends when it comes to signing free trade agreements around the world.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel all fired up after hearing the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan. She gave a great summary of how the NDP feels about the bill and why we are opposed to it. I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-24, the free trade agreement between Canada and Panama.

This is not the first time that we have dealt with the bill and not the first time that we have fought the bill. It came to the House in the last Parliament. It was passed at second reading. It went to committee and many witnesses were called. It started to go through a clause-by-clause review. It was finally concluded in December 2010, but then died on the order paper at the dissolution of the 40th Parliament.

The legislation was reintroduced in November 2011. We do get to have another kick at the can, so to speak.

I just want to outline why we on the NDP side feel so strongly opposed to this bill and other trade agreements that we feel are exploitative, narrow and, as the previous member said, do not take a comprehensive approach.

I want to thank the labour movement, the Canadian Labour Congress. Individual unions have paid enormous attention to some of these bills. I remember the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, which we opposed vigorously in this House for several years, as did the labour movement. We really feel that these trade agreements lay down a regime. They continue the NAFTA-style agreement that does not respect the integrity of human rights, that does not respect or even understand what needs to be addressed in the signing country and what Canada's role is in these agreements.

I think sometimes the Conservative government thinks that nobody is watching these innocuous bills, that these trade agreements are boring and technical, and that they will just slip through.

The fact is many groups pay attention to these particular trade agreements, whether it is the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Labour Congress or individual unions. I know the steelworkers did an incredible amount of work on the Canada-Colombia trade agreement because of their concern about labour rights and human rights in Colombia.

In my own community in east Vancouver, there is a whole movement of what is called fair trade. Commercial Drive is the first community in Canada that has a fair trade retail district. Stores are encouraged to purchase for their own use and to sell retail to customers products that have been obtained through fair trade practices, that are certified, transparent and healthy.

It is a consumer movement. It is partly in reaction to these massive trade agreements that are now being sent through this House, not just by Canada, but also by other governments. I do think it is important to know that there is an incredible amount of interest in the whole notion of fair trade that respects the rights, the environment and social justice in the country that we are trading with and also respects the need for jobs here in Canada.

This is a pretty large issue. If the government thinks it is just sort of sliding it through with no one watching, I think that is clearly not the case.

I want to highlight a couple of the things that we tried to do because, as the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan said, in the NDP we are not just opposing, we are actually proposing. We are being very proactive, putting forward amendments and trying to suggest what would improve a trade agreement.

When it went to the committee last year, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster was our trade critic at the time. He did an incredible job of providing awareness about this trade agreement and the Canada-Colombia agreement. He moved numerous motions to try to address some of the grievous aspects of the bill, and he focused on the fact that the bill would do nothing with respect to the tax haven environment in Panama.

I was not at the committee, but I know from the member that there were many witnesses who spoke about their concerns with the tax haven environment in Panama and its poor record on labour rights. The member valiantly tried to put forward amendments to address this. It is very distressing to know that both the Conservative and Liberal members of that committee shot down these amendments. Therefore, there were attempts made at committee to make this agreement a better agreement. It seems to me that is our job as legislators.

I think it is important to note for the record that the Canadian government has requested greater tax information and transparency from Panama. It is very concerning that Panama has refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. In fact, this has led the OECD to label the nation a tax haven. Is this the kind of place we should be trading with?

We expect transparency in our country. Although it is a struggle, we are always working to ensure it happens. If we are to introduce a new agreement and develop a new trading relationship with a country, surely these are the kinds of provisions that should be front and centre in that agreement. It is very unfortunate that Panama refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. That should sound a warning bell that there is a problem here.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster moved a motion which would have stopped the implementation of the trade agreement until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement. However, that too was defeated.

He also moved amendments that would have required the Minister of International Trade to consult with labour and trade unions as well as work with human rights experts and organizations in order to create impact assessments for the trade agreement. To me, this is very important.

We recognize that there is a serious problem. There needs to be ongoing evaluation, assessment and monitoring. Surely our minister responsible for these areas should be able to consult with labour and trade unions as well as human rights organizations who work in this area to know what is happening on the ground. We are not talking about theoretical situations. We are talking about serious human rights violations. We are talking about serious labour violations where workers do not have the right to collective agreements or the right to strike. Their ability to organize as a union is sometimes threatened in a collective and personal sense. That is a very serious situation.

Therefore, it seemed to us to be a very reasonable suggestion to put forward as an amendment that the minister would want to know what was going on. He would want to consult with the organizations that are aware of these situations to be able to have impact assessments as part of the agreement. One would think that would have been supported, but no, that was defeated too.

The member also put forward amendments that would have protected trade union workers in Panama by offering the right to collective bargaining as well as requiring the Minister of International Trade as the principle representative of Canada to consult on a regular basis with organizations in our country. That was defeated too.

The bill has a sorry history and it is back before us again. We will do our utmost to defeat the bill. It should go back to the drawing board. There should be a reverse in favour of an agreement that is based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade which builds trading relationships and partnerships with other countries, that supports the principles of social justice and human rights, while also expanding economic opportunities. That is what fair trade is about. That is what we should be doing in this agreement.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-24. Back on February 7, 2011, I spoke to the bill when it was Bill C-46. Sadly, the concerns I raised then have not been addressed.

I also want to acknowledge the very good work that has been done by the member for Windsor West and the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. Back in those days, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster proposed a number of amendments to the free trade agreement, including amendments that would deal with some of the issues around sustainable development and investment. The government did not see fit to incorporate these amendments.

As well, that bill had gone to committee, had some extensive review and had a number of concerns raised around labour, human rights and the investment climate. Again, none of those concerns were taken into consideration when the bill was resubmitted to the House.

Members can probably gather by the tenor of my introduction that the NDP is opposed to this bill for a number of reasons. One of those concerns is the poor record of labour rights in the country. I did mention the fundamental flaws that were addressed by amendments proposed by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

The government talked about taking on tax havens. However, one of the most glaring flaws in the agreement is that tax disclosure issues have yet to be meaningfully addressed, despite protestations to the contrary by the Panamanian government.

Often in the House we will hear members opposite talk about the NDP never seeing a trade agreement that it liked, and it is for a very good reason. In fact, we have actually supported a trade agreement. However, what comes up consistently is the fact that the government continues to negotiate trade agreements that do not take into consideration the social and economic justice that we think is fundamental to what should be included in them.

The government also does not negotiate these agreements in an open and transparent way. We only have to look at what is happening currently with the CETA agreement. I know that I and many members of the House get numerous emails about the fact that this agreement has been negotiated behind closed doors, that we do not know what the impact will be on our agricultural communities, on pharmaceuticals, on access to natural health products and that our municipalities may be hampered in their procurement processes.

This is just an example of an agreement that could have a very far-reaching impact, and yet Canadians have no input. They have no ability to get at the very meat of what the agreement is about.

When we talk about how we should negotiate these agreements, Panama would have been a great start to having a fair trade agreement versus a free trade agreement. One of the fundamental principles is fair trade. I want to talk about some of those principles and what is absent in the Panamanian agreement.

This is an older article, but I thought it did a very good job of outlining the principles of fair trade. It is from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Richard Tarnoff, in October 2004. In this article he says:

While the principles of “fair trade” have been around for a long time, and are primarily based on ideas of human rights and economic justice, the fair trade movement is a relatively recent development. To a large degree, it is a response to the rapid growth in the global economy, in which more and more of what we consume is being produced in Third World countries, where labour and environmental standards are low or non-existent.

He talks about both the principles of fair trade and the fair trade movement. Many of us are very familiar with the fair trade movement. Many of us, when we go to buy our coffee, look to see if it is fair trade certified. There are also principles that apply to fair trade when negotiating these kinds of international agreements.

Tarnoff goes on to say:

One response to this situation has been the effort by labour, environmental and human rights organizations to have minimum standards included in trade agreements. Sometimes described as the demand for “fair trade rules,” these efforts have been vigorously opposed by the multinational corporations for the obvious reason that this is what makes production in Third World countries so profitable.

When he talks about profitable, he talks about how, in these countries, people are paid grim wages, not remotely close to living wages, often in desperate working conditions. Canadians benefit from those kinds of working conditions. We would not want to see any of our neighbours, our children, our brothers or sisters working in those kinds of conditions. Yet because we continue to negotiate the kinds of trade agreements that are before us today, we continue to profit from somebody else's misery.

I will not go over all the principles of fair trade that he outlined, but I want to touch on a couple. I can imagine Canadians listening to this would say that this makes absolute sense, that a trade principle should be that there would be no forced labour and exploitive child labour. It makes sense. We would not want to see young children working 10, 12 hours a day in hot, overcrowded conditions with no lunch breaks, no adequate remuneration. Never mind remuneration, why would we exploit them in the first place children? Most Canadians would agree that makes sense.

What about encouraging sustainable production techniques? It would make sense that when we import agricultural products from countries, we would want to ensure that they would be sustainable, that they would not use the kinds of pesticides not accepted in Canada, that their workers would be protected from access and that they would have all the safety standards and safety equipment needed so when they handled pesticides and herbicides, they would not become ill. The life expectancy of many farm workers in developing countries is so low it is embarrassing.

Another principle is that working conditions be healthy and safe. That just makes sense. Too many of us have heard the horror stories about children who have been trapped in factories as they have burned down because there are no exit doors. They have long days with no breaks, working seven days a week and not having adequate living conditions when they leave those factories. Working conditions that are healthy and safe just make sense.

Another principle is that equal employment opportunities be provided. This means women have access to good paying jobs, that they are not disadvantaged, that they have access to management jobs in some of these factories and that all aspects of trade and productions are open to public accountability.

Recently we saw the backlash against Apple when it turned out that some of the factories producing some of its component parts were not open and public and that the public was demanding the kind of a accountability to ensure workers were not being taken advantage of.

This is a bit of an aside, but it does link to the trade agreements. Tarnoff goes on to say:

It is not only Third World farmers who have become victims to the economics of globalization. Many small farmers in Canada and the U.S. have found themselves struggling to survive in markets dominated by giant corporations. One solution has been the development of a type of “fair trade” called Community Shared Agriculture, in which urban customers enter into agreements to have a local grower supply them with all their produce for the year. So far, over 1,000 farms in North America have made this arrangement.

When we talk about sustainability, ensuring that there is not exploitive practices, Canadians can support our local farmers, get to know them and buy their produce. Community shared agriculture is a way to ensure that farmers stay in business, especially the smaller farmers.

My riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan has a number of CSA farmers, and I am proud to be one of their supporters. We also have a fisherman who has taken the initiative to have a community supported fishery, so he does the same thing as the agriculture sector. He sells shares in advance so he can ensure he has a livelihood to support himself and his family. That is the kind of community supported agriculture we should encourage both in Canada and in countries with which we develop trade practices.

He goes on in this article, and there has been criticisms from the multinationals about any concept of fair trade, to talk about some typical criticism that have come from some of the mainstream economists. He mentions Professor John Ikerd, professor emeritus of Agricultural Economics. He said it was interesting that when economics laws and theories about fair trade being ethically right and being social justice, how suddenly the multinationals and their friends talked about how harmful it would be for the economy.

We need to do a much better job of incorporating principles in trade that are not just about the bottom line. There has to be a social justice component of it so that workers and their families have access to adequate wages and income, that the environment is not damaged and that there is a reasonable and fair distribution of wealth.

I encourage all members of the House to vote against this legislation and send the government back to the drawing board so it can come back with a fair trade agreement, not a free trade agreement.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is perfect timing for me to address the House on this budget day concerning the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

Clearly, Canada is becoming a leader in primary resource exports, and it seems to have found its niche: exporting jobs that belong to Canadian workers.

The day before yesterday, I met with the Aveos workers who demonstrated on Parliament Hill to express their indignation at the unilateral closure without warning of the company's three facilities in Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver. The Montreal region lost 1,800 jobs, and the only thing that the Government of Canada is doing about it is asking the Standing Committee on Transport to study the issue. The Conservatives are in no hurry to protect workers and prevent companies from exporting jobs to the United States, Mexico, El Salvador or, in the future, Panama.

One thing is clear: on May 2 of last year, Canadians elected a strong and united NDP opposition to keep Canadian jobs in Canada.

People in the riding of LaSalle—Émard know that the Canada-Panama free trade agreement will lead to the loss of more jobs like the ones hemorrhaging from the aerospace, manufacturing and pharmaceutical research sectors in the greater Montreal area.

In the south east, plant closures have meant the loss of many precious jobs in Montreal. At this time, the people of LaSalle—Émard are once again feeling the threat of impending plant closures and further job losses. I have been assuring them that my NDP colleagues and I will do everything we can to stop that from happening.

As of February, Quebec had lost 70,000 jobs in the previous three months, including 8,000 in the manufacturing sector, according to The Gazette. That sort of hemorrhaging of jobs has not been seen since the 1981 recession. The overwhelming losses in Montreal speak volumes about this government's innovation strategy.

The new year was not a happy one for workers at the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical research centre. On January 10, they learned that the research centre on Notre-Dame Street in Montreal was closing, causing the loss of 36 permanent and 90 contract jobs. The next day, Sanofi announced that about 100 jobs would be lost.

Once again, the Conservatives' failure to act cost us good research jobs in Montreal.

The hemorrhaging continued in February, when 150 jobs were lost at Pfizer.

Next, British pharmaceutical group AstraZeneca announced that it was closing its research and development centre in Montreal after reorganizing its operations. The Montreal region lost 132 full-time jobs when that research centre in Saint-Laurent closed. At the same time, AstraZeneca announced a 23% increase in earnings for the fiscal year.

Next came the closure of appliance manufacturer Mabe, in eastern Montreal. Some 700 workers were laid off. Nonetheless, all the pieces were already in place in 2005, when the Mexican multinational bought Canada's Camco, which was the largest Canadian manufacturer in that sector.

In the final months of the 2010-11 fiscal year, the pharmaceutical company Merck Frosst announced its restructuring plans. It closed its centre for therapeutic research in Kirkland, on Montreal's West Island. Almost all of the employees were laid off. The media reported worries of a brain drain in Montreal.

Let us not forget the 1,300 Electrolux jobs that will be lost in L'Assomption, in the Lanaudière region, when the Swedish appliance manufacturer moves its operations to Memphis in 2013. Another 600 jobs were lost when White Birch Paper in Quebec City closed.

My fellow citizens in the rest of Canada have not been spared by the hollowing out of our economy. The Electro-Motive plant in London is a well-known case where 450 workers were laid off, which affected their families. They will not forget and neither will the NDP.

I also want to remind the House that Caterpillar recorded $4.9 billion profits the previous year and profits were up by a whopping 83%.

In Hamilton, 1,500 workers at Nanticoke were no luckier than their Ontario and Quebec counterparts in 2009 when Stelco closed its shops in 2009.

I would like to share a thought with the members of the House on this day when we are debating the bill on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement and when the government is bringing down its first budget as a majority government.

In a very lucid article titled “The myth of Tory economic performance” in February, the Globe and Mail commentator rightly hammered home what all Canadians know: the Conservatives have, time and time again, painted a rosy picture of their management of the economy. The article states:

To talk of the Tory economic record, we might first address the reddened state of our treasury that’s occasioning the cuts in the coming budget. A pertinent question is whether our deficit is the result of natural economic factors or whether it owes itself to vote-getting political expediency.

In this context, let’s recall a few things. Let’s recall the two-point GST cut that tore a giant hole in the revenue base, accounting for a good deal of the deficit. Let’s recall the prerecession spending – having inherited a $13-billion surplus, the [Conservative] team spent so excessively that we were close to a deficit by the time the recession began. Let’s recall the slashing of corporate tax rates and the government’s easing of mortgage rules and backing of risky loans that further bled the treasury.

Put it all together and what it shows is that, with more prudent fiscal management from the same guy who lectured other countries on debt in Davos, we could have coped with the recession without driving our treasury into a large deficit hole.

As the commentator says, the reality of the Conservatives' economic management is that jobs are being lost and factories are moving abroad. What the Canada-Panama free trade agreement and the Conservative majority government's budget have in store are painful cuts to our research and manufacturing sectors, which is why I am opposed to Bill C-24.

The NDP strongly believes in an alternative and a better form of trading relationship that can be established with Panama and any other country.

We have to have a fair trade policy that puts the pursuit of social justice, strong private-sector social programs and the elimination of poverty at the heart of an effective trade strategy.

Canada’s trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade, which builds trading partnerships with other countries that support the principles of social justice and human rights while also expanding business opportunity.

We must ensure that the trade agreements Canada negotiates support Canada’s sovereignty and freedom to chart its own policy.

We must adopt a fundamental principle whereby all trade agreements must respect fundamental international labour standards and human rights, and whereby policies are drafted to respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems.

Moreover, any time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to proceed with enabling legislation should be subject to a binding vote on whether or not to accept the terms of the agreement.

In closing, I would like to express my gratitude, on behalf of the people of LaSalle—Émard, for this opportunity to speak in the House.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-24 to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama—and there is something else after that title.

At present, we have time to discuss and debate. I would like to point out that the NDP supports free trade agreements. We agree that Canada must trade with other countries. We realize that the Canadian economy relies on trade. So we have no problem with that. However, in this case, we believe that the government is not showing any leadership. Yes, it negotiated this agreement with another country, but why did it take such a narrow-minded approach? Why not look at more countries, in order to really establish better criteria?

I am not sure if any of my Conservative colleagues have read it, but I highly recommend the book Fair Trade for All by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in economics. The book looks at sustainable development—which we are trying to promote—and global fair trade. It also talks about strengthening ties in order to fight poverty and the problems of inequity. I would like to give my colleagues across the floor a little wake-up call: Canada and many other countries have a huge problem with inequity.

According to the OECD and the Conference Board, there is a huge and ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor. And it is growing faster in Canada than it is in the United States. The OECD can prove it. So we have some problems in that regard.

I would now like to discuss more specifically this bill dealing with the free trade agreement with Panama, which poses two problems. First of all, Panama is a known tax haven. That presents a problem when it comes to doing business and negotiating with a country. Certain clauses must be taken into account, especially regarding tax evasion. The Quebec branch of the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and for Citizens' Action recently prepared a submission on Panama and concluded that such an agreement would be tantamount to legitimizing a tax haven.

I invite my colleagues to read a December 2010 article from Le Devoir that says that “Panama is a tax haven, and not just any tax haven: it is one of the most active, one of the least co-operative and of the most integrated with organized crime”. Those comments were made by people from the outside. If we are going to conclude an agreement with Panama, then there needs to be more leadership with regard to tax evasion.

As the national revenue critic for the official opposition, I find that the government has not done enough. We will see in today's budget, which we are anxiously awaiting. A motion was moved at the Standing Committee on Finance to continue the work done in the previous parliamentary session, but, unfortunately, the motion has been set aside. I hope that the members opposite will accept the motion, which will be debated on Tuesday. The motion proposes that we use all necessary means to address tax evasion and tax havens. I think that my colleagues can agree on that. We are talking about revenue that Canada is losing through fraudulent means. I cannot see why we would not address these problems. I should mention that the Liberals did not do much about this either.

To come back to the agreement, one of the major problems is that Panama has refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. That is very disturbing considering that Panama is known for its money laundering activities, including money from drug trafficking.

When the committee considered the bill during the 40th Parliament, Todd Tucker, from Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, provided a very interesting testimony.

He made a compelling case that Panama is one of the world's worst tax havens and that the Panamanian government has deliberately allowed the country to become a tax haven.

In his statement, he said:

...Panama is one of the world's worst tax havens. It is home to an estimated 400,000 corporations, including offshore corporations and multinational subsidiaries. This is almost four times the number of corporations registered in Canada. So Panama is not just any developing country.

...for decades, the Panamanian government has pursued an intentional tax haven strategy. It offers foreign banks and firms a special offshore licence to conduct business there. Not only are these businesses not taxed, but they're subject to little to no reporting requirements or regulations.

We believe that signing a free trade agreement that does not include a tax information exchange agreement with a country known for its lack of transparency and for being a tax haven is tantamount to promoting tax evasion. The government has to do something about that problem.

Proposals were made in committee. My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, the finance critic for the official opposition, worked very hard and proposed amendments that would have made it possible to support this bill. And then there are the component on workers' rights and the problems from an environmental standpoint, which I will come back to if I have time.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster had proposed delaying the application or even the implementation of this agreement until Canada and Panama signed an agreement for the exchange of taxation information. Unfortunately, the Conservatives and Liberals defeated the motion, since both parties claimed to be satisfied with the double taxation component.

As we know, this does not address the issue of transparency or the fact that Panama is still considered a tax haven, nor does it fix the problem of information exchange.

I do not understand why the Conservatives and Liberals do not want to deal with tax havens and go after these funds.

Canadians are currently being asked to tighten their belts. The government is going to table an austerity budget. Yet, it is possible to generate revenue without necessarily cutting spending and jobs. It is possible to generate revenue from criminals—let us call a spade a spade—who exploit tax havens. Some do so legally, others illegally. Why not deal with that?

I was very disappointed that the Standing Committee on Finance refused to conduct this study. I hope that next time, on Tuesday, in the Standing Committee on Finance, the government will agree to undertake a more in-depth study of this.

Moreover, today and tomorrow, there is a conference on tax havens. I would invite my colleagues opposite to attend it.

This issue is very important. It is pathetic that such an incredible amount of money is being lost.

The Canada Revenue Agency has been called upon to address this issue, as has the Minister of National Revenue. We hope that certain problems will be addressed, otherwise we will be faced with a fiscal crisis, especially given the government's decision to cut corporate taxes and allow tax havens to exist unchecked. There are a lot of problems. We are realizing this, and are losing money. Unfortunately, the government is not doing anything about it.

Then there are workers' rights, another very important subject: when free trade agreements are unfair, workers—and, therefore, the public—lose money. It is a violation of their rights, including the right to bargain. It is an attack on the rights of the middle class, which supports the economy and the whole country. It only increases the gap between the rich and the poor.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama economic growth and prosperity act.

Others in this House might not have been thinking throughout this debate of the famous palindrome: a man, a plan, a canal -- Panama. As members know, a palindrome is something that reads the same forward and backward. Unfortunately, I cannot read this trade deal as anything but backward. When the man is the Prime Minister and the plan is this free trade agreement, we do not get anything very progressive. We do not get a canal; we get a ditch.

We have a very small level of trade with Panama. While we see the Conservatives trying their best to gather up as many small trade agreements as possible, such as the one we passed with Jordan and this one with Panama, it is worth bearing in mind the level of trade that is currently at stake.

In 2010, there was just under $214 million in trade in goods between Canada and Panama. We do not expect this to go up very much even with a free trade agreement. If we look at previous free trade agreements with countries like Costa Rica and other small bilateral free trade agreements, we find that in a number of cases our trade has declined after signing the agreements.

We have a global trading framework already which includes the general agreement on tariffs and trade, and under the Uruguay round the creation of the World Trade Organization. We are not labouring any longer as a global society of nations under high tariffs and protectionist measures. They have been mostly slashed.

What would one want in trading and approving a trade agreement with Panama?

We have heard much in this House of the need to improve labour rights within Panama. We have heard that Panama continues to be a nation that traffics heavily in narcotics and drugs, and the rest of the world would like to stem their flow. We also know that Panama is a country that has extensive money laundering problems. This agreement does nothing to address these issues.

When we look at the ways in which Panama has operated as a tax haven, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Panama is one of 26 jurisdictions in the world that have not yet fulfilled their promise as of 2002 to provide tax sharing information. That would provide a greater understanding of when a country is operating unfairly and illegally to harbour revenue and wealth so that the country of origin cannot tax it properly.

The trade agreement with Panama unfortunately does not deal with any of these issues. It does not deal with narcotics trading. It does not deal with the tax haven problem. It does not deal with money laundering. It does have a side agreement to deal with labour, but we can already measure from previous efforts with such side agreements that they have no real effect on improving labour conditions in a country.

Through the 1990s there was a great increase in trade agreements and a great wave of globalization. Its triumphalism was the creation of the World Trade Organization, but things have slightly stalled since Doha and there is a little less triumphalism. Some people feel that trade, trade liberalization and greater economic activity, particularly greater strength and power to corporations, will raise all boats. Gus Speth, the former head of the United Nations Development Programme, famously said, “This kind of trade raises all yachts”, but it does not do much for the poor. It certainly does nothing to improve labour conditions. If we negotiate a trade agreement while turning a blind eye to the things about our trading partner that worry us, things like drug trafficking, money laundering, human rights abuses, tax havens and places to shelter income that should be taxed under public revenue elsewhere, it is unlikely we would be able to fix them later.

Turning to the text of the agreement, in article 106 there are some carve outs so that the agreement would not unfairly target multilateral environmental agreements. I wish the trade negotiators for Canada had listed all the agreements that are important. They certainly have carved out the ones that were listed in NAFTA, such as, CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the Montreal protocol on the ozone layer, the Basel convention on the transport of hazardous materials, the Rotterdam convention on trade in hazardous goods, and the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants.

A startling omission, since both Panama and Canada are parties to the framework convention on climate change, is that the framework convention on climate change is not listed as an agreement that would be protected against any incidental accidental implications from this trade agreement to climate policies. As we speak, both Canada and Panama remain parties to the Kyoto protocol, although we know that Canada has signalled its intention, quite shamefully I may add, to withdraw from its legal commitments there. I would not expect to see the Kyoto protocol in this agreement, but I certainly expected to see the United Nations framework convention on climate change, to which both countries are currently committed.

More concerning are the sections that appear in chapter 9 of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Chapter 9 deals with the quite devastating investor state provisions.

It sounds like the most boring of topics, an investor state provision. What could it be and why do we care? I want all Canadians to care. This provision is our innovation. We were the first anywhere on the planet to create this provision. It was done in NAFTA. In NAFTA, it is chapter 11. In the Canada-Panama agreement it is chapter 9, but it has the same effect.

There was an effort to make this kind of provision global. Some may remember the efforts were negotiated within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It started within the World Trade Organization, but it stalled there. At the WTO they were called multilateral investor agreements. They regrouped and went to the OECD and called them the multilateral agreement on investment, the MAI instead of the MIA. It stalled and failed there. Thank goodness. It was the result of widespread grassroots opposition.

It is the first truly global campaign I have ever seen where grassroots groups using the Internet reached out to each other. I remember one parliamentarian saying to me at the time, “I can't imagine that any Canadian citizen is really worried about something called the multilateral agreement on investment”. He came back to me a few days later, after he had been on an MPs' study tour and said that while he was paying for gas at a station in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, he saw on a clipboard a petition to stop the MAI. It contained several pages of signatures.

Why do Canadians at the grassroots and people globally not want more investor state provisions? I should say that once it failed at the OECD, largely thanks to France, but other countries ran to catch up, once it failed there, they abandoned it. By they I am referring to the corporate entities that are pursuing the notion that corporations should have powers superior to those of elected legislatures. The essence of an investor state provision is that multilateral corporations should be able to trump decisions made by democratically elected parliaments and legislatures around the world and they should be able to sue a country if that country passes legislation that a corporation does not like. That is the essence of it. It is not in any traditional way an expropriation.

They have taken it from global to doing it BIT by BIT, literally the acronym BIT, bilateral investment treaty, such as this one. They are collecting up by BITs to replace what they could not do directly, a global agreement that allows corporations to sue governments when governments take action, even when that action is not in any way designed to inhibit trade. It is as such when Canada banned a toxic gasoline additive, or when Canada took steps to ban the export of PCB contaminated waste pursuant to the Basel convention I mentioned earlier, or in the very sad and tragic case of Metalclad, a U.S. corporation. Metalclad wanted to put a toxic waste site next to a little community in Mexico called San Luis Potosi. The people of San Luis Potosi said no, that it was too close to their water source and they would not let that giant U.S. corporation, Metalclad, put its toxic waste disposal facility there. Under chapter 11 of NAFTA, Metalclad sued the federal state of Mexico.

This agreement means that any corporation with a mailbox in Panama can claim to be an investor and sue Canada at the municipal, provincial or federal levels for any decision it does not like, that it feels impedes its expectation of profits.

In the case of poor little San Luis Potosi, Mexico ended up owing Metalclad just under $17 million.

I fear that my time to speak to this agreement may be coming to a close. I want to conclude by saying firmly and clearly that we must learn from what has gone wrong with chapter 11 of NAFTA and stop including investor-state provisions as an automatic, unthinking addition to every single trade agreement we negotiate.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill C-24 to implement the free trade agreement signed between Canada and the Republic of Panama on May 14, 2010.

Although I am in favour of free trade and I support this bill, I refuse to do so at any cost, because I think we need to take a step back and reflect on the relevance and the impact of this agreement. Unlike the NDP, which systematically opposes free trade, the Liberal Party of Canada has always believed that trade agreements can have a positive effect on our economy. As we all know, our economy is based on exports, so eliminating trade barriers is highly desirable. Personally, I do not think the agreement with Panama, per se, is problematic; rather I think the problem lies with abandoning our traditional markets.

Our current economic situation is proof of how negligent the Conservatives have been. Although we had a positive trade balance for a very long time, we now have a trade deficit, and I highly doubt that a free trade agreement with Panama will change that fact. In 2009, Canada's exports to Panama totalled only about $90 million, while our trade with the U.S. exceeds $1.4 billion every day. Approximately 75% of the goods we export go to the United States.

Even so, our trade balance with our neighbour is in deficit. Protectionist measures in the U.S. are contributing to this unfair situation, despite NAFTA. I therefore have to wonder why a new free trade agreement with another country is so urgent, when our largest trading partner refuses to honour its commitments when difficult economic times come along.

Perhaps the Canadian government should do more to defend our economic interests in Washington, rather than in Panama. We are seeing this government making more and more concessions to the Americans rather than defending Canadian interests, and our economy is paying the price.

I firmly believe that it would be in our best interest to focus our efforts on revitalizing our trade relationship with our neighbours to the south and our other major trading partners rather than spreading our resources out. Instead of doing whatever the Americans want, which is what the government did on the copyright issue, the Conservatives should work harder to protect Canadian interests.

The Conservatives have been too nonchalant. For example, even though President Obama mentioned the buy American policy several times in his speech, the Conservatives were taken completely by surprise when they found out that the U.S. government intended to go ahead with a measure that violates our free trade agreement.

Why bother signing so many other free trade agreements when the most important one is not even enforced? I think that we should find ways to make the United States respect our agreements before we sign new ones that will likely have very little impact. It is an inescapable fact that, because of our geography, our economy is heavily dependent on the United States. The government should focus its efforts on that market rather than divide its resources among less critical files.

We also have a number of other major trading partners, including South Korea, China and the United Kingdom. The government should make it a priority to recapture those markets. Despite its strong economic growth, Panama will never be more than a relatively small market for us. The impact of this agreement will therefore be small, as I have said several times already.

Of course, diversifying our trading partners is a good thing and makes us less vulnerable to the ups and downs of certain markets. Despite its relatively small economy, Panama is important. It has been experiencing significant economic growth and is one of Canada's major trading partners in Latin America.

The country has also been making significant progress in matters of governance and democracy. In a way, a free trade agreement would recognize that progress. It is also worth noting that the new Panama Canal will be of critical importance to global trade. The region will probably continue to experience strong economic growth and will become an even larger commercial hub once the new canal opens. Strengthening our relationship with Panama is no doubt a good move.

However, we cannot ignore the issues of tax evasion and money laundering. Canada loses millions of dollars every year because of such illegal activities. With a free trade agreement in place, we will be entitled to ask for greater fiscal transparency to combat tax fraud.

In addition, certain environmental and humanitarian issues need to be raised with the Panamanian government. The working conditions in Panama do not even come close to those of our workers. Salaries are extremely low and working conditions are far from good for everyone. This free trade agreement will open our market to Panamanian companies. We are within our rights to ask Panama to improve its working conditions. Clearly, a company that underpays its employees and makes them work 12 or even 16 hours a day does not deserve to be able to sell its products in Canada and compete with equivalent products that, of course, cost more to produce here.

The government must also require certain environmental guarantees. But, of course, I am not holding my breath in that regard. This government is not doing anything for Canada's environment and so I doubt it will do anything for Panama's. Coming from this government, such demands would have no credibility.

In closing, I would like to reiterate my support for free trade with Panama. However, I believe that we should sign a tax information exchange agreement with this country. This would help us to increase transparency and would give us more tools to combat tax evasion and money laundering in Panama.

Nevertheless, we should first put all our energy into recapturing our core markets. Canada must speak up. Canadians expect this government to protect their economic interests on the international stage. The Conservatives should focus more on our economic relationship with the United States and try to make it honour the free trade agreement because, as I mentioned in my speech, our economy depends heavily on the United States. Panama has only a very small influence on our economic health.

I am therefore asking the Conservatives to focus all their energy on the relationships with our largest trading partners. Given the fragility of the current economic situation, we simply do not have the luxury of ignoring our core markets, nor do we have the flexibility to do so.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak about Bill C-24, as many of my colleagues have done before me. First, I would like to thank the hon. members for Burnaby—New Westminster and Windsor West, who worked so hard on this file.

I would like to clarify the position of the government, which seems to believe that everything is black or white. From the outset, I think it is very important to point out that, often, what we hear in debate is that the NDP is against all trade and against any measure that would help our Canadian industries to grow. That is not entirely true, and these comments need some clarification. The NDP is in favour of trade, but not at any price or for any reason. As the hon. member who just spoke pointed out so eloquently, we must be sure to consider certain important factors, such as workers' rights and sustainable development, when signing free trade agreements.

I think that the best way to say it is that we want free trade agreements that are equitable and fair and that truly take into account social justice and the other factors that I just mentioned.

To this end, there is one more thing we need to consider when examining the bill before us to implement a free trade agreement between Canada and Panama. The people of Chambly—Borduas have often shared with me their fears and worries about Canada's standing and reputation. The way our native country is perceived and the way we work with other countries in the world politically or economically may not seem important when we are talking about travelling to another country. And yet it is very important because we have a responsibility as a privileged and developed country to share these values.

When we sign free trade or other agreements with different countries, it is our responsibility to share those values and to behave in a way that will lead to economic growth and enhance rights in general, workers' rights and sustainable development. This must be done not only in Canada but throughout the world. The government often neglects this responsibility, particularly when it comes to bilateral free trade agreements, which are inadequate.

I listened with interest to an earlier question put to the member for Hamilton Mountain, who was speaking about the fact that the bill and the free trade agreement could support workers' rights. However, I am finding it very difficult to understand, as she pointed out, why the Conservatives voted against the well-reasoned amendments suggested by the member for Burnaby—New Westminster in committee if this is a truly an important issue to them. If the government were truly concerned, it would have taken the time to consider the very reasonable amendments moved.

It is important to also highlight another one of our international responsibilities. Panama is considered a tax haven. And this is an economic free trade agreement. Thus, I find it very difficult to consider that we will be dealing with a country that allows money laundering and tax evasion.

As I said, my colleague has worked very hard on this, and I would like to commend him. In fact, the NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster moved an amendment that would resolve the issue of fiscal transparency. We could implement measures that would require Panama to exchange tax information with Canada. This would lessen the risk of illegal money laundering activities and so forth. I have already talked about these measures.

Once again, both the Conservatives and the Liberals rejected this amendment because they believe that Panama has a satisfactory double taxation agreement. I would like to point out that this is not a very good argument because the double taxation agreement pertains to fiscal transparency for legal revenue such as taxes, and we already know the source of such revenue. This measure does not at all deal with illegal revenue, but it could if the Panama agreement included my colleague's amendment, which seeks to bring about complete fiscal transparency.

The other aspect I would like to discuss is key to our argument. Several of my colleagues and I mentioned it earlier. I am referring to the rights of workers in the manufacturing sector. These rights are at the heart of a free trade agreement such as this one.

I can already hear the counter-argument that the NDP bows down to the unions. That argument is totally ridiculous in this case, because we are talking about developing countries that are still in the process of adapting their regulations and creating a culture of labour rights and human rights, which are fundamental rights. It is important to note that, while very competent people at the Canadian Labour Congress—Ms. Healy, as my colleague mentioned—have done research, we are not talking about a simple union matter here, or the will of a union. We are truly talking about important issues regarding labour rights. It is not complicated. We are talking about the people who will be making the products that are subject to this trade agreement. Human resources are at the core of this trade agreement. They are the foundation of the transactions that will take place. The jobs are more important than the profits that will be made.

The government likes to talk a lot about the jobs that these free trade agreements will help create. If we are going to talk about job growth, let us also talk about the quality of those jobs, here in Canada and in Panama. The government should focus on creating high-quality jobs for the people of Canada and of Panama. The government says that Canadians want economic growth, but as I was saying earlier, that growth should not come at all costs. I think our constituents, the people we represent, would agree. Here and around the world, we have built a reputation, a culture of defending labour rights and creating high-quality jobs. I think we would want the same thing for another country, Panama in this case.

That is a problem that comes up quite often, not just in this free trade agreement, but in a number of others. The government blindly applies the same negotiation strategies and the same conditions as the ones used for the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1980s and 1990s. That was another time, but the government is trying to apply the same conditions today. Not only are we dealing with a country where the situation is very different from that of our neighbours to the south—the United States and Mexico—but the times are different as well. This is 2012, and the reality for workers has changed. For example, in the manufacturing sector, the tools available for workers are different. Accordingly, working conditions have changed. I think that we have to adapt to that vision going forward.

I will conclude by reiterating that the NDP opposes this bill not because we are against trade, industry and economic growth, but because we are against trade at all costs at the expense of justice and fairness. We want fair trade that is consistent with our fundamental values as they relate to human rights. Those rights are essential when we talk about trade in economic terms, because that also involves cultural exchanges with another country. We must be faithful to our reputation and our values in any agreement we sign, especially at the international level.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-24, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Panama. I enjoyed the comments of my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway. However, when he says that Canada should enter into an agreement with Norway, for example, he ought to remember that there was an agreement that was to come in the last few years with the EFTA countries, which included Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland. The NDP voted against that, as I recall.

I appreciated my hon. colleague's point that trade is essential to our economy. It is important that members recognize that and understand what arises from that.

I come from a trade-dependent province, Nova Scotia. I recognize how important these kinds of agreements are to our economy, to job creation and to our families. My hon. colleague talked about the Canada–U.S. free trade agreement. In the early 1980s, the Canadian government of Mr. Trudeau was very concerned about arising sentiments of protectionism in the U.S. A variety of tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers arising in the U.S. were of great concern, causing issues for Canadian businesses trying to sell to the U.S. The process was begun under that government of discussing the possibility of an agreement with the U.S.

My biggest concern with the way the Mulroney government approached the negotiations with the U.S. was that its approach was to say that its whole economic policy was going to be dependent on getting a trade agreement with the U.S. It said to the U.S., “let us sit down and negotiate”. What kind of position are government members in if they make it clear publicly to the counterpart in negotiation that they are not going to leave the table, that they have to have an agreement as they have told their country that it is vital to their future to have this agreement? That does not put them in a very strong bargaining position. Surely it would have been better to have entered that negotiation differently.

My difficulty with the NDP point of view is that it can never find an agreement that it can support. Members are convinced that they could have negotiated a better agreement that was far more in Canada's favour. That is nice to say. Maybe there are things that could have been done differently. However, it is a bit unrealistic to say they could have negotiated a far better agreement and gotten everything they think is important. That is not what negotiation is like. It is a two-way street. That is why my friends in the NDP have never been in favour of any trade deal with any other country, as far as I can recall, no matter how many jobs it created for Canadians or Nova Scotians or how much, for example, it helped our regional economy in the Atlantic.

If we look at the record, Canada did very well. If we look at the economic performance of Canada and the U.S. during the 1990s and the decade between 2000 and 2010, the results for Canada's economy were very strong. My difficulty with the NDP approach is that opposing these agreements is preferring protectionism. Protectionism provides temporary relief. Two hundred years ago, or a little less than that, my great-grandfather was a shipwright in Dartmouth working on sailing ships. When they started to fade away and metal and steamships took over, we could have said we were going to prevent those from coming in, that we would support with protectionism and tariffs our wooden shipbuilding industry. That might have provided some relief for a little while, but sooner or later it would have had negative impacts on the economy. The standard of living for people in this country would have gone down.

I think that is the result when we have the kinds of protectionist barriers that my NDP colleagues favour. The alternative to the U.S. trade agreement, perfect though it may have been, would have been more barriers to our products.

If we look back to 1988-90, of course the trade agreement was negotiated in about 1987, we were 90% dependent for our trade on the U.S. Ninety per cent of our exports went to the U.S. That was an enormous proportion of our economy. So, to say that we did not need to have that or that it was not good enough simply is not a good enough answer. I think we have to come up with a better argument than that.

Speaking of the impacts on Atlantic Canada, I encourage colleagues to read the recent report of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, which was produced in connection with its outlook 2012 conference. It is cleverly entitled “Let's Get Out of Here”. It presents an interesting study on how Atlantic Canadian firms are taking on the world. They are not saying, “Let's get out of here and move to Fort McMurray”. They are saying, “Let's get out of here as Atlantic Canadian businesses, move around the world and sell our products to create jobs here at home”. That is the idea that they are promoting.

Atlantic Canada has been successful in building innovation-based businesses that have been focused on niche markets, while also capitalizing on our key resource sectors. However, those key resource sectors are struggling these days. If we look at what is happening in forestry, when people in the U.S. and around the world are reading fewer newspapers, when there are as not many houses being built in the U.S., that has a huge impact on the pulp and paper industry and on the lumber industry. So, we need to have other kinds of businesses, in the new economy especially, that are creating jobs.

One constant in our success in Atlantic Canada has been a reliance on trade. Before Confederation, the Maritime provinces and now the Atlantic provinces, were very strong traders. They were known as very successful traders with the U.S. and Europe. Yet, whether we are talking about Europe, the Middle East, China or America, Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada, has enjoyed success in all major markets in the world. Not enough success, in my view, but considerable success.

The fact that our reliance on exports to the U.S. has gone from 90% to 80% over the past couple of decades is a positive thing. Although we are not quite as reliant on exports to the U.S., we are still heavily reliant. I think we can expect that, for the foreseeable future, the U.S. will continue to be our most important market.

While we support this particular trade agreement, Canadian families, Canadian workers and the Canadian economy have been very poorly served by the government, which is failing in terms of its overall trade agenda around the world. While the Prime Minister and his ministers rack up a lot of frequent flyer points, jetting around the globe, they have basically ignored our key market: the U.S. We do not see much effort there.

More than $1.4 billion is traded between Canada and the U.S. on a daily basis as part of the largest commercial relationship between any two countries in the world. Yet the Conservatives have sat on their hands and watched as the border has thickened. We do not see the kind of effort there that we ought to see.

Canada's geographic, economic and cultural advantages in a North American market of nearly 500 million people will remain a major strategic asset in a rapidly evolving world, but not if we continue on the path the government has put us on.

As some of the speakers before me have noted, this trade agreement with Panama is yet another example of the current government pursuing new arrangements, at the expense of established agreements. The consequences, I think, are clear to anyone who has seen the recent trade statistics, which show declining exports and a trade deficit.

The one thing we can say about the Conservative government is it seems to be enamoured with deficits. Certainly, we know that it put the country in deficit after inheriting a $13 billion surplus. It put us in deficit by April of 2008, six months before the recession began. The government's mismanagement of Canada's trading relationship has resulted in trade deficits for the first time in 30 years. That is very worrisome. I am sure we will hear some fictions about the government's fiscal record and, we hope, about its record fiscal deficit this afternoon and the consequences for seniors, fishermen, the unemployed and just about everyone else who will pay for the Conservatives' incompetence.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this House today to offer my comments on Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

I will start by talking generally about the perspective I bring to this House from Vancouver, Vancouver Kingsway in particular, and the good folks there. I think this is a broad consensus of their views on trade policy. The principles I am about to talk about fairly express those points of view.

Trade is very important to Canada. It is recognized by all Canadians who care to think about this issue that trade is essential to our economy. British Columbia is a coastal province and a trading province. There is a very strong commitment to the concept of trade being very important not only to the development of the economy of Canada but also the economy of British Columbia.

There are many businesses and enterprises in British Columbia, as there are across the country, that engage either directly or indirectly in the import or export of goods and services around the world. This is particularly the case with Asia with which British Columbia and businesses in British Columbia have a particularly strong tie.

Trade allows goods and services that are within the productive capacity or local expertise or resources of one country to be exchanged with those of another. That is why I can say certainly on behalf of the New Democrats that we believe trade is good. We believe it is desirable. We believe it is critical to our economy.

The question that should be raised with respect to any trade deal is the terms on which that trade ought to be conducted. Are there any principles, policies or rules that should be applied when Canadians consider the exchange of goods and services out of our country and the entrance of goods and services into our country?

There is a vast spectrum in the political world. We have heard some views expressed in this House during the debate. At the far end of the spectrum, there are those who assert that trade ought to be totally free, that the market should be free to act on its own, and that goods and services should be allowed to enter untrammelled to whatever market those goods and services can penetrate, and that government should stay out of the way. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who have the view that trade should be highly regulated, that there should be high tariffs, that countries should be closed and highly protectionist.

On the one hand there are the proponents of total free trade, who think that goods should be able to enter a country regardless of the other country's labour standards, environmental standards, and regardless of the human rights situation in that country. On the other hand there are those with a very closed approach to trade who think it should be very difficult for goods and services to enter the economy.

Speaking on behalf of the people of Vancouver Kingsway, and British Columbia and, I think, on behalf of the New Democratic Party of Canada, we believe that we should have a policy that pursues well-managed trade, not free trade, not a closed approach to trade, but fair trade. That is the approach to trade this party has taken every since the free trade debates opened up in this country some decades ago.

Why do we take this position? We believe that Canadians do not want goods and services that use child labour to enter Canada. We do not want goods and services that are the product of destructive environmental practices to enter this country. Canadians do not want goods coming to this country from countries that have very poor human rights records. Canadians do not want goods and services to enter this country when those goods and services come from an economy that is so fundamentally different from ours, with such lower standards that it actually hurts Canadian employers' ability to compete.

I will give one example. One of the reasons the NDP led such a spirited campaign with the Liberal Party in the 1980s, who opposed the free trade agreement with the United States at the time, was that we would be opening our borders to the U.S. economy which had 10 times the power of ours. In some of the southern states there were no labour standards, there was economy of scale, and employers were paying so little in wages that it would hurt Canadian employers. That was a major concern.

At that time, there was a burgeoning textile industry in this country, particularly in Quebec, but in other provinces as well. Employers were paying good wages. They were paying for health and welfare plans and pension plans. Workers were paid wages on which they could raise their families. Employers were paying workers' compensation benefits to the government to compensate workers if they were injured on the job. The employers were paying EI premiums in case workers became unemployed. These were the kinds of jobs that were being developed in this country. As soon as the free trade agreement was signed, textiles were allowed to flood in from the southern United States, where there were no unionized jobs, wages were half the rate that Canadian employers were paying, employers were not paying into social programs and there was no public health insurance. The result was that Quebec's textile industry was decimated. Canada lost tens of thousands of jobs, hundreds of thousands if we include jobs in other industries. These were good, middle-class, well-paying jobs.

There is a lot of rhetoric around trade in the House. The facts are that over the last 30 years, since the neo-liberal or neo-conservative, depending on one's point of view, concept of pursuing untrammelled free trade agreements, a significant change has occurred in the living standards of workers in this country. By any measure, according to many groups, Canadian workers today make less money in real terms than workers did 30 years ago. The middle class has been squeezed and the inequality of wealth distribution in this country has risen dramatically over the last 30 years. That is not rhetoric; that is a fact.

Part of the reason that happened is the trade policy that has been pursued not only by the Conservative government but by the Liberal government before it. At one time, I think it was in 1993, the Liberals campaigned on removing Canada from NAFTA. Of course, it is not uncommon for the Liberals to change their minds once they get into power, and they never did remove Canada from NAFTA. It is important to understand that Canadians and New Democrats want a trade policy based on encouraging trade and making sure that the sound principles I referred to are respected.

Regarding the bill that is before us today, New Democrats are concerned about it and do not believe it is a sound piece of legislation.

When the committee considered this bill, compelling testimony was heard from witnesses regarding the tax situation in the Republic of Panama, as well as its poor record of human rights. I do not hear anybody on either side of the House disputing the human rights record in Panama, but it is a concern.

Despite requests from the Canadian government, Panama has refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. This is very troubling, considering the large amount of money that is documented to be laundered in Panama, including money from drug trafficking. Some years ago there was a study done, I believe at Harvard University, which listed Panama as one of the top three countries for money laundering from drug cartels in South America. Panama's complete lack of taxation transparency has led the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to label the nation as a tax haven. It is not the New Democrats calling it a tax haven, it is the OECD.

Recently Panama was removed from the so-called OECD grey list, after substantially implementing the standard for exchange of information when it signed a tax information exchange agreement with France. That brings Panama's total agreements to the critical 12, the international standard. However, French President Sarkozy, in a speech at the end of the G20 conference in November last year in Switzerland, named Panama as a country that nevertheless remains a tax haven.

I believe that all people of Canada and members of this House should be concentrating on pursuing free trade agreements with countries that raise environmental standards, respect human rights, protect Canadian employers and make—

The House resumed from March 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that the question be now put.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. It has been suggested in the past when we have had budgets on Thursdays that we were doing that so we could go out and talk to Canadians about it for several days. Clearly, our interest is to tell Canadians about our economic action plan 2012 which is focused on keeping taxes down and creating jobs and economic growth for Canadians. We hope we will be able to speak about it a lot to Canadians. We are confident that they will see that we share their priorities strongly. I thank the opposition House leader for giving me the opportunity to explain that.

We will conclude this hard-working, productive and orderly week in Parliament by continuing debate on Bill C-31, the protecting Canada's immigration system act this afternoon and tomorrow. We will also debate that bill on Monday, March 26.

Next week is a constituency week where we will all be hard at work in our ridings.

The highlight of the week we return to Ottawa will be when the Minister of Finance rises in the House to present Canada's economic action plan 2012. That will be on Thursday, March 29 at 4 p.m. Canadians can look forward to our economic action plan which will include, as I indicated earlier, important measures focused on jobs and economic growth.

I understand that the Standing Committee on Finance agreed to a responsible work plan for its study of the financial system review act, Bill S-5 so that this House can pass the bill before Canada's banking laws expire in mid-April. Canada has the world's soundest banking system. It is important that we keep it this way. That is why I trust we will see a responsible approach to this bill in the House, similar to what we saw at committee. In anticipation of the bill being reported back to the House tomorrow afternoon, I will be giving priority to report stage and third reading of Bill S-5 on Tuesday, March 27 and Wednesday, March 28.

If we have additional time on those days, I hope we can finish second reading debate of Bill S-4, the Safer Railways Act, and then deal with Bill C-12, the Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act, at second reading.

On Thursday, March 29, we will resume debating Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, before question period. After question period, the House will turn to Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act.

Friday, March 30, shall be the first full day of debate on the budget.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to enter the debate on Bill C-24. I thank my colleague for Western Arctic for very capably articulating many of the positions of the NDP and the reservations we have with this bill. I will do my best not to repeat the many legitimate points my colleague made.

However, I will say with some frustration that I have been tracking and following this debate since August 11, 2009. when the government, unilaterally and without consultation from Parliament, concluded its negotiations. I cannot criticize this, as governments do have the right to enter into free trade agreements. However, they then need to ratify them with the Parliament of Canada where the legitimate concerns that the parties may have on behalf of our representatives can be made known. In any serious consultation, there should be some accommodation of the legitimate concerns the other parties brought forward in the context of the free trade agreements entered into.

I raise this only because it has been a constant source of frustration to us that the consultation has not been meaningful or robust and it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, even meet the definition of true consultation if the government side has not accommodated at least some of the legitimate concerns brought forward. I would refer members to recent Supreme Court decisions that dealt with the issue of what constitutes meaningful consultation.

I do not think, by any stretch of the imagination, we can conclude that meaningful consultation took place, because not one of the amendments brought forward by the official opposition were entertained or allowed by the ruling party, even though some of the concerns brought forward would meet the nod test from the general public. A lot of Canadians would be upset to learn that we are entering into this trade agreement with a country like Panama without taking steps and measures to ensure that Panama is worthy of a free trade agreement with Canada.

I do not use that word lightly. Trade with Canada is a privilege, not a right. I am the first one to admit that free trade can help elevate the standards of both parties to a trade agreement. We do not look for mirror image countries. This is not some kind of vanity exercise where we will only trade with countries that are just like us, but surely they must meet some minimum ethical, labour and environmental standards. For Heaven's sake, they should not be the tax haven of choice and the money laundering country of choice for the international drug cartel. Why would we reward bad behaviour?

It comes to mind that Panama is probably dining out on the fact that it has achieved a good housekeeping seal of approval by Canada which has seen fit to enter into a trade agreement with it. It says that maybe all the accusations of being the drug laundering capital of Central America and South America cannot be true because otherwise a nice country like Canada would not sign the agreement with it.

I am here to say that the world is not satisfied that Panama has taken corrective action. It is not a responsible actor in the international financial community. The president of France said so as recently as November 5, 2011. He cited a number of countries that should be shunned by the international community. Guess what countries are on that list? They include Antigua, Barbuda, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Botswana, Brunei, Panama, Uruguay and Venuatu. President Sarkozy threatened that the countries that remain tax havens will be shunned by the international community. How does that jibe with us having this debate today and about to enter into a process that legitimizes and validates the behaviour and past practices of that country.

International tax havens are a scourge on the international financial world and they should be stamped out. They should not be allowed. I go to chartered accountants' websites sometimes to track what is being pushed around here. They call it “tax motivated expatriation”. That is the nice sanitary term for what I call “sleazy tax cheating loopholes” that are ubiquitous among a certain financial class of people.

The OECD has a grey list. Panama was removed from the grey list. It reads:

Panama today moved to the OECD’s list of jurisdictions considered to have substantially implemented the standard for exchange of information when it signed a tax information exchange agreement with France. This brings Panama’s total agreements to the critical 12 that meet the international standard.

Since then, it was when Mr. Sarkozy, in a speech made at the G20 conference in Cannes, named the Caribbean countries and eight others, including Panama, as countries that remain tax havens and should be shunned by the international community.

What is this almost obsession to sign as many of these trade agreements with as many countries as humanly possible without even doing the due diligence, the scrutiny and the oversight that one would expect? These are binding agreements.

The amendments that my colleague brought forward, the terms and conditions under which the government could garner NDP support for these, were reasonable ones that I think would meet the nod test from almost all ordinary Canadians. One was that we address the status of labour rights in Panama. If it is our goal to use our trade relationships as an objective to elevate the standard of living conditions for the trading partners with which we sign these agreements, why do we need to have a side agreement on labour rights that is virtually unenforceable? Why is that not part of the substance of the text of the actual agreement?

Environmental concerns are something that the NDP always wants to see addressed. We should be setting the industry standard, not tacitly endorsing the bad practices of other countries by entering into these legitimizing trade agreements.

There has not been a business case made on how this is categorically in the best interests of a majority of Canadians. Of course we want trade. We are a trading nation and we do rely on trade. We are blessed with natural resources. We export, we extract and export. However, some of us would say that current and recent past practices would indicate a lack of commitment and perhaps a disturbing trend of not putting enough emphasis on value adding our resources before they are exported from this country.

I will give one example as it relates to my own riding of Winnipeg Centre. I used to have 43 garment manufacturers in my riding, the largest of which had 1,800 employees at its peak. Many of them had 300, 400 and 500 employees. Some were small boutique custom made shops. We are now down to nine. I am talking about the period of time that I have been a member of Parliament, from 1997 to today. It went from 43 to 9, 10,000 to 12,000 employees, just in my riding, and that does not include Winnipeg North where my colleague used to have garment manufacturers.

We decided to cut that sector loose. Somebody made a conscious decision to stop the duty remissions and all the efforts we made to keep manufacturing in Canada. Somebody turned a blind eye to the trade provisions. When China was invited into the WTO, the partners to the WTO could have signed phase-in agreements but Canada chose not to.

Therefore, we got the 200% and 300% impact all in one year. Countries like the United States had a 10-year phase-in at 5% to 10% a year. For Canada, it was all or nothing and, believe me, that was the death knell of the garment industry in my city. To whose benefit was that? Those were great entry level gateway jobs, often for new Canadians. They were not big paying jobs but they were good unionized jobs with a day care centre, a pension plan and a dental plan, and they are all gone. The government in its wisdom watched them fly out the window and did not lift a finger to save them. That is the same attitude that we see toward these trade agreements. The government is being irresponsible.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to question my colleague who has brought up a number of issues in regard to Bill C-24. I know that those issues are important to all of us in the House. Over the past years that we have been working on this bill, we have proposed many amendments on the subjects the member has concerns about, yet I do not see that the Liberal Party has come through with support for those amendments. Can the member explain his and his party's actions in that regard?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again enter into the discussion on Bill C-24.

Bill C-24 would implement the free trade agreement and the related agreements on the environment and labour co-operation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Panama, done in Ottawa on May 13 and 14, 2010.

We have said previously that the Liberal Party is supportive of this legislation and we remain so. However, we maintain the concerns we raised previously with respect to the fact that as the government is pursuing new agreements, it has been neglecting our relationship with our largest trading partner, the United States.

Pursuing new trade agreements is certainly worthy of support. However, we have to keep these agreements in context. I have raised questions in this House several times, that while the minister is travelling all over the world talking about trade here and trade there, the government is ignoring our most important trading partner.

The government is also ignoring another trading partner, and that is Korea. Hog producers and beef producers have been in my office over the last few weeks. They are very concerned about the South Korean market. We have an established market of over $1 billion of trade on beef and pork. It is a growing market. However, now that the United States has moved ahead and signed a trade agreement with South Korea, the tariffs will be coming down for the Americans. We are their most important competitor, and we will be left uncompetitive in that marketplace. We will in fact lose that market rapidly over time.

What seems to be the problem with the government in so many areas is that rather than being about results, it is very much about spin. It wants to be able to say that it has signed nine trade agreements, or has had 15 or 20 or 40 discussions, when in reality it is the results that matter. Again I emphasize that we are very concerned about the fact that the government is ignoring some of our largest trading partners while it talks and signs agreements with others around the world. The new agreement does not add up to the losses we are facing as a result of the government not emphasizing the agreements we already have in place.

While the Conservatives have proclaimed the promotion of trade, it has been under their watch that the mismanagement of the file in terms of trading relationships has resulted in trade deficits for the first time in over 30 years. Let me emphasize that. We hear the minister talk about all the great things the government is doing. Last year for the first time in 30 years, Canada had its first merchandise trade deficit. That tells me the results are far different from the spin we are getting from the Minister of International Trade.

With respect to the United States, we have seen the government surprised by increased United States protectionist actions. It was surprised by the initial buy American provisions in the 2008 United States stimulus package. It was again surprised in 2011 when the new buy American provisions were returned by the Obama administration. Those buy American provisions in fact will affect Canadian jobs and will hurt both the U.S. and Canadian economies.

The Conservative administration was also surprised by the announcement by the United States Federal Maritime Commission at the instigation of United States senators of an investigation into U.S.-bound container traffic being diverted to Canadian ports and whether to impose fees or tariffs as a result of this diverted trade. This would be another potential fee placed on Canada.

The government was also surprised when the United States government, in signing the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement, withdrew the exemption Canada had of $5.50 per individual in terms of sea and air entry into the United States.

I was in Washington, D.C. over the last few days where I met with senators and congressmen about a number of issues between our two countries. They too seemed to be caught by surprise in terms of that clause in the U.S.-Colombia trade agreement that took away Canada's exemption. After my visit to the United States, I am now more concerned by the fact that we had a lot of allies in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives but the government failed on its watch to pay attention to that serious issue which puts another fee on Canada.

The importance of the U.S.-Canada relationship is in the value of trade, and that exceeds about $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion a day. The government is very much ignoring our most important trading partner.

I want to emphasize again in the House that while the government is pursuing Panama, Jordan, and others, it is ignoring our most important trading markets. I have to outline this point with the minister.

Will the minister get on the ball and get on a trading relationship with South Korea? We need a free trade agreement signed with South Korea, or we are going to be displaced as a result of being uncompetitive with the United States which has signed a trade agreement. I cannot emphasize that enough. That is worth $1 billion in trade.

In spite of the global economic downturn, Panama's GDP grew to 10.7% in 2008, one of the highest in the Americas. In 2010, Panama's GDP growth stood at 7.5%. Panama is Canada's largest export market in Central America.

Panama is an important market especially for folks in my province of Prince Edward Island. We export fish, shellfish, french fried potatoes and other agricultural products. It is very important to producers in Prince Edward Island. We need this agreement.

The bilateral trading relationship has grown 61% since 2009, reaching $213 million in bilateral trade in 2010.

As I said, the primary Canadian merchandise exports to Panama include machinery, vehicle electronic equipment, pharmaceutical equipment, pulses, frozen potato products and other agricultural products, and shellfish. Canadian service exports include financial services, engineering, information and communications technology. These are also important. We import precious stones from Panama and a number of fruits and nuts, fish and seafood products. The relationship is important.

I do have to point out what remains a concern to us within the Liberal Party. The tax haven issue with Panama has not been addressed. The President of France talked about that at the G20. The tax haven issues that a number of countries have around the world have to be addressed. In particular, the Canadian government has to work harder with Panama to address that issue.

The bottom line is that we support this trade agreement. We especially want to see the labour, environment and tax issues addressed in it though.

The House resumed from February 29, consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to express my amusement, I guess is the best word, at the opposition House leader's great interest in the democratic process in the Senate. Of course, his party's position is that body should be abolished. The one benefit is that if he had his way, Bill C-10 would already be law today. That is something we hope will happen very soon.

Let me begin by thanking the hon. member for asking for the business of the House in the upcoming week. I am happy to provide it to you, Mr. Speaker, to him and, indeed, to all Canadians. This afternoon we will continue debate on Bill C-28, Financial Literacy Leader Act.

Continuing our week focused on jobs and economic growth, because that is what this week is about, tomorrow morning we will resume debate on Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act, and in the afternoon we will debate the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act, Bill C-24. That bill implements a free trade agreement that was signed almost two years ago, which will create new jobs for Canadians by opening new markets for Canadian exporters and workers. The bill was studied and passed by the international trade committee in a previous Parliament and has been debated on numerous days at second reading in this Parliament.

Monday will be the fifth allotted day, when I understand we will debate an NDP motion. I know members of the House would appreciate it if the opposition House leader could tell us what motion we will be debating at that time. I know I am certainly interested.

On Tuesday afternoon, we will begin debating the protecting Canada's immigration system act, Bill C-31. I also understand that the safe streets and communities act, Bill C-10, will be returning from the other place very soon. We will consider Senate amendments on Tuesday morning and Wednesday. The amendments relate to the civil remedies for terrorism portions of the act, which I understand enjoy support from all parties. Thus I would invite the opposition to agree to move quickly on those items that we all support, so that we can get those provisions into law as soon as possible.

As the House knows, the government committed to passing this bill within 100 sitting days, and we will keep that commitment. Thursday, March 8, will be the sixth allotted day of this supply period, which will also go the NDP, I understand.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What has the impact been for the average Canadian family?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Panama is one of the world's worst tax havens. It is home to an estimated 400,000 corporations, including offshore corporations and multinational subsidiaries....According to the OECD, the Panamanian government has little to no legal authority to ascertain key information about these offshore corporations, such as their ownership. Panama's financial secrecy practices also make it a major site for money laundering from places throughout the world. According to the U.S. State Department, major Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, as well as Colombian illegal armed groups, use Panama for drug trafficking and money laundering purposes. The funds generated from illegal activity are susceptible to being laundered through Panamanian banks, real estate developments, and more.

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

In response to the international perception that Panamanian labour laws were rigid and a disincentive to foreign investment...[there were] unilateral changes to labour law...from workers, it allowed employers to fire striking workers and replace them with strike-breakers, it criminalized street blockades, and it protected police from prosecution. The severity of this attack on labour rights was met with strikes and demonstrations. The police were exceedingly harsh in their response.

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

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

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

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

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed from February 27, consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Panama]...is currently recording relatively high growth rates, but it is the second most unequal society in the region: 40% of the population is poor and 27% is extremely poor, and the rate of extreme poverty is particularly acute in indigenous populations. Although the country has endured extensive structural adjustment, liberalization, and privatization in recent years, this has not translated into economic benefits for the population.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need an agreement that puts people before big business.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, he said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the agreement on the environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the agreement on labour co-operation between Canada and the Republic of Panama. As members of the House are aware, the Liberal Party supports this bill. The Liberal Party supports free trade and free trade agreements, and has provided leadership in that regard over many decades.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was my introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Panama is one of the world's worst tax havens. It is home to an estimated 400,000 corporations, including offshore corporations and multinational subsidiaries. This is almost four times the number of corporations registered in Canada. So Panama is not just any developing country. It offers foreign banks and firms a special offshore licence to conduct business there. Not only are these businesses not taxed, but they are subject to little or no reporting requirements or regulations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The House resumed from December 12, 2011, consideration of the motion that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did not hear it right. I thought this was a question about the House agenda. In any event, I will answer a couple of the questions.

First, with regard to the management of the House business, I will renew once again my invitation to the NDP to give us the number of speakers and the length of time they wish to speak on any of the bills before this House. They have yet to ever provide me an answer on that. I have asked in the past here and elsewhere and I will continue to ask.

I appreciate that the Liberal Party has been somewhat forthcoming in that regard. If we see the same from the NDP, we will be able to actually come to co-operative arrangements. However, barring that, it is clear that the NDP agenda is simply to run up the score and compel the government to utilize the resources available in the Standing Orders in order to ensure that we actually do come to decisions and take votes in this House.

Today we will continue with the opposition day. Tomorrow we will be having a debate to take note of the Standing Orders before, as I understand, the Procedure and House Affairs Committee takes on a more extensive and detailed study of proposed changes to the Standing Orders. Following the constituency week we will begin on Monday, February 27, with debate on Bill C-7, Senate Reform Act.

On Monday afternoon, we will continue debate on Bill C-24, the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act. Tuesday, February 28, will be the fourth allotted day, which I understand is to go to the Liberal Party.

On Wednesday, we will continue debate on the Canada-Panama Free Trade Act. On Thursday morning, we will continue debate on Bill C-23, the Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act.

On Thursday afternoon, we will begin debate on Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act.

As the House can see, this will be a jobs and growth week. Jobs and growth remain our government's top priorities.

As we have seen with the North American Free Trade Agreement, free trade creates jobs and economic growth for Canadian families and businesses, and this is true of the two free trade bills that we have before the House. Like the Canada-Jordan free trade act, which, I would point out, in the previous Parliament went to committee after only a few hours of debate, we would hope that we could get the same agreement from the other parties to do so here. I invite them to do that.

I can also say, from my own personal experience, that the Canada-Panama free trade agreement has been around for a long time. I recall two and a half years ago being in Panama with the Prime Minister as negotiations concluded on this agreement. I remember, as Minister of International Trade, introducing in the House on September 23, 2010, for the first time, the bill to implement the free trade agreement. It is about time that it passes into law to benefit Canadians, exporters and workers.

Bill C-28 would create the position of financial literacy leader to help promote financial literacy among Canadians. This is something for which I think all parties have expressed support. I am sure we should be able to come to an agreement on how to proceed. I proposed a motion to the House that laid out a reasonable work plan for Bill C-28 but, sadly, that motion was not supported. I encourage the opposition House leader to get together with us again to try to work on a reasonable work plan.

I do look forward to seeing some progress as we continue the hard-working, orderly and productive session of Parliament we are in. Rather than trying to run up the score and compel time allocation to be used, I would encourage the official opposition House leader to work with all parties in this place to make progress on the bills before us.

On that note and in the spirit of co-operation and working with my colleagues across the way, I have one further addition regarding tomorrow's debate. I thank my colleagues for this suggestion, which I believe, Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent for. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the motion “That this House take note of the Standing Orders and procedure of the House and its Committees”, standing on the Order Paper, be amended by adding the following:

“; that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to study the Standing Orders and procedures of the House and its Committees, including the proceedings on the debate pursuant to Standing Order 51; and that the Committee report its findings to the House no later than May 18, 2012”; and

that the motion, as amended, shall not be subject to any further amendment; and when debate has concluded, or at the expiry of time provided for Government Orders on the day designated for the debate, as the case may be, the motion, as amended, shall be deemed adopted.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to give my last Thursday statement of 2011. The fall has been a productive, hard-working and orderly session. It has been capped by results that we have seen in the House during delivering results month since we returned from the Remembrance Day constituency week.

Of particular note, this fall the House passed Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act; Bill C-20, the fair representation act; Bill C-18, the marketing freedom for grain farmers act; and Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act.

Other things were also accomplished, from the appointment of two officers of Parliament to the passing at second reading of Bill C-26, the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act. I would like to thank the opposition parties who made these accomplishments possible. Nevertheless, the House has a lot of work to do when it returns in 2012.

The things I am looking forward to in 2012 include, after 48 speeches so far, returning to Bill C-19, the ending the long-gun registry act; after 75 speeches so far, continuing debate on second reading of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act; after 73 speeches so far, continuing debating the opposition motion to block Bill C-4, the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act from proceeding to committee; and, after 47 speeches so far, continuing debate on second reading of Bill C-7, the Senate reform act.

This winter, the government's priority will continue to be economic growth and job creation. We will thus continue to move forward with our economic agenda by debating legislative measures such as Bill C-23 on the implementation of a Canada-Jordan free trade agreement; Bill C-24 on the implementation of a Canada-Panama free trade agreement; Bill C-25, which is designed to give Canadians another way to plan for retirement through pooled registered pension plans; and Bill C-28 on the appointment of a financial literacy leader.

Needless to say, I am looking forward to the 2012 budget, the next phase of Canada's economic recovery, from the Minister of Finance, and I am looking forward to what I am sure it will deliver for the Canadian economy. This will be the cornerstone of the upcoming session.

With respect to the precise business of the House for the week of January 30, 2012, I will advise my counterparts in the usual fashion in advance of the House returning.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, please let me wish you, my fellow house leaders, all hon. members and our table officers and support staff a very merry Christmas.

In particular, I want to thank the pages, many of whom, as we know, spent their first significant amount of time away from home with us this fall. I wish them a pleasant time back home with family over Christmas. Perhaps we have provided some good stories for them to tell around the dinner table.

Merry Christmas, happy new year and all the best for the break. Here is to a productive, orderly and hard-working 2012.

Merry Christmas and happy new year. May the members of the House rest up in preparation for the hard work to come in a productive and orderly 2012.

Canada-Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today to begin debate on Bill C-23, the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement. Our government is committed to securing and deepening access to traditional markets, like the United States, and broadening and expanding access to more markets, like Jordan.

Trade accounts for over 60% of our annual GDP and, with one in five Canadian jobs generated by trade, it is a matter of fundamental importance to the financial security of hard-working Canadians and their families.

Our focused pursuit of new free trade agreements helps to demonstrate our government's commitment to helping Canadian workers and businesses compete in markets abroad, as well as our commitment to creating more jobs and economic growth for Canadian workers.

We continue to see fierce competition in the global marketplace, with emerging economies and global players continuing to climb the value chain and establishing themselves in a wide range of sectors.

This government will do everything it can to ensure that Canadian workers and Canadian businesses have the tools and opportunities to build the links needed to succeed in today's global economy. Our government is committed to bringing continued economic prosperity to Canadians by pursuing bilateral and regional free trade relationships. Negotiating and implementing trade agreements with our international partners will also help to level the playing field for our companies in an increasingly complex and competitive environment.

Pursuing free trade agreements sends a clear signal that protectionism is not the right way to achieve increased global stability and prosperity. In these challenging times, deeper trade ties are the best way to create jobs and economic growth. Our government will get that done. That is why we have an ambitious, job creating, pro-trade plan. The Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act is a key part of this plan.

The Canada-Jordan free trade agreement also demonstrates Canada's support for an Arab state that, like Canada, supports peace and security in the Middle East.

We will recall that in 2007, the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister joined His Majesty King Abdullah II in a commitment to take our commercial relationship to the next level. The Canada-Jordan free trade agreement, along with related agreements on labour co-operation and the environment, signed in 2009, are a direct result of this commitment.

Canada's economy is export driven. Canadian families understand that trade is a kitchen table issue that provides jobs and helps put food on the table. We know it is in our best economic interest to seek out new opportunities for our producers, workers and exporters in as many foreign markets as possible.

Moreover, negotiating free trade agreements allows for Canadian firms to specialize and increase their comparative advantage in the global marketplace. By improving access to foreign markets for Canadian workers and businesses, this government is keeping its commitment to support economic growth and create new jobs for Canadian workers.

In a number of countries, Canadian firms are at a competitive disadvantage because their foreign competitors have preferential market access under some form of a free trade agreement. The Canada-Jordan free trade agreement addresses this serious issue by leveling the playing field with key competitors who are already benefiting from free trade agreements with Jordan, namely competition from the United States and the European Union.

Through the Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act, our government is ensuring that Canadian workers and firms are on equal footing to compete with firms from across the world in the Jordanian market. Opening doors to trade and investment is the right approach for creating opportunities for Canadian workers and businesses in global markets.

The Canada-Jordan free trade agreement would create new export opportunities and strengthen bilateral ties between our two countries.

The free trade agreement with Jordan would benefit both Canadians and Jordanians by giving Canadian and Jordanian exporters unprecedented access to our respective markets and eliminating tariffs on a number of key products. World leading Canadian sectors, like forestry, manufacturing and agriculture and agri-food would benefit.

Over the years, Canada and Jordan have built a strong, mutually beneficial relationship. This free trade agreement continues to build on that important start. It is a relationship grounded in common aspirations, like peace, stability and prosperity for our citizens. This new free trade agreement would help to move these aspirations forward.

Despite the recent economic downturn experienced by the global economy, our bilateral trade with Jordan increased to $85.9 million in 2010 from $82.5 million in 2009, indicating that the longer-term trend of our trade relationship is one of growth.

For example, Canada's 2010 merchandise exports to Jordan of $66 million were more than double the $31 million total in 2003. This free trade agreement would provide the opportunity to further enhance this trend of upward growth.

Jordan's current average applied tariff is 11%, with peaks of up to 30% applied on some Canadian exports of interest. In fact, 67% of Jordan's tariff lines, covering over 99% of Canadian exports, will be eliminated when the agreement is first implemented. This is a huge step forward in the growing economic partnership between Canada and Jordan and will help to ensure that Canadian firms remain competitive globally. Jordan's remaining tariff reductions will then take place over three or five years.

Let me give a better idea of the specific sectors that will benefit if the Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act is quickly moved through the House.

Top exports in 2010 included paper and paperboard, vegetables, wood, vehicles and machinery. In 2010 Canada imported some $20 million in goods from Jordan, including both knit and woven apparel, inorganic chemicals, precious stones, mainly jewellery, and vegetables, cucumbers.

Our trade relationship has clearly been growing, despite Jordan's most favoured nation applied average tariff of 11% and peaks of up to 30% on many key Canadian exports.

The Canada-Jordan free trade agreement aims to remedy this situation and promote continued prosperity for Canadian workers, producers and exporters. Once this agreement is brought into force, Canada will immediately benefit from duty-free access for over 99% of current Canadian exports by value.

What does this new agreement mean for individual exporters? Permit me to run through some specific examples, starting with the agricultural sector. Canadian exporters of pulses, lentils, chickpeas, beans and peas will benefit from the immediate elimination of Jordan's tariffs of 5% to 10% on these products. Of Canada's $7 million of vegetable exports to Jordan in 2010, the majority were lentils and chickpeas, which currently face a 5% tariff, and peas that are subject to a 10% tariff, both of which go to duty-free access immediately upon implementation of the agreement.

In 2010 exports of frozen potato products to Jordan totalled some $88,000. These exporters will benefit from the immediate elimination of a 20% Jordanian tariff and place them on a level playing field with competitors in the U.S. and the E.U., which currently benefit from duty-free access to the Jordanian market.

Canadian beef exporters will benefit from the immediate elimination of Jordanian tariffs, which range from 5% to 23% on all beef products, including fresh chilled frozen and preserved meat and offal and processed products such as sausages and jerky.

Jordan lifted its restrictions on Canadian beef products in February 2009, which will allow this sector to benefit from these lower tariffs.

Animal feed will also benefit from the elimination of Jordanian tariffs of up to 23% and some of these are currently subject to an additional 10% tariff that will be eliminated immediately upon implementation of the free trade agreement.

The Canada-Jordan free trade agreement is certainly more than just agricultural products. The elimination of Jordanian tariffs, ranging from 15% to 30% on certain wood products, could benefit Canadian exporters of doors, frames, joinery, shakes and shingles and other building materials.

Canadian exporters of paper goods, such as toilet paper, paper towels, facial tissues, envelopes, stationery, wrapping paper, boxes and corrugated cardboard, will benefit from the elimination of Jordanian tariffs ranging from 10% to 30%.

With $9.7 million in exports in 2010, mainly light passenger vehicles, Jordan is a growing market for Canadian auto and auto parts exports. The elimination of Jordan's tariffs ranging from 10% to 30% will help Canadian exporters to further expand into this market.

Canada exports a variety of mechanical and electrical machinery to Jordan, $9.2 million in 2010, including heavy construction and mining equipment, communications equipment, filtration or purification devices, pumps, machinery and components. The elimination of Jordanian tariffs, ranging from 10% to 30% on a variety of current and potential Canadian machinery exports, will certainly help our machinery manufacturing sector.

Canada's exports of pharmaceuticals to Jordan totalled just shy of a million dollars in 2010, of which 80% were subject to a 5% Jordanian tariff. That will be eliminated upon implementation of this free trade agreement.

Although Jordan is currently a small market for Canadian fish and seafood exports, the elimination of Jordan's 10% to 30% tariffs on fish and seafood could help Canadian exporters expand their presence in the Jordanian market.

I have to admit that I have covered a lot of numbers, but numbers matter to Canadian workers, producers and exporters. In an increasingly competitive world, lower tariff numbers can make the difference for exporters who are considering whether to expand or enter into a new market.

This growing trade relationship is just one of many reasons why our government continues to work with Canadian businesses to ensure closer commercial ties to the Jordanian marketplace. Our government's work to support Canadian firms doing business in Jordan has been recognized by the business community in Canada and has been met with support from a wide range of businesses, including the Forest Products Association of Canada, the Grain Growers of Canada, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, as well as the Canada-Arab Business Council, all of which appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Members will remember that our free trade agreement was just one of the agreements we signed with Jordan in 2009. We also signed a bilateral job-creating foreign investment protection and promotion agreement, which came into force on December 14, 2009. This job-creating investment agreement establishes clear rules for investment between our two countries.

Canadian investors are particularly excited about opportunities in Jordan's resource, extraction, nuclear energy, telecommunications, transportation, manufacturing and infrastructure sectors and this job-creating investment agreement provides Canadian and Jordanian investors with the predictability and certainty they need when investing in one another's markets.

I am sure members will agree that this free trade agreement and the 2009 job-creating foreign investment protection and promotion agreement with Jordan are no doubt complementary.

We are living in very challenging economic times and the economy remains our government's number one priority. In order to ensure that our economy continues to grow and continues to be competitive in the global marketplace, trade barriers must be broken down all across the world, through new free trade agreements.

Protectionism is never the answer. Our government believes that Canada's ability to continue to recover from the global economic downturn depends, in large part, on the global trade and investment partnerships that we pursue. That is why we are moving so ambitiously on free trade negotiations with our global partners.

Since 2006, Canada has concluded new free trade agreements with nine countries, most recently, an agreement with Honduras that was announced August 12. Canada is also in discussions with many more countries, including the European Union and India, two of the largest, most promising markets in the world.

This government is dedicated to ensuring that the Canadian economy remains strong through pursuing trade relationships that work for Canadians. This ambitious pro-trade plan is important for Canada.

Passing the Canada-Jordan economic growth and prosperity act will allow for the quick implementation of the free trade agreement with Jordan in order to help Canadian workers and Canadian businesses compete.

Earlier this week, the Canada–Panama economic growth and prosperity act was debated. Unfortunately, the NDP opposed the Canada-Panama economic growth and prosperity act. This should not come as a surprise, as its record is very clear. The NDP has opposed all trade agreements.

Unlike the NDP, our Conservative government is focused on broadening and deepening our trading relationship, as it protects and creates jobs and economic growth for Canadian workers and their families.

I reach out to the NDP and the Liberal Party. We need their support to pass these free trade agreements in the House. They are important for the Canadian economy. They are especially important in these trying economic times. Unfortunately, every time we reach out, we hear the same things in return. The NDP continues to represent some very narrow special interest groups. It continues with its job-killing, anti-trade agenda. It continually invents any reason at all not to support free trade agreements. On Monday, at the end of the day, the NDP said that, once again, it would oppose this agreement.

While we are focused on protecting and growing Canada's economy through our job-creating, pro-trade plan, we continually have to deal with opposition parties that obstruct this. That is the last thing we need. I would urge all my colleagues in the House of Commons to give support for a quick passage of this bill so the international trade committee can begin its work.

We have seen a very clear position come down on the side of the NDP. I do not expect that to be the position of the Liberal Party, the third party in the House. We would hope we do get its support on this bill.

However, let me assure Canadian workers and their families that our Conservative government will be strongly supporting the Canada–Jordan economic growth and prosperity act to ensure we continue to create jobs and economic growth. It is now time to move ahead with the legislation.

Our government and our party will send a clear message to Canadians that continued prosperity for Canadian workers and Canadian businesses is a priority, not just for the Conservative Party but for the House of Commons. The best way to do that is through ensuring a speedy passage of Bill C-23, Canada–Jordan economic growth and prosperity act.

This is important legislation. It was before the House in the last Parliament and it is before the House again. I urge my colleagues to send this to committee as quickly as possible and then send it back to the House post-haste.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I move:

That this question be now put.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have two central points. First, Panama is one of the world's worst tax havens. It is home to an estimated 400,000 corporations, including offshore corporations and multinational subsidiaries. This is almost four times the number of corporations registered in Canada. So Panama is not just any developing country.

Later he said:

Let me elaborate on the first point. What makes Panama a particularly attractive location for tax dodgers and offshore corporations? Well, for decades, the Panamanian government has pursued an international tax haven strategy. It offers foreign banks and firms a special offshore licence to conduct business there. Not only are these businesses not taxed, but they're subject to little to no reporting requirements or regulations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Durham, ON]

moved that Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important things we are looking forward to in the next week or so is the passage of the major priority pieces of legislation we have been advancing this fall, for which we have been seeking to set timetables to ensure they could pass to be in effect for next year. They are our budget implementation act to ensure that important tax measures are in place like a tax credit for job creation and accelerated capital cost allowance to create jobs; our bill to ensure fair representation, to have that in place in time for the redistribution that is going to unfold next year; and in addition to that another bill which again is a time priority, the crime bill, and I do not think we are going to be able to make that objective.

However, we are looking to get those in place and, having done that, we look forward to, in the next 10 days or so, the very first of those bills we have been working on all fall to actually becoming law. That will be a very exciting time for us when we finally achieve Royal Assent, having spent that time.

I should advise members that next week will be free trade and jobs week. We will begin Monday morning with second reading of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama free trade act. This free trade agreement was signed on May 14, 2010. It is now time for Parliament to put it into effect, so that Canadians can benefit from the jobs and economic growth it will deliver.

It being free trade and jobs week, we will begin second reading debate on Wednesday of another bill to implement a job-creating free trade agreement. In this case, we will discuss Bill C-23, the Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act, which will implement Canada's first free trade agreement with an Arab country.

This will be the last week before the House adjourns for the holidays. And it is with the Christmas spirit in mind that we hope to have the co-operation of all members in making great progress on a number of important bills with a focus on job creation and economic growth.

On Monday, if we are able to pass Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama free trade bill, we would call Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. Bill C-11 is another bill that would lead to more jobs in Canada, and our world-leading digital and cultural sectors. Earlier this week, the Liberal motion to block further debate on this important bill was defeated in this House. That means we can get back to second reading debate and I would hope that after being debated for over one sitting week, the opposition will finally allow this bill to get to committee.

If we continue to make the progress I am hoping for, we will then call Bill C-14, the Improving Trade Within Canada Act, for further second reading debate. This is a fairly straightforward bill that will benefit the economy by implementing amendments to the Agreement on Internal Trade agreed by the provinces. I expect all parties will allow it to move swiftly to committee.

In addition to passing these job creating bills, on Monday, ideally, we would then call C-26, the citizen's arrest and self-defence act for further debate.

For the balance of free trade and jobs week, we will continue to debate any of those bills which have not yet been referred to committee. We would also look to begin second reading debate on Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act. This bill will create a new position in the government dedicated to encouraging financial literacy for Canadians.

As for the balance of this week, which is democratic reform week, Bill C-20, the fair representation act, will be debated tomorrow at report stage, further to the motion adopted yesterday. Third reading in the House on this bill will be Tuesday. This will be followed by a vote Tuesday night, a vote that will give all members in this place an opportunity to vote on the important democratic principle of representation by population.

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)