Bill C-20 (Historical)

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements on environmental and labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and done at Ottawa on November 5, 2013.
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 entered into between Canada and the Republic of Honduras.
Part 3 of the enactment contains coordinating amendments and the coming into force provision.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the point my colleague raised does not make any sense at all, but I would like to thank him for bringing up the NDP's position, because I would like to elaborate on that.

We need to negotiate free trade agreements that will benefit Canada. The NDP is prepared to examine the text of the agreement between Canada and the European Union. Of course, we raised a number of concerns, and my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé also moved a motion in the House to ensure that dairy producers receive financial compensation from the government to cover any losses that may result from this agreement. However, we are going to examine the agreement. The democratic countries that make up the European Union are countries with which we should be negotiating free trade agreements.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from the New Democratic Party, and her description of Honduras and the importance of human rights.

However, I remember the NDP provided some support to the Canada-Jordan trade agreement some time back. The reality is that Jordan continues to have significant human rights issues. I assume the reason why the NDP supported the Canada-Jordan trade agreement was that the NDP believed in that case that economic engagement would foster better engagement on human rights issues.

I just looked at the Human Rights Watch website tonight to get an update on Jordan. It says:

Jordanian law criminalizes speech deemed critical of the king, government officials, and institutions, as well as Islam and speech considered defamatory of others.

Perpetrators of torture or other ill-treatment continued to enjoy near-total impunity.

I am not saying that it was wrong for Canada to sign an FTA with Jordan. In fact, this economic engagement can actually improve human rights engagement and dialogue.

However, why does the NDP believe that a free trade agreement with Jordan, with its human rights abuses, is fine, and yet one with Honduras would not be fine?

Is it perhaps, and I do not want to be cynical, that the NDP were looking for one free trade agreement that it could say, “We supported that, so thus we are not so ideological as our opponents may accuse of. We actually supported one free trade agreement?”

If the only free trade agreement the NDP has ever supported was with Jordan, that creates a real challenge for Canadians watching this discussion on human rights and trade tonight.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question from my colleague is absolutely inconsistent, seeing as the Liberal Party supports free trade with a country that in 2012 was the most dangerous country in the world.

It is interesting that the member is right now pretending to care about human rights, seeing as his party actually supports this free trade agreement that would not improve human rights in Honduras, but might actually, as many witnesses in committee mentioned, exacerbate the horrible human rights situation existing there today.

Let me briefly mention testimony that PEN Canada brought to committee. When asked whether this trade agreement would improve or degrade the human rights situation, PEN Canada said that this difficult, complex situation would likely degrade the human rights situation with regard to free speech as journalists who covered issues related to international trade tended to be the ones who were victims of violence, persecution and murders.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would frankly ask my distinguished colleague the following: how can the government hope to turn our trade situation around, when Canada has a trade deficit in the order of tens of billions of dollars, by using Honduras as a miracle solution? Again, the House budget is bigger than that country's GDP. I would like someone to explain to me how we are going to turn such a deplorable economic situation around by signing an agreement with people who are such thugs.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

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

Roughly half of Hondurans live in poverty. The Conservatives say they are going to find people who are going to buy Canadian products. However, when half the population of a country lives in poverty and its economy is smaller than Ottawa-Gatineau's, then where are these consumers of Canadian products? We have to wonder.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, the questions and comments of the Liberal Party and our Conservative friend are ridiculous. The facts and figures show that they did not succeed in that regard either.

My colleague briefly described the three most important criteria when it comes to free trade agreements. First, the proposed partner's economy must be of value to Canada. Second, the terms of the agreement must be beneficial to our country. Third—and a number of members have talked about this—the proposed partner must respect human rights and meet high environmental and labour standards. This agreement does not meet these very important criteria.

Earlier, I read the most recent report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or the CERD, as it is called at the international level. This report, dated March 13, 2014, is quite critical of Honduras' track record, particularly when it comes to respecting human rights.

Members of the United Nations are required to honour the Charter of the United Nations, which requires us to promote and protect human rights. We need to consider those issues when we negotiate agreements.

Does my colleague agree with me?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for the question. I know that he speaks with a lot of gravity and authority on the subject.

Let me give the House one fact to drive this point home. We know that Honduran authorities devote minimal resources to investigating human rights complaints. In 2012, the country's special prosecutor for human rights was responsible for acting on 7,000 cases. That is a very high number, and it was done while employing just 16 prosecutors and 9 investigators.

We can see that this is not a country in which human rights abuses stand to be investigated. It is not a country in which the assassinations of journalists stand to be solved.

For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this trade agreement.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tonight I will speak about why the Liberal Party is supportive of free trade as an important, essential part of Canada's economic strategy. I will talk about why we support this Honduran free trade deal. I will talk about some of the problems with this deal that we need to be aware of. We think it is a deal that we need to enter into with eyes wide open, and I will speak about some of the overall problems that we are seeing in the trade strategy being pursued by the government.

Let me start by talking a little bit about free trade and why it is so essential to Canada. Eighty per cent of our economy is in some way connected with international trade. We are a big country geographically, but there are not too many of us. In this globalized world economy, it is absolutely essential for Canada to be open to the world economy. Some 19.2% of jobs in Canada are directly connected with trade. In addition, each job in the export sector adds another 1.9 jobs, so trade is really an essential part of any economic strategy to make Canada grow.

With the Honduras deal in particular, we have been talking about the relative size of this deal, the relative size of the Honduran economy, why it is really a small piece of our overall trade puzzle, and that is absolutely right, but it is also really important to get Honduran trade right. In fact, right now, I am sad to report that when it comes to Honduras, we are not dealing particularly well. Currently, as of 2012, we exported $39 million worth of goods to Honduras, and imported $219 million worth of goods.

A little bit earlier in the debate we heard some loose talk about Ricardo, and how, when it comes to trade, we should not worry too much about trade deficits. It all evens out in the end. Trade is just basically good. That is a nice theory and a nice point of view, but I submit, when it comes to jobs in Canada and the real lives of middle-class Canadians, it is absolutely essential that we have a strong, export-led, and export-driven economy. I would urge people who are interested in the works of Ricardo, if they have read them, to actually look at the more recent experience of highly successful economies like Germany, where we have seen very powerful, very strong, very strategic export-led growth be a recipe for a strong middle class. I think to argue that deficits do not matter, trade deficits do not matter, is a very profound mistake.

I would like to talk a little bit now about the Honduras deal and an issue that I think is very important for us to bear in mind, and that is the value side of the equation. As I have said, we support this deal. We believe in trade and we believe in trading with the world, but it is important to note that Honduras is a country that has a very troubled political and human rights record. We do not think that is a reason to not trade with Honduras. We are great believers that engagement, that trade, can be a way for Canada's democracy to help countries along that continuum. We have seen that happen in many parts of the world.

We also believe it is absolutely essential to be aware of these issues from the start, and to enter into this trading relationship aware of them and with a plan to monitor them. I would urge all of us, as we are talking about expanding our trade relations with Honduras, to be very mindful of the example of Russia, a country I personally know very well and really love.

As Russia moved out of Communism on the path to a market economy and democracy, we made a similar argument, that trade and engagement would be a valuable way of helping Russia become a more open society, and for many years, I believe that was the case. However, sometimes that just does not work, and what we have seen with Russia is Russia making a choice with Ukraine in November 2013, and most crucially and tragically, with Crimea in February 2014, to exclude itself from the international community.

What that has meant is that the countries that made this pact with Russia, which said they were going to extend a hand of friendship and trade with it, are now having to pull back, and that means a real economic cost. I would say to all of us here, particularly those members who, like the Liberal Party, support this deal with Honduras, let us make a pledge tonight that part of the deal is putting values first.

Part of the deal, of course, is about the Canadian economy and the importance of trade, but we also need to pledge to watch very closely what is happening with democracy, journalists, labour activists, indigenous people, women, and the LGBT community. If there is a tipping point, we have to be prepared, even if it comes at an economic cost, to pull out of that trading relationship. I cannot emphasize how important it is to us as a country to put those values at the centre.

Having spoken about Honduras, I would like to speak a bit more generally about where our free trade agenda is in the picture of the Canadian economy. Like everyone in the House, I noted with great disappointment the surprising trade deficit in April, which was $638 million according to Statistics Canada. That is a very poor performance and it is very worrying.

I suspect that my respected colleagues, especially those on the other side of the House, may not take my word for it when it comes to where Canada's trading relationship and performance are. I think there is an organization, you gentlemen, and it is only gentlemen this evening—we could talk about gender issues, but we will not do that right now—I think you gentlemen are probably interested in the Canadian—

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Why is everything a gender issue with you?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I think you gentlemen are probably interested—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I would remind the hon. member to direct her comments to the Chair. That avoids us getting into this cross-communication between members.

The hon. member for Toronto Centre.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will do that, although I would ask you to help ensure more collegial behaviour on all sides of the House.

I suspect that the members on the other side of the House will not doubt the credibility or the significance of a report from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, one of our country's leading industry bodies. In May 2014, it published a report called “Turning it Around: How to Restore Canada's Trade Success”. That title should worry us. It does not sound like it is too great a verdict.

The first chapter is called “Canada's Lagging Trade Performance”. Here is what it says:

International trade is one of the fastest and most effective ways for Canadian businesses to grow, create jobs and contribute to the economy. However, the increase in exports and outward investment has been slow in recent years, and diversification to emerging economies has been limited.

...Canada is lagging its peers according to several measures. Over the past decade, the value of exports has increased at only a modest pace.... If...price increases [in energy] are excluded, the volume of merchandise exports shipped in 2012 was actually five per cent lower than in 2000 despite a 57 per cent increase in trade worldwide.

For a party like the Liberal Party, which believes strongly in middle-class prosperity and in trade as a path toward that, these are damning words indeed.

According to the report:

Canada’s foreign investment trends tell a similar story. Export Development Canada has recorded significant growth in sales by Canadian foreign affiliates...but evidence suggests that sales levels are relatively higher for affiliates from the U.S., the U.K., Japan and Australia.

Not only are we doing less well than we did in 2000, despite a robustly globalizing world economy, we are lagging our international peers. This is why the Liberal Party believes so strongly in trade and why we would really like to see Canadian policy, Canadian action, that is not just about slogans, not just about photo ops, but is actually about a strategic approach and getting deals done.

That brings me to a deal we have been speaking about quite a lot this week, which is the European trade deal. In October, our Prime Minister, with great fanfare and at some expense, travelled to Brussels to sign an agreement in principle on the European trade deal. I am very sad to report that unfortunately, that deal has not yet been concluded, despite the fact that the Prime Minister has travelled again this week to Brussels, which would have been a great opportunity to conclude that very important deal.

I have more worrying news still to report. We requested from the government the actual documents the Prime Minister signed. We can see the Prime Minister signing it if we look at video of that October 18 event. Here was the response we had from the PCO:

A thorough search of the records under the control of the PCO was carried out on your behalf; however, no records relevant to your request were found.

We would like to hear at some point what the Prime Minister actually signed and what is happening with that deal. We believe the Honduras free trade deal is important, but obviously the European free trade deal is much more important.

In conclusion, we believe absolutely that particularly today, in 2014, in the age of globalization, in the age when technology has truly flattened the world economy, Canada has no choice but to be an energetically and strategically trading nation. That is our path to prosperity for our own middle class, and if we do it right and we do it with pure hearts, as well as with smart brains, we can use trade to be a real way of encouraging the growth of democracy in civil society around the world.

However, I am very sad to say that today in our trade agenda we see Canada falling behind. As the Canadian Chamber of Commerce itself concluded just last month, we have a lagging trade performance. I submit that it is because we are focusing far too much on photo ops, which may have been without an actual document signed. We would love to hear more about that.

We have much less of a clear strategy focusing on big trading partners and on the big places of growth in the world, and much less effective follow-through. We would love to see much more focus on Africa, for example.

Here is what Canada needs: a truly strategic global trade policy, a policy that is about world strategy and fitting Canada into the global economy, a policy that always remembers that we cannot be an effective trading nation without putting our values first, and finally, a trade policy that is not just about photo ops but is about actually getting the deal done.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

There is a lot of interest in questions and comments. We do have 10 minutes, but given the level of interest, I would ask hon. members to keep their interventions to around a minute or so.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention today. It sounds to me like she has brought up some good examples, like Germany. Germany, obviously, with its Mittelstand of small and medium-sized manufacturers, is an excellent point. I think she should also reflect on the fact that every country comes to the trade game, so to speak, with a different collection of strengths and weaknesses. While there are certain things we can garner from looking at the German model, its apprenticeship system is quite different, and its whole economy is different in the fact that it is based on geographical areas. Labour is much different in the EU than it is here in Canada.

I would like a clarification. Is the member suggesting that we should only be looking at exporting and not trying to bring in imports from other countries?

The member mentioned David Ricardo. Part of David Ricardo's genius was in recognizing that mercantilism, that very strategy, producing exports and then reducing the amount of imports, does not work to everyone's benefit. What the member I think is advocating is a warmed-over neo-mercantilism.

Could the member please explain if that is what she is conveying? If not, could she give us a better example?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with the hon. member's point about Germany and how its apprenticeship system, which I think has a lot of admirable traits, may not be relevant to Canada.

I would like to point out to the member that his own employment minister speaks often and very favourably of the German apprenticeship program. Although the German apprenticeship program is not on the agenda tonight, it would be great for the government to get its act together, but maybe the talking points on apprenticeships were not on the top of the pile this evening.

To the point of trade, of course, anyone who advocates trade as strongly, wholeheartedly, and with as deep an interest in it as the Liberal Party does understands that trade is a two-way relationship. What I am arguing, however, is that right now what we are seeing in Canada is a worrying one-way relationship, as witnessed by that $638-million trade deficit in April. What we are seeing is that we are pretty good at buying goods from other people, but we are not that great at selling our stuff abroad. That worries me. It should worry everybody else in this House.