Debates of Nov. 19th, 2009

Content of Flyer

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Exactly. The member is calling it propaganda because he cannot dispute that they are facts and they are the facts that are before the House.

With regard to the issue that the NDP member for Windsor West raised about a question of privilege that he raised on a similar issue dealing with a mailing on November 3, 2005, Mr. Speaker, you made a ruling in that regard and I would just like to remind you and the House of some of the things that you said at that time:

I am concerned that members are continuing to rise on questions of privilege relating to householders and ten percenters. I take these matters very seriously, in particular when reputations of members are being brought into question. That being said, as with the previous cases, I do not believe that it is for the Chair to pronounce on the content of these documents or whether they conform to the guidelines found in the Members’ Allowances and Services Manual.

Mr. Speaker, that is what you said, and quite rightly so, because it gets into a debate about whether something is appropriate or something else.

The main reason I wanted to rise is because it is important for Canadians to understand that it is not only the Conservative Party that sends out these types of mailings. Indeed, it was only recently that a member of the Liberal Party had to apologize for one that was sent out in her name about the current H1N1 crisis targeting first nations communities in a very derogatory way.

Mr. Speaker, I want to lay the facts again on the table for your consideration. All parties are participating in this and for the member for Windsor West to stand and somehow pretend that his party does not do this, it is important to note that the New Democrats do not even use mass mailings. They actually put it in a first class envelope and send it to people's homes, the very same type of ten percenters that incur a lot more cost to Canadians because it is franked mail in an envelope as opposed to a mass mailing.

My point is that all parties are participating in this type of communication and it is grossly unfair to suggest that it is only the Conservative Party that is doing so.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I will very briefly hear the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence, but it had better be relevant to the question of privilege that has been alleged.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a question of privilege and I note that we have been addressing the privileges of specific members but also of members, generally, under the rubric of a particular party. I am one of those members who is most affected by the allegations, suggestions and insinuations, not of fact but of a fabrication of conclusions that are sheer slander. They are seen that way by anybody who is a reasonable individual.

No amount of separated fact from context is going to make the government's position any more legitimate. The fact of the matter is that there have been two perpetrations of injustice with this publicly funded piece of propaganda: first, against all adherence to the Liberal Party, which stands by the achievements of that party in government in order to move along a Canadian agenda; and second, against a community, a valued and valuable member of the Canadian community, by separating it off with a wedge issue from the rest of our Canadian society.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament who came here when you came here 21 years ago, there has not been a moment that I have not been a defender of the interests of that constituency and, in fact, all other constituencies. For the House leader and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister to stand here before the House and winnow out a couple of sentences à la Cardinal Richelieu, who said, “Give me five written words of a man, and I shall find matter in them to have him hanged”, and take it completely out of context, and to pass that as fact is to do great damage to the relationship that the political system in Canada has built with the Jewish community and the international relationship with the Middle East and Israel, in particular.

I could go on and talk about some of the individuals, such as the member for Thornhill, for example, and what he said at a rally. However, I am not going to stoop that low. I think that this is an egregious example of partisan, petty politics that have been funded by the public purse. The Prime Minister should be embarrassed. He should apologize.

Mr. Speaker, I think you should note that any of those statements that have been attributed to our current leader and our former leader were all immediately addressed by those leaders and publicly put in their appropriate context. I think you need to rule on this question of privilege because the Conservatives cannot be allowed to continue to abuse the public privilege and defame Canadians and members of Parliament the way that they have been doing.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I think the Chair has heard enough on this. Unfortunately, the bulk of the arguments seem to be about the facts. That is of some import in this. But on a question of privilege, it is normally not the Speaker who finds out the facts. It is the committee that investigates the matter following the decision of the Speaker, if there is a breach of privilege, because the matter normally goes to a committee.

However, that is a decision for the House. I will come back to the House in due course on this matter and I thank the hon. members, who have made submissions, for their interventions.

I will come back to the House with a ruling, as well as for the hon. member for Mount Royal.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to add anything to the debate. However, if you do find that there is a prima facie breach of privilege, I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

Comments Regarding Member's Position on Firearms Registry—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 3, 2009 by the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore concerning the mailing of a ten percenter to some of his constituents by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin. The mailing was critical of the voting record of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore on the issue of the long-gun registry.

I would like to thank the hon. member for raising this matter and providing the Chair with a copy of the material in question, as well as the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin for his contribution on the issue.

In presenting his case, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore claimed that the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin had sent a mailing to some of the constituents of Sackville—Eastern Shore that contained information that was factually wrong regarding his position on the long-gun registry as well as on his voting record on this matter. He accused the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin of deliberately misleading his constituents and impugning his reputation on the work that he had done on legislation regarding the long-gun registry.

In his comments, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin obliquely acknowledged, without apologizing, that he had made an error and that the ten percenter in question was incorrect in reference to the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. The member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin then thanked the hon. member for his long-standing opposition to the long-gun registry.

The situation before us today is analogous to one in 2005 in which a similar mailing was sent to the constituency of the hon. member for Windsor West. That mailing had the effect of distorting the member’s voting record, again on the gun registry and thereby misinforming his constituents. In finding a prima facie case of privilege, on April 18, 2005, Debates, page 5215, I stated:

This may well have affected his ability to function as a member and may have had the effect of unjustly damaging his reputation with voters in his riding.

The 38th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled on May 11, 2005, on the same matter concurred in that view.

Again, I quote:

[The member for Windsor West] noted that he had received complaints from constituents as a result of the mailing. By unjustly damaging his reputation with voters in his riding, it thereby impairs his ability to function as a member.

Having reviewed the material submitted, as well as the arguments made, the Chair can only conclude that the mailing sent to the constituents of Sackville—Eastern Shore did distort their member's true position on the long-gun registry and, at the very least, had the potential to create confusion in their minds.

It may also have had the effect of unjustly damaging his reputation and his credibility with the voters of his riding and, as such, infringing on his privileges by affecting his ability to function as a member.

Accordingly, I find that a prima facie case of privilege does exist and I invite the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore to move his motion now.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, the matter of the question of privilege raised by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore on November 3 of this year be now referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-57, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before question period, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques had the floor. He has 16 minutes left to complete his remarks.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me the floor again so that I may continue to talk about the Bloc Québécois' observations of Bill C-57.

We agree with Bill C-57, Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act, but we have a few small comments to make that we hope will be considered by the government.

Considering that Canada has already entered into a trade agreement with Israel, signing a similar agreement with a neighbouring country, whose relations with Israel can be difficult, would help show a certain balance in our interests in the Middle East region. Such an agreement with Jordan would also send a positive message that Canada is open to cooperation.

Concluding this agreement would send a signal to other Middle Eastern countries wanting to develop better economic relations with the West.

The Bloc Québécois wants fair globalization. It is something to strive for and I hope the Conservatives will agree with us on this.

For the Bloc Québécois, it is out of the question to accept a free trade agreement that would be a race to the bottom and ignores human rights, workers' rights and the environment, not unlike Bill C-23, which we have been debating for a long time: the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. That agreement is a very bad example of fair globalization.

The absence of environmental or labour standards in trade agreements puts a great deal of pressure on our industries, mainly our traditional industries. It is difficult for them to compete when products are made with no regard for basic social rights. It is difficult to compete with that type of business.

It is therefore increasingly important, at a time when we are still trying to define globalization, to have fair and balanced trade agreements. Let us choose a multilateral approach and limit bilateral agreements that do not allow for standards to be set to civilize trade.

That is what the Bloc Québécois really does not like about the Conservative government's strategy and its approach to negotiating trade agreements. Bill C-57 is no exception.

Quebec is not in a position to implement protectionist measures and rely solely on our domestic market. We have to pursue fair trade opportunities in the context of multilateral agreements.

Someday, Quebec will be a fully independent country, and we will represent ourselves internationally. In the meantime, the Bloc Québécois would like to propose some changes to Canada's trade priorities. Canada has moved toward trade liberalization and must now concentrate on developing regulations that will promote fairer trade. The Bloc Québécois believes that our trade policy must focus on fair globalization, not the shameless pursuit of profit at the expense of people and the environment in certain countries that clearly need help.

If Canada wants to maintain its credibility on this front, it should immediately sign on to the International Labour Organization's principal conventions against various forms of discrimination, forced labour and child labour, as well as those in support of the right to organize and collective bargaining.

The Bloc Québécois is urging the federal government to change its position on trade agreement negotiations to include provisions ensuring respect for international standards with respect to labour law, human rights and the environment.

In their current form, side agreements on minimum labour standards and environmental protection lack a binding mechanism that would make them truly effective.

The Bloc Québécois also wishes to reiterate its full confidence in the multilateral process. We believe that this in the only forum in which countries can work toward adopting regulations that will foster fairer globalization.

In closing, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois will only support future bilateral free trade agreements if it believes that they will benefit Quebec's economy. We want to see future free trade agreements contain provisions ensuring respect for minimum standards with respect to human rights, labour law and the environment.

That is what the Bloc Québécois calls fair globalization.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague, as I do twice a week at the Standing Committee on International Trade.

We are talking about an agreement with Jordan. True, Jordan is not Colombia, which is a very good thing. We all know just how appalling the situation is in Colombia.

That being said, there are nevertheless some problems related to human rights in Jordan. Problems have been identified by many workers who are not from Jordan and are mistreated. There are reports of sexual abuse and attacks against female workers who are from outside Jordan.

This agreement does not include any protection. There are side agreements on the environment and on labour, but those agreements are not legally binding, as the member well knows. These provisions do not require the government to take any action. Fortunately, more and more trade agreements from the European Union and South America have provisions requiring governments to take action.

Since these provisions are not legally binding, they cannot be used to force the government to take any measures regarding these worrisome issues. Does my colleague believe that this agreement goes far enough? Should it not be strengthened?

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

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

As I mentioned in my speech, the Bloc Québécois is convinced that bilateral agreements are not the best way to achieve fair trade. For that reason, every time we have the opportunity to talk about free trade agreements in committee or in this House, we tend to speak of multilateral globalization. We believe that multilateral globalization would raise the bar rather than lowering it. We also hope to enter into agreements that are of benefit to certain countries in order to provide them with the opportunity to improve human rights, environmental rights, labour rights and so forth.

In the debate on Bill C-57, a number of my colleagues will soon have the opportunity to criticize the agreement, which, like all the others introduced by the Conservative government, requires improvement and additional guarantees in order for Canada to enter into fairer free trade agreements with other countries on this planet.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques on his thorough knowledge of this file. We just recently received everything we needed. We undertook an analysis that we do not claim to be comprehensive in that there may be some minor items that we find puzzling.

We know that freedom of association may be affected. However, we must understand that this country has almost 1.7 million Muslim refugees, among others. If freedom of association is mentioned it may be to prevent Islamic gatherings. We know that there may be implications for the countries surrounding Jordan. These may be appropriate measures for the situation. For that reason, the committee must conduct a thorough analysis.

I would like to point out that the freedoms of associations such as unions may be affected. These issues must be examined in more detail. I know that my colleague is very interested in union freedoms and I would like to hear what he has to say about this.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke, with whom I have the great pleasure to work on the Standing Committee on International Trade.

I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to this issue. As hon. members know, I am a farmer. Even though I have been a member of Parliament for a year, I still have my farm. For 15 years, I was involved in the farm union movement in my area, the lower St. Lawrence, and in Quebec, but also with other alliances of workers' unions and so on.

For years, especially in Quebec, we have been saying—and I have been saying in particular, as a farmer who has been involved in standing up for farmers' rights—that if, as farmers and workers, we want to succeed and keep on developing in a viable way, we must look to foreign trade and agreements with other countries. However, we have also been saying that this has to be done in a way that benefits everyone. It has to win-win for everyone. It has to be a winning proposition for my brother and me on my farm in Rimouski and a winning proposition for my fellow farmer in a developing country. To my way of thinking and in the opinion of the farmers in Quebec and in the lower St. Lawrence, this is the only way to achieve sustainable, fair trade, so that as many people as possible can live decently, wherever they may be.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem at present. As the member put it so well, the side agreements on labour and the environment do not require the governments of Jordan and Canada to raise their standards.

Is the member of the opinion that this is a flaw of these bilateral agreements that are often signed by the Conservatives, who do not really believe in the fair trade approach?

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Definitely, Mr. Speaker. My NDP colleague will agree with me. We have an opportunity to denounce this at every meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade. The Conservatives—the current government—have no concept of what fair trade or fair globalization should be.

Rest assured that every time my colleague from Sherbrooke, other Bloc members and I speak during debates on foreign trade, we will repeat and say loud and clear that there must be an improvement in how we conduct trade here in Canada. The Conservatives must improve how they conduct trade. It is not just a question of profits, it is a question of equity between farmers, workers and union members here and union members in other countries, so that everyone comes out a winner in the end.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to follow my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, as associate of the trade committee, to talk about Bill C-57.

As we know, this was tabled just this week. Therefore, within the space of a few hours, we have been able to take a look at the bill and at the many clauses, both of the free trade agreement itself and, more important, the issue around the investor state protections, which is part of the template that our international trade ministry brings to every trade agreement that we sign, and two other side agreements that have no real obligations contained within them.

It is a lot of material, but it is fair to say that, at a glance, this has the same approach we have seen from the Conservative government many times before, despite the fact the NDP, and I think most Canadians, has been very clear what we would prefer to see is a fair trade approach on trade. This is why the fair trade sector is booming in our country. Millions of Canadians are making the choice every day to buy fair trade products.

Despite the fact the NDP constructively continues to bring these amendments forward, the government just does not seem to understand that Canadians, and much of the world, have shifted in their approach to trade.

The most egregious part of the lack of a Conservative overall trade strategy is no evaluation is done. No evaluation is ever done on the impacts of these trade agreements. No evaluation is ever done as to the potential for trade with a particular country. No evaluation is ever done about the downsides of that trade agreement. No evaluation is ever done about the situation in the country as a whole.

There is never a due diligence, ever, done on these bilateral trade agreements. That is the tragedy because Canadians expect a lot more.

What is the result? If we look at the last 20 years and at all the trade agreements that were supposed to bring prosperity, starting with the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, and if we look at the analysis and data provided by Statistics Canada, and this data is open to every member of Parliament, we will see that two-thirds of Canadian families have seen their real income fall over the past 20 years.

We hear a lot of cheerleading about these agreements bringing massive prosperity, but the facts speak for themselves. Two-thirds of Canadians have seen their real income fall. The entire middle class has seen their income erode considerably. This explains why the debt load of the average family has doubled over the past 20 years. This is a crushing debt burden because real income has fallen. Expenses have not gone down, they have increased. Canadians are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.

It gets worse when we go to the lower income categories. The poorest of Canadians have seen their income collapse, losing about a month and a half's income over the course of a year. That is why it is no surprise why tonight we will see, tragically, about 300,000 Canadians sleeping out in parks and along the main streets of our country. It is because this so-called free trade regime, with all of the right-wing economic policies that go with it, and I am not only blaming the Conservatives, the Liberals brought these policies in, have led to most Canadians being much poorer. Free trade has come at an enormous cost when most people are earning far less than they were 20 years ago.

If any Conservative or Liberal MP had chosen to look at the facts and figures of an analysis done, they would have to say that this policy has not worked very well and there has to be adjustments.

We in this corner of the House have been saying that. This is why our numbers keep growing. The fundamental reason why our numbers keep growing is Canadians trust we will actually do the due diligence and ask the tough questions when it comes to legislation brought before the House and when it comes to free trade agreements.

We see increased poverty in the country, so it is clear the overall thrust of free trade agreements has failed.

Let us look at the purported intention of stimulating exports. Here again, if we do the analysis and look at the facts, in a lot of cases, after signing a bilateral trade agreement, Canada's exports to that particular market, the market that was targeted by the free trade agreement, actually fell.

I know politicians love to go before the cameras and cut ribbons, but the act of presenting a free trade agreement does not necessarily even lead to an increase in exports to that market, so there is something fundamentally wrong there. Why? What are the causes?

We have some very clear indications from testimony, even in the last two weeks, before the international trade committee. We had the beef and cattle industry come forward and testify that it received pennies in product promotion support from the federal government compared to the tens of millions of dollars given by other countries. Australia was cited as an example, with $100 million in product promotion just for the beef, cattle and pork industries alone.

Now let us take all the product promotion from all sources in Canada. Unfortunately, the federal government puts in less for all products in all markets in a larger economy than Australia invests just for its beef, cattle and pork industries. I see your surprised expression, Mr. Speaker, but that is the fact. Australia spends many times more for one sector than Canada spends in all sectors. That would explain why our exports fall in a lot of these cases where we sign bilateral trade deals.

The idea that these bilateral trade deals are part of a strong export policy is simply false. What we have are Scrooges on the other side of the House who have been nickel and diming our important industrial sectors to death. Not only do they not have any sort of industrial strategy, but they are not even willing to put the investments in that other countries are.

Just taking the wine sector, the European Union spends $125 million, about four to five times more than all Canadian product promotion put together. Australia spends half a billion. We spend a few million dollars.

If we look at the pork industry, it is the same thing. The pork industry came before the international trade committee. A few million dollars a year is what it gets, when countries such as the United States spend tens of millions of dollars.

The reason why these bilateral trade agreements do not even necessarily lead to an increase in exports to those markets is here is no export strategy by the government. There is no trade strategy. There is no evaluation ever of the impacts of the agreements it signs. The Conservative politicians simply show up for a photo op, cut the ribbon and then they go on and pretend they have provided for some meaningful economic strategy. It is simply not true.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

No, you have it wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the powerful NDP words again is having some impact on the Conservative side of the House. Thank goodness. I just wish they would put more of what we say into action.

That is the fundamental reality. We see exports fall. We see a lack of support for important strategic sectors and then we see deals signed that actually undermine those key sectors.

We had the EFTA deal before the House. We had pleas from hundreds and hundreds of shipyard workers across the country, including from Quebec, Nova Scotia, Vancouver, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Ontario, all saying that it would have a profoundly negative impact on what should be a strategic industry. They said that the EFTA deal would kill their industry. That was the testimony before committee. A very clear message was delivered. Yet we had other parties vote to put that deal into place even though they had been told that essentially it would hit our shipyard industry hard.

Therefore, we have a fundamental problem about the approach in trade, the lack of evaluation. We have a fundamental problem with the fact that we simply do not do an evaluation on a market to market basis, that there is no export strategy overall and certainly not the resources allocated to our export industries that should be and that other countries do.

Therefore, let us get to the template on the Jordan agreement. Canadians who are listening can download their own free trade agreement from the DFAIT website. It shows how appalling simple-minded the approach is on trade. We have a template that has existed for 20 years, while other countries are updating their trade model, improving their trade model to bring concrete results. We have the same model that has sat around for 20 years. People can download it and sign it with their neighbours. It is absurd.

These templates, of which Jordan unfortunately is part, are simply investor protection and investor state provisions coupled with some tariff reduction and then coupled with meaningless side agreements.

The side agreements unfortunately never impose any obligation. Other countries have moved way beyond that. They have binding obligations around human rights, social and labour standards, but not our template. Our 20-year-old Ford Pinto, which is the trade model Conservatives like to bring forward, does not do any of that. What it does is offer investor state protections.

This goes back to the NAFTA days and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement days. What happened after we signed this agreement? The House knows that provinces, municipalities and many Canadians have great difficulty with the chapter 11 provisions in NAFTA. They allow companies basically to rip off the public purse in order to get compensation for products that endanger the health, the environment for whatever reason, if the government acts to stop these companies from providing these horrible products. Then they get to sue taxpayers and they get a fancy cheque. They get to take the money right out of the wallets of taxpayer, even though Canadians want the government to intervene to stop the product from being put forward.

We have seen this with the domestic pesticide ban in Quebec. We now have a company that can use these investor state provisions to go after the Quebec government, a government that has taken a democratic decision, in the interest of its citizens. Now potentially taxpayers will have to pay for the government taking care of them. This is absolutely absurd.

After that clause was included in NAFTA, and this was only for the NAFTA agreement, the United States moved right away from it. The United States realized that this undermined the ability of parliaments and legislatures to take actions to protect their own populations.

The U.S. has never signed a similar agreement since. It has moved away from it. It has allowed for environmental, health and safety overrides. Canada, as I mentioned, has that old 20-year-old Ford Pinto that still allows for companies to gouge Canadian taxpayers if any action is taken and impinges on their profits.

Tragically that 20-year-old model is in the Jordan agreement. Therefore, we see the same kinds of problems that have come up in the past, problems about which so many people have spoken. The same people who have raised this issue right across Canadian society have not been heard.

The old Liberal Ford Pinto has been taken over by the Conservatives. They do the ribbon-cutting ceremony and then they move on. If it were about economic development, we would see some muscle, some investment behind a real export strategy, which is what the NDP has been calling for and has been pushing.

Just this week an NDP motion passed in the committee on international trade, calling on the government to address the historic underfunding to the beef and cattle industry and to really work for a level playing field with out competitors. Australia and the United States are investing many times more in product promotion for that sector.

Beef and cattle ranchers can now say that it is because of the NDP that there will be a push to finally get more money out of the Conservative government to really support the beef and cattle industry. That has been what we have been calling for historically.

So, we have an agreement with no strategy. We have investor state provisions within the Jordan agreement that simply are inappropriate. Now we need to look at the provisions, the so-called side agreements on labour and the environment, that are kind of thrown in as an afterthought. They do not impose any obligations on the country. There is a process. There are a lot of meetings and bureaucrats get to drink a lot of coffee, but in the end there is nothing binding in this agreement on labour rights, human rights or the environment.

Then we need to know what the situation is in Jordan if we are not pressing on any of these issues? If we just have this cosmetic paper that we killed a couple of trees to pretend there has been some action but there is nothing binding in those provisions, then we need to look at what is actually happening in Jordan.

Now Jordan is not Colombia. Colombia is outrageously bad. Paramilitary thugs and drug pushers are all connected to the government and all supported by the Conservatives. Jordan is not like that but there are some causes for concern. Obviously, the committee on international trade will need to take some time to look at the possible implications from the lack of any sort of binding obligations on the Jordanian government.

I will reference the U.S. Department of State's 2008 human rights report on Jordan. Some of the elements are positive but some are clearly negative.

The first is on arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life. As we know, in Colombia we are talking about hundreds of people massacred every year by right wing paramilitary thugs, the Colombian military, but in Jordan's case, it states:

In contrast with 2007, there were no reports during the year that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings. The government completed investigations of allegations made in two 2007 deaths....

So, we do see action from the Jordanian government there.

Second is on disappearances. In Colombia, that has been a horrible and constant tragedy. Disappearances In Colombia occur on a daily basis, but for Jordan, the 2008 human rights report states:

There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances.

Third is torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Now on that there is some cause for concern. The report states:

Although torture is illegal in the country, an October report by the NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW), "Torture and Impunity in Jordan's Prisons," concluded that torture remained a widespread practice. Interviews with 66 prisoners in seven of the country's 10 prisons produced allegations of ill-treatment, which HRW concluded often amounted to torture.

Next we move to arbitrary arrest or detention. The report states:

Some human rights groups continued to voice concern over the 2006 Prevention of Terrorism Act, complaining that its definition of terrorism might lead nonviolent critics of the government to be arrested or detained indefinitely under the provisions of the act. However, the government had yet to make use of the act at year's end

Section e, “Denial of Fair Public Trial” states:

The law provides for an independent judiciary. In practice the judiciary's independence was compromised due to allegations of nepotism and the influence of special interests.

There are also very clear concerns of abuse around women, domestic workers imported from outside Jordan. There have been calls within the United Nations and by human rights organizations about this.

It is clear that our work has begun on this. Real concerns have been expressed by our party and by many in civil society. If Parliament chooses to refer this for further study to the international trade committee, it will need to take a long look at the implications of this agreement and of the possible impacts having this agreement put into effect.

On that basis, of course, we have legitimate concerns. We will continue to push the government to bring in fair trade legislation and we will continue to work on this bill so that it becomes more fair trade in nature.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and I wonder if he could enlighten the House. He claimed that there are investor state provisions in this bill and I do not believe there are. They are governed by a separate foreign investment protection agreement. The member did not read this before he decided to oppose it.

The NDP has never supported a free trade agreement. I wonder if the member could comment on where he is seeing these investor state provisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member has at least looked at the talking notes from the Prime Minister's office. However, she needs to look at page 3, under “Promotion and Protection of Investments”, where it talks about the damage as a result of a breach of agreement and monetary compensation and says, “Furthermore, where it is pursuant to investor state, arbitrations are enforceable in Canada”. There are about 70 pages in all and later on in that section she will see further reference to the type of investor state provisions that we believe are inappropriate.

Many other countries, the United States primary among them, are moving away from the model. In fact, the United States moved immediately away from that model after it signed NAFTA. Canada is pretty well alone in going out with this old, outdated Ford Pinto model of trade agreements.

Since I have the floor, as the member has given me a few more minutes to speak, and I do appreciate her concerns, Amnesty International called on the government of Jordan to officially and publicly condemn all acts of torture and other ill-treatment; establish a system of regular, unannounced and unrestricted visits by independent national bodies to all places of detention; make public the names of individuals transferred into Jordanian custody from U.S. custody; and a series of measures to end violence and discrimination against women.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for a fantastic speech. I have to say that the members opposite will need to get up awfully early to catch the member in any factual errors.

The member has explained in great detail why a bilateral agreement is a race to the bottom and really not the answer in trade agreements. He has referred to it as the Ford Pinto. Would he give us some details of what a fair trade agreement would look like? We dealt with it in quite a bit of detail when we were talking about the Canada-Colombia trade agreement and others, but clearly the message is not getting through to the government as to what the elements of a fair trade agreement should look like.

Perhaps the member could, once again, enlighten the government on the elements of a fair trade deal.