House of Commons Hansard #41 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was peru.

Topics

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the benefits of such an agreement are not immediately clear to some parliamentarians. There can be no benefits without an agreement. That much is clear. In order to move forward, we have to look to the future and see what opportunities would open up for Canadian companies to do business with a country like Peru if the agreement were implemented starting today.

We may not be talking about a huge volume of trade or a large country, the economic situation in our two countries is different and the size of the economy in our countries may be different. I realize that. However, nothing is exactly the same around the world. In doing business with other countries or companies, seldom are quantities and volumes equal.

Opportunities have to be assessed nonetheless. What opportunities will our companies have? That is what we should think about. If we do not act today, then there will not be any opportunities to enjoy tomorrow. If nothing is done today, then tomorrow's jobs will not be saved.

We have to rebuild from the mess inherited from the Conservatives and figure out how to improve the lives of Canadians and workers, and perhaps preserve the future of those plants affected by job losses because of government inaction.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Bill C-24, the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

A few weeks ago, I took part in a parliamentary mission to Peru as part of the activities of the Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas. I had the opportunity to meet Peruvian parliamentarians, government representatives, representatives of the Canadian mining industry and people involved in international cooperation. I found that there were many potential affinities between the two countries and that it would be useful to develop ties with Peru.

But a red light went on in my head when the Peruvian parliamentarians invited us to take a close look at the contents of the agreement. It is a good thing to want to engage in trade and create wealth in both countries, but the Canadian government has decided to incorporate the equivalent of chapter 11 of NAFTA into this agreement. This chapter allows a company to sue a government if it is not satisfied with an application or a new law.

In this case, it is said that these regulatory or legislative amendments must be comparable to direct or indirect expropriation or a measure equivalent to expropriation.

We understand the Conservative government's rationale even better. I am somewhat surprised at the Liberals' position on this. The Conservative government wants to allow Canadian mining companies to operate in Peru with virtually no restrictions. They have financial power, and they are faced with a democratic country that wants to carve a place for itself, but does not have our abilities.

There is another argument. For example, if the Peruvian government were to decide to reorganize how the lands of the indigenous Quechua people are distributed and wanted to improve ownership for the indigenous people who have lived in Peru for centuries and were there even before the Spanish came, the agreement as written would allow a company to say that the government cannot do that without compensating it. That is a fact. I am not making anything up. NAFTA already has such a provision. The Canadian government itself, under the Liberals, was taken to court over its ban on MMT.

MMT is a gasoline additive, a known nerve toxin. The Canadian government had banned that additive. The American company went before the courts and won its case, and the Canadian government had to pay compensation to that company. That is the tail wagging the dog. Including a provision in an agreement like this one will simply ensure that republics like Peru stop putting forward protectionist measures because it could never compete with companies like we have in this country.

This visit was also an opportunity to realize how important it would be for such free trade agreements to follow consultations among parliamentarians from each country.

Had the parliamentarians in the House of Commons and their Peruvian counterparts had the chance to discuss before the drafting of the agreement between their two countries started, I think there would have been lessons to be learned and the agreement eventually signed would not have included such a provision.

It does not make much sense and does not reflect well on Canada's reputation. Canada signed an agreement with northern European countries. We supported that agreement which did not include a provision like chapter 11. These being developed countries, it was agreed that our countries would deal with one another as equals and that no increased powers would be given to companies. When signing bilateral agreements with developing countries, we take the liberty of creating a framework that is not in line with the will and development of each country.

During my visit to Peru I saw that that there was a will to change things. People also hoped that the agreement, which had been negotiated during economic good times, could survive the economic slowdown. Experts who made presentations warned us against the impacts of the agreement on agriculture in Peru and also in Quebec and Canada. The supply management system has been protected. It is not included in the agreement per se, which is a good thing, but the agriculture sector will continue to be treated as any other market sector. That is not good for the future of our agriculture and of the Peruvian agriculture.

I also had the opportunity to visit the beautiful village of Chincha Baja, which has suffered greatly from natural disasters, including an earthquake. CIDA has a house building project there. The village is on the fringe of Lima, the huge capital city with 8 million inhabitants, where we can see all levels of poverty and wealth. In the village's rural setting I could witness the importance of giving the agriculture sector in a country like Peru the opportunity to organize itself well enough to be able to access our market, but on a level playing field.

I was reminded of the situation in Africa. Some African countries produce cotton that is more expensive than the cotton they could import from the United States because of the subsidies the U.S.A. gives to its producers. Agricultural producers in Peru could find themselves in the same situation because we have a well structured agricultural sector and unions. Over the years, we have developed some tools that they do not necessarily have in Peru.

For this agreement to become acceptable, we would have to remove the clauses that are similar to NAFTA's chapter 11. Those clauses give excessive power to companies, which can sue governments if their operations are adversely affected. In this case, this is a serious matter, because we are talking about the mining sector. In Peru, Canadian companies are the main stakeholders in that sector. This agreement is going to give them more power, and that is dangerous. This comes at a time when the government itself refused to follow up on the round tables asking to adequately regulate the operations of extractive mining companies. We reached the point where a member of Parliament had to table a bill saying that the government's position was inadequate, and that we want something that reflects more closely what was proposed by the round tables. The Bloc Québécois also drafted a bill along those lines. Today, the Conservative government is going in the exact opposite direction. It is opening up the floodgates, so that mining companies can really do as they please.

Earlier, a Conservative member talked about the reputation of Canadian companies abroad. The vast majority of Canadian companies have a good reputation, but a number of them have really engaged in excessive things, and we should be able to discipline and control them. One way to do that would be to follow up on the recommendations made by the round tables. Another would be to at least ensure, in agreements such as the one before us, that we do not give them increased power, such as what the chapter similar to NAFTA's chapter 11 is going to give them.

Let us not forget that we are talking about a country that is a democracy and that is trying to move forward, but that is also experiencing difficult circumstances.The Sendero Luminoso organization, or Shining Path, is a terrorist group that is still active and that did things just last week. We must be very careful before going ahead with agreements that will exacerbate existing problems. We must provide more opportunities for these problems to subside and disappear, so that we have a much more rational and concrete reality that will achieve the desired results.

Why is the Bloc Québécois opposed to this agreement, not to mention the issue of investment protection?

Bilateral agreements often lead to agreements that put richer countries at an advantage over poorer countries. That is what is happening at this time. We would much rather see the development of multilateralism, in other words, a group of countries around the world that agree on conditions so that negotiations are more balanced. A group of developing countries could get together, thereby strengthening their bargaining power. There may be common interests shared by one developed country and one developing country that are not shared by other countries. Ultimately, this would allow for a much more balanced agreement.

A bilateral agreement like the one with Peru is not the most problematic; the one with Colombia is much more so. There are problems in Colombia related to a failure to recognize workers' rights and environmental rights. That is a part of daily life in Colombia, although it is not the case in Peru. But we hope to see that situation improve, rather than deteriorate.

The agreement signed by the Canadian government almost seems to suggest that the government is a corporation. It is looking solely at the economic advantages for Canadians in the short and medium term, but is not considering the impact it will have on the other country and is acting like an invader, which is not Canada's tradition. As members of the Bloc Québécois, we have a responsibility to hope these things will be corrected.

The problem is that a free trade agreement such as this cannot be changed. We must decide whether or not we will support it. It is an important issue. Naturally, we will debate it and show that we find it lacking. In the past, ancillary agreements have sometimes mitigated negative effects, but they do not have the same force. In this case, the agreement in its present form is unacceptable for the reasons I gave, especially on the issue of investments.

It is unfortunate because Peru is a country with abundant resources and a great deal of potential. It may not previously have developed the structures for distributing wealth such as we have in Quebec and Canada. During my stay, I was very surprised to see that it does not have any type of employment insurance or social welfare. The informal economy is very pervasive and there is no declaration of income or payment of taxes. There is barter, which does not contribute to collective wealth. Other practices should be developed in this regard.

If, in the future, we wish to sign agreements that foster globalization with a human face, they should contain provisions ensuring that both countries will agree, for example, that the developed country will help the developing country establish a better support system for the distribution of wealth and that it will provide the developing country with the expertise required to accumulate this wealth.

Peru's economic growth is presently in the order of 7% to 9%. This is a very good rate of growth that is closely tied to the mining sector. When the economy slows down, as it has in recent months, the situation becomes much more difficult. We are facing a very paradoxical situation. We are signing an agreement at a time of increased economic growth. Canadian firms and the Canadian market needed these resources, but now there is a slowdown and we find ourselves facing a new reality.

Peru, which depends heavily on exports, has signed numerous agreements of this kind. It has agreements with various countries. When I went there a few weeks ago, it was negotiating an agreement in principle with China, which wants to get natural resources by the same method. Obviously this aspect, the fact that the rules of the marketplace alone govern the situation, places an additional responsibility on the Canadian mining industry, which has a major presence there, to ensure that our corporations conduct themselves ethically and serve as a model.

This is the case for some corporations, but not for all corporations. For example, it is the case for junior mining companies that are most often involved in mining exploration. Often, the corporations do the mining themselves, but small companies that do not comply with the basic requirements are also tolerated by the system.

We would have liked to see Canada impose standards, in signing this kind of free trade agreement, that could then become a model. We hear that argument when we are being sold the free trade agreement, and we are told that with this kind of agreement we will have to fix the situation here at home. In fact, however, the provisions that govern investments and the right of corporations to bring suit will have the exact opposite effect. It will give corporations more power in relation to governments, which certainly need to be on firmer footing and be in more control.

We have seen this in Quebec. There is nothing new under the sun. Fifty or 60 years ago, as the members from Lac-Saint-Jean and the North Shore know, we frequently made very major concessions to attract businesses. It took years to try to fix that situation, and even today we can see that when companies are sold, these kinds of concessions are still being made.

They did it when Alcan was sold to Rio Tinto under secret agreements, under a Canadian law that lacked the teeth to impose conditions regarding employment. In any case, the Conservative government did not want to.

As regards Peru, a country I visited very briefly, I tell myself it should be given an opportunity to avoid this type of situation, rather than increase the risk of the same thing happening.

It was the same for trade with Costa Rica. In the present matter, even if trade between Quebec and Peru and Canada and Peru were possible and substantial, there are businesses on location there, and also some international cooperation. However, following my meetings with various international cooperation NGOs, I note that they are very careful to ensure a clear distinction between purely capitalist market-oriented companies—such as the mining sector—and aid to communities, so that no link between the two can take away their independence of action.

The Canadian government is no example. We saw it remove some countries in Africa from its aid list, in order to do business with Peru and Colombia.

Does that mean that Peru and Colombia do not need aid? No. We agree, and, in any case, the Canadian government could have done more in the area of international aid. What is unacceptable is taking aid away from Africa, which is desperate for it, in order to turn a policy of international cooperation into a policy of support for economic development rather than a true policy on international aid. The Canadian government is acting as if it managed a private company rather than a government. I do not think Canadians and Quebeckers expect this type of behaviour from their government.

I will conclude my remarks on this point. Peru is a country that deserves solid cooperation. This free trade agreement will not do it. And because the agreement as such cannot be amended during negotiations, the Bloc prefers to vote against the bill for a free trade agreement with Peru, even if it means calling on the government to redo its work to ensure that the rules of the game are clear and will benefit both countries involved—both Peru, a developing country, and Canada and Quebec.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup on his speech. I have absolutely nothing to say against the position of the Bloc Québécois and I am jubilant, since that was not the case in the past.

What we just heard from the Bloc Québécois is an important reversal. As we well know, the softwood agreement was bound to cause massive job losses in Quebec. The industry in Quebec said that it would cause job losses. The position of the Bloc Québécois was that we could not reject free trade agreements signed by the Conservative government. We know very well that that is not true. We even have the responsibility to reject agreements of this type.

When the House dealt with an agreement that targeted shipbuilding, the workers in Quebec said that it must not jeopardize those jobs in Quebec. The Bloc voted in favour of that. I congratulate the Bloc Québécois on its present position, which is against this agreement. The only question that I have is why it took so long for the Bloc to finally reach the position it did on free trade.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

April 20th, 2009 / 6 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that the Bloc has a pragmatic rather than dogmatic approach to issues. That is often the difference between the NDP and the Bloc.

How did we come to that position? We went to Peru. We met people from Colombia when we studied an agreement with that country. As for the softwood lumber agreement, many businesses in my own riding were affected. We took part in the consultation process to see if we should support the agreement. Companies and unions told us that the agreement had to be signed and that the companies needed the money as fast as possible to avoid bankruptcy. That was the position of all regions of Quebec and not only of my own. That was a pragmatic position that took the context into account. We never said that the agreement was a great deal. We said that entrepreneurs and all other partners wanted us to support it. Unions and communities wanted us to take the position we took and so we did.

As for the agreement with Peru, I am glad to hear my colleague say that he thinks our position is interesting. Personally, I would hope that next time there are preliminary consultations so we can support agreements that are beneficial to both parties. We are not here to vote down measures, but rather to come up with good agreements. Unfortunately, in this case, the agreement is not in the best interests of Quebec and Canada, particularly when we know the impacts of chapter 11 of NAFTA, which gives private companies unacceptable rights over the power of governments to impose conditions, namely to protect the environment.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my NDP colleague, who described our positions as well thought out and balanced. I agree with what he said.

I would like to come back to investment agreements, which were included in the agreement with Peru and are similar to chapter 11 of NAFTA. Considering what we have experienced and the numerous lawsuits of various multinationals, whether concerning Mexico, the United States or Canada, I would like to ask my colleague the following question. Considering that we have asked this government repeatedly for years to ensure that these investment agreements do more to protect the businesses and individuals in the respective countries against foreigners who come in and exploit businesses, and want to have control in terms of public health and environmental precautionary principles, how can this government propose such agreements? The result is an automatic loss of sovereignty and control for each of the respective governments. I would like to ask my colleague what could possibly make a government like the Conservative government keep repeating the same mistake.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, I heard the answer to that question from a Peruvian Quechua representative, an indigenous representative. She explained to us that her people had been there for hundreds, even thousands of years before the Spanish. She said that the Quechua had organized their lands and found ways to transport water, among other things. Under this kind of agreement, if the Government of Peru decides to restore lands to indigenous peoples, companies affected by direct or indirect expropriations can submit complaints, the matter could go to court, and the company could be entitled to compensation.

What is the Government of Peru supposed to do with that? It would spell the end of social change. The Conservatives have chosen to put the interests of private companies before the common good. That is what is missing from this agreement, and that is what we are against.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Bouchard Bloc Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I have a brief question.

I would like to know if the companies that set up shop in Peru or in neighbouring countries—mining companies, for example—will be expected to comply with Canadian laws or the laws of the country in which they are operating. I would like more information about that. What responsibilities will they have to the people in terms of the environment?

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is the crux of the problem. Mining companies have to comply with the existing laws in both countries. The Conservative government is saying that it will not follow the round table recommendations, that it will not give the necessary authority, that it will not appoint an ombudsman. As a result, companies will be subject only to the laws of the host country.

Developing countries do not have the structures or the strength necessary to negotiate with companies on an equal footing and therefore agree to environmental conditions or working conditions they should not agree to. We have to admit that we did the same thing in Quebec 50 or 60 years ago. This is unacceptable. We are giving companies too much latitude and an unfair advantage.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from previous speakers about the importance of securing other markets for Canadian companies during this global economic crisis. Canada is a global trading nation. It has been identified that the United States ratified an agreement with Peru a couple of months ago. Every day that passes, Canadian companies are at a disadvantage.

Is my hon. colleague not concerned about providing opportunities and a level playing field for Canadian businesses in the free and fair trade agreement that is being proposed?

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for a brief reply.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about this issue. I want Canadian companies to have access to other countries under reasonable conditions, but I do not believe, for example, that we have to give those companies rights beyond the existing rights in those countries. We need to negotiate longer to make sure that there are appropriate concessions on both sides.

We know from our experience with the North American Free Trade Agreement that chapter 11 gives companies excessive power. We are making the same mistake in this case. It is inappropriate. Often it is American companies that have gone to court in Canada. We are going to find ourselves in the same situation in the case of Canada and Peru.

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Bloc

Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about an act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Peru, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Peru and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Peru.

I want to say first that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill. Although it is important to reach agreements on trade and on markets for our companies, we feel that this should not be at any price. We think that a very well organized and highly developed country like Canada should help increase the wealth of the people of a country that is less fortunate, that might be a developing country which is not so rich. Canada could become a major contributor to socio-economic development, but certainly not under the free trade agreement between Canada and Peru.

In order for this agreement to help increase the wealth of the Peruvian people, it would have to contain measures to ensure sustainable development and help the people to thrive. In addition, the free trade agreement between Canada and Peru contains a clause to protect investment that was copied from chapter 11 of NAFTA and will enable companies to sue governments. We think that this clause could impede the social and economic development of Peru.

NAFTA's chapter 11 on investment allows investors from a country in the North American free trade area to seek compensation from the government of another NAFTA country when they think they have suffered damages as a result of regulations being adopted that change the conditions under which their company operates.

For example, if a country decides to issue regulations or make changes to its legislation on health, the environment or the work done by people within its borders and there are resultant changes to the conditions under which a company operates, that company can institute legal proceedings against the government in question.

We have seen this happen in the past in the United States, in Mexico and even in Canada, and it has led to payments of millions of dollars in compensation. That means that the government itself is no longer master in its own house, is no longer master of its own territory, because of this famous clause, which is similar to the one in Chapter 11 of NAFTA. It creates a drain on the public treasury. For example, that clause is used in land expropriation cases, but it is also being used increasingly when a corporation can prove that it has lost profits. When that happens, it can bring action against the government of the country.

Chapter 11 provides a dispute settlement mechanism.

The Bloc Québécois believes that disputes should be settled openly and transparently, and that is not the case.

Very often, then, arbitrators are not familiar with the issue involved and do not necessarily have the qualifications to decide it, and so they may make mistakes and make an unfavourable decision.

We are also opposed to the free trade agreement with Peru because we believe that in terms of the environment and labour, we have no guarantee that our corporations can do business with that country and also respect human rights, labour rights and environmental rights. On that point, I would note that a rather unflattering report was made, one that was in fact disregarded by the present Conservative government. The report related to the social responsibility of Canadian corporations abroad. The social responsibility of Canadian mining companies has been a long standing issue.

Many corporations do an excellent job; they respect the environment and abide by the principles of the International Labour Organization. Some mining companies, however, are appalling, and seek to make profits at any cost. Human Rights Watch and the United Nations have pointed fingers at them. That is what the Bloc Québécois wants to avoid. This agreement provides no guarantee that the laws will be strong enough, and have enough teeth, to compel our Canadian mining companies to respect human rights and the environment.

The agreements that were recently made and that we will be discussing this week, the free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, have similarities that absolutely must be pointed out. First, Peru and Colombia are not very significant trading partners for Canada. Canadian exports to those countries account for something in the region of 0.1% to 0.7% of our exports. It is important to note, however, that our mining and oil companies make major Canadian investments in those countries. To protect those companies, we have to enter into bilateral agreements that have not been approved by parliamentarians in either country. Those agreements are quite often made by stealth and in great haste, and do not contain protection clauses. If they do, those clauses are so vague and so general that ultimately they are meaningless.

One of the main things that make Peru attractive to Canadian investors is, of course, natural resources, and mining resources in particular. The same is true of Colombia. Canadian investments in Peruvian mining hover around $5 billion. We are told that 80 Canadian mining companies are conducting mining exploration in Peru. This makes Canada the top investor in mining exploration in Peru.

Naturally, it might be tempting for Peru to do business with Canada. People are told that the mining companies will bring money, generate trade, carry out exploitation activities and give them work. Attention also has to be paid to the impact of these companies' activities. They have responsibilities. I keep coming back to the need to protect the environment, to protect human rights and to meet ILO standards.

While supposedly creating prospects for Canadian businesses, the real intention of this government is to allow Canadian mining companies to go even further. As we know, Canadian mining companies have not had to comply with any standards thus far, in terms of the appropriation of land.

In the past, the OECD has even asked Canada to put forward standards that our mining companies would have to meet in order to ensure that their operations do not harm or displace any aboriginal or other populations.

Canada never responded. Canada has always maintained that the host country, the one in which our mining companies operate, should put forward its own legislation to protect its territory. However, the host countries are not always in a position to do that, either because they lack the parliamentary resources, because they do not dare do so or because, in the case of Colombia, the government is so corrupt and so close to paramilitary organizations—and the latter can use aboriginal lands—that they will allow a Canadian mining company to set up there and operate with no accountability.

We referred to National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry, which included representatives of the extractive industry. They prepared excellent reports.

This was 12 to 18 months ago. The Government of Canada never responded. The roundtables resulted in excellent reports, with supporting evidence, and asked that a Canadian corporate social responsibility framework be established, among other things. They asked for mandatory corporate social responsibility standards that Canadian mining companies would have to respect when working abroad. They asked for punitive measures for offending companies. They asked for an independent ombudsman who would conduct impartial investigations in order to determine whether or not complaints are founded.

This government, the Conservative government, never responded to these roundtable reports. Recently, when the free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia were signed, the Minister of International Trade simply stated that the position of ombudsman would be created and that the incumbent would report to the minister.

Thus, he will not be independent and this investigator will not necessarily have the room to manoeuvre when conducting his investigations and determining if the Canadian company is an offender.

Neither the Government of Canada nor Canadian companies will ever put forward preventive measures to govern the activities of Canadian mining companies abroad. As I said earlier, all we want is for the host countries to consider barriers to uncontrolled development by Canadian companies a priority.

I would add that, when it comes to the environment and the International Labour Organization, the agreement under consideration should offer guarantees that companies will respect the environment. In Columbia, for example, Canadian mining companies polluted rivers in a certain region so badly that they turned pink because of heavy use of nitrates and other strong chemicals in the extraction process. Whole populations were poisoned because of it. In Peru, one company has already been taken to task because the level of sulphur in the air around the mine was harmful to residents.

Without such guarantees, and given that the environmental provisions of the agreement are so vague, we cannot vote in favour of it.

Since I do not have much time left, I am going to conclude by saying that, when we are doing business with a country, we must at least make sure that we are not just trying to do business at any cost, but that we do so with the protection of individuals and of the environment in mind.

Unfortunately, the agreement with Peru—as is the case with the one with Colombia—is being condemned by several environmental groups. The Peruvian civil society is also opposed to that accord. Canada is losing credibility. We are doing trade and, seemingly because we are going through a global crisis, we are promoting markets. However, we are in fact promoting the mining industry or, in the case of Colombia, the Canadian oil and gas industry.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing changes to Canada's trade attitudes. Canada must focus on creating a more level playing field. There is no policy on corporate accountability. That is unfortunate. What we have here is a philosophy that gives priority to trade, at the expense of human rights.

Some members have a skeptical look on their faces. I find it rather strange that, when we are part of a political party in Canada and when we are told bluntly that the agreement goes against human rights and the environment, we would not have the heart to check and to see what environmental groups and human rights protection groups think about the whole issue.

I would like hon. members to go and meet with the Canadian Council for International Cooperation. A nice 45 page report was published on the agreements with Peru and Colombia. This is a nice document written by lawyers and environmentalists, who are saying that Canada should be ashamed to sign such accords. I would like hon. members opposite to reflect on this and to have the heart to think about the fact that some individuals are going to lose their shirts in these dealings.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am following up on a question I asked about employment insurance. Since I asked that question, as members in the House know, the situation has only become worse. While we were away from Parliament, Canadians continued to be laid off in record numbers and employment insurance continues to be a huge issue for many Canadians.

Last week I had the opportunity to be in Toronto with my colleague from Don Valley West where we talked with people in his riding about employment insurance, people in organized labour, people working in anti-poverty, people who are being laid off from their jobs. They simply cannot understand why they do not have benefits. The Conservative government has abandoned them. The government does not seem to care. On the issue of access to EI, the Conservative government is silent.

The minister speaks quite often about 82% of people who are eligible to get EI are getting EI. That is a false argument which totally ignores the fact that people are being excluded from being eligible to get EI.

The Caledon Institute, which has done a lot of work on employment insurance, has a chart which shows that right now less than 44% of Canadians who are unemployed are receiving regular EI benefits. That has changed in the last number of years.

There are many who would say that it was changed for a good reason back in the 1990s. The government under Mr. Mulroney left the country in terrible shape. There is no question that changes had to be made and those changes were made. In the 1990s nobody was talking about stimulus. We never heard the word “stimulus” mentioned. It was the opposite. It was contraction. We wanted to get the debt and the deficit under control.

According to the December 2008 Caledon Institute report, “The Forgotten Fundamentals”, at last count only an estimated 44% of unemployed Canadians qualified for benefits under the so-called social insurance. Those were 2007 numbers. In Alberta 24% and in Ontario 29% qualified for benefits.

The report stated:

Some of Canada's most vulnerable groups--older workers, part-time workers, recent immigrants, new entrants to the labour force, persons with disabilities and low-wage workers generally--are typically excluded from EI.

We have a big problem. People are not qualifying for EI even though they have paid into it. It is a false statement by the minister and her acolytes when they say that 82% of people who are eligible for EI are getting EI. It just ignores the problem.

Another problem Canadians have, and this is one that I raised in the House last year on November 27, is the delay in getting employment insurance. The minister said it was not a problem, that everything was under control and claims were being processed in 28 days. We knew that was not the case. On December 19 I sent a letter to the minister to follow up on that. First of all there was denial and then I was told it was being handled. A few weeks ago the minister finally came out and said that the government has to put in $60 million to bring back people from retirement and hire more people to process EI claims.

This problem has been ignored. It has been put aside. Workers in Canada are paying the price. They cannot access EI when they want it. They cannot even get support from the government to get their claims processed. It is a shame. It is an abomination. This problem has to be fixed. When is it going to be fixed?

6:35 p.m.

Fort McMurray—Athabasca Alberta

Conservative

Brian Jean ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I can assure members that the government takes it very seriously when even one Canadian loses a job. I can assure the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour that our government is very concerned. We are taking action to ensure that we minimize, as much as possible, the impact on Canadian families when they lose their jobs.

All of us in this place know the challenges many Canadians are facing in these uncertain global economic times, particularly, as unemployment rates rise. I think the member is ignoring the situation of the world itself and how great Canada's position economically is compared to the rest of the world. However, we are not, by any stretch of the imagination, ignoring the plight of Canadians, especially when they face the low demand by international markets and, indeed, ultimately job losses.

We understand the stresses that many Canadians workers and their families face and we empathize with them. During these difficult times, the priority of the Conservative government is to ensure that Canadians who are eligible to receive EI benefits receive these benefits as quickly as possible.

That being said, our government and the Department of HRSD have already taken steps to make significant investments to meet the increasing numbers of EI claims and those efforts continue today, and will continue into the future, in the best interests of Canadians.

To this effect, we have allocated $60 million for EI processing, including hiring additional staff, to ensure that Canadians who need help get that help as soon as possible. Beyond this, we have taken many steps to meet the increased demand.

In fact, we have hired or recalled additional employees and retirees all across the country to process claims more quickly. We have redistributed the workload to increase speed and efficiency and to help maintain consistent service levels across all regions of Canada.

We have listened to Canadians and we have reacted with speed and with steps that will help Canadians and their families facing job losses.

We have also increased overtime. We have increased the level of automation of claims processing. We have opened EI call centres on Saturdays, which will go a long way to help Canadians who are in need today and will process claims more quickly.

Through these measures, the department has processed significantly more claims nationally this year than over the same time last year, and we continue to take action to meet this increasing demand.

Let me also mention that under the Canada skills and transition strategy, the government will invest $1 billion over two years under existing labour market agreements so the provinces and territories can train an additional 100,000 EI eligible Canadians. The training is for their future and the future of Canada. This new money will support workers and their families in hard hit industries and regions throughout the country.

This government understands the needs facing Canadians at this time and we are doing everything possible to solve those needs and to do it in the best interests of Canadians, unemployed workers and their families.

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague, but just the simple fact of what he recited, all these things the government says it is doing, having a call centre open on Saturdays and bringing back workers who are retired and extra hours for people, shows it has completely mishandled this crisis. We told the government in November that there was a problem, but it said there was no problem. We told the government in December there was a problem, but it said there was no problem. It was not just me, but the member for Madawaska—Restigouche and the member for Cape Breton—Canso told the government there was a problem. It ignored the fact that there was problem, it stonewalled it and then, finally, it scrambled.

The government talks about other countries. The United States is adding up to a year of employment insurance for people who are losing their jobs. Other countries are doing much more.

We can do more for Canadians who are losing their jobs. It should start with processing their claims in an expeditious manner, without having to panic at the last minute. It provides no faith for Canadians to think that the government knows how to handle this crisis, and we are not sure the crisis is yet at its bottom.

6:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, among other things, we have also extended and expanded the work-sharing program, an innovative method by the government to keep more Canadians employed.

We have extended the duration of EI benefits, exactly as the member asked, by expanding nationally a pilot project which already provided five extra weeks of EI benefits to EI claimants in areas of high unemployment. Can he not take yes for an answer? We have also increased the maximum duration of EI benefits available under the EI program, from 45 to 50 weeks.

Through our economic action plan, we will help over 400,000 people benefit from these additional five weeks of EI benefits. We will help 190,000 Canadians, including long-tenured and older workers, get retrained to find a new job and put food on the table for their families. We will help create tens of thousands of new jobs while building and renovating tens of thousands of homes for those most in need.

We are getting the job done for Canadians in the best interests of their families.

6:40 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come back to a question that I asked in February about an industry that is at the heart and soul of the economy of my community of Sault Ste. Marie.

I asked at that time why the government was not in Washington, standing shoulder to shoulder with the steel workers union, negotiating with the Obama government, as it came to terms with the recession that was hitting that country, and negotiating a deal that would protect our industries, particularly our steel industry, in the same way as we knew that the Americans would do. In fact, that has turned out to be the case.

At that time, the parliamentary secretary to the minister suggested that I was misleading the House and the people of Canada in suggesting that was even possible, but I went on to say to the minister's assistant that within NAFTA and the WTO, Canada was permitted to put in place a buy Canadian strategy, which is what the Americans were looking to do at that particular point in time and on which they have since begun to move forward.

Not only is it legal, but domestic procurement strategies are in place with our NAFTA partners, the U.S. and Mexico. It seems that Canada is the only jurisdiction that is satisfied with spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to stimulate the economy and not guarantee that a chunk of it, at least a percentage of it, will stay in Canada to support the communities and the jobs that would be saved by that action alone.

I ask the parliamentary secretary today to please take my question a bit more seriously than previously, and explain to me, to the people of Sault Ste. Marie, and to the people of Canada why the Canadian government is not willing to go to bat for Canadian industry in the same way as the Americans, and protect the jobs and the communities that are supported by those industries? Why will the government not look at the possibility of a Canadian procurement policy that would direct at least some portion of the billions of dollars that we will spend of Canadian taxpayers' money to Canadian industry, Canadian communities in order to protect Canadian jobs?

6:40 p.m.

Fort McMurray—Athabasca Alberta

Conservative

Brian Jean ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, this government does take this issue very seriously because it is about Canadian families, Canadian jobs and about keeping Canadians at the high standard and quality of life that we enjoy.

The government has and will continue to stand up for all industries in Canada, including the steel industry. However, as a trading nation, our steel producers must have access not only to markets but to the tools they need to be competitive, including the ability to address unfairly dumped or subsidized imports. This is particularly true of the steel industry as it is a global industry.

The steel industry competes in a highly competitive, global market that continues to face many challenges, especially today with what is happening in the world. These include global overcapacity and trade distorting policies such as subsidies, as the member mentioned, in many countries.

The Canadian industry is highly integrated in relation to the North American marketplace. In fact, more than 80% of our exports go to the United States and we import just as much. It is amazing to see the integration of that particular market. With specialized factories on both sides of the border, specialized factories doing one thing but not the other, steel products move back and forth across the border in processed and in finished form.

Any threat to market access in either country would simply disrupt this critical industry that is so important to Canadian families and Canadian workers. That is exactly why our government was so heavily engaged with the United States when the buy American provisions were included in the economic stimulus package. We were worried and we took it very seriously and took very serious steps immediately. We continue to encourage the U.S. administration to implement the provisions in a manner that is consistent with its international trade obligations and consistent with our relationship with the United States.

We recognize the gravity of the current economic situation and its role in the promotion of growth and prosperity. In budget 2009, this accelerates and expands federal infrastructure investments with almost $12 billion in new funding over two years. This is great news for the steel industry, for Canadians, for Canadian workers and for their families.

At the same time, the government recognizes that all Canadian industries, including steel, can be confronted with injuries such as dumping or subsidized imports. That is why we have measures, such as our Special Import Measures Act, that allow Canadian producers to seek protection from such imports. That is very important and we have the tools in place to do so. This law is there to protect Canadian producers and the steel industry is one of the most frequent users of this law. Canada has anti-dumping or countervail duties in place against imports of six steel products from twelve different countries, including major exporters like China and India.

On April 15, 2009, Canada, along with the United States and Mexico, submitted formal comments on the Chinese government on China's 2005 iron and steel industry development policy. These comments were the most recent action in continued pressure by NAFTA countries on China to limit government intervention in the steel sector.

We are standing up for Canadian workers. We are standing up for the steel sector.

6:45 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the parliamentary secretary has once again missed the point of the question. He needs to go to Hamilton and speak to the families that used to be supported by the jobs that existed at Stelco. He needs to go to Sault Ste. Marie and talk to the 600 workers who are no longer working at Essar Steel. He needs to go to Sault Ste. Marie and talk to the workers at Tenaris who are off work right now while it goes through a shutdown waiting for the market to turn.

He should have listened to the members of the steel industry who were here only a week ago to lobby us about some of the issues that they are confronting. They tell us that the Americans are moving aggressively, as they always do, to put up countervailing duties against China. They know that once they put up that wall the steel coming from China will just change direction and come into Canada, and we in Canada have no protection against that. What does the parliamentary secretary have to say to that?

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's concern for the families that he represents, the same as I have concern for the families that I represent, but what he is suggesting would have no long term or short term benefit for the families he is trying to help.

Indeed, Canada on its own, in concert with other NAFTA governments, has raised concerns regarding steel policies around the world in relation to the World Trade Organization, in relation to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and bilaterally, for instance, with the Chinese officials on a number of occasions over the last several years.

Canada's producers have access to anti-dumping and countervail measures to defend themselves in this very particular situation against dumped and subsidized imports that can injure them. Our government will continue to stand up for the steel industry and we will ensure that Canadian families and Canadian workers benefit.

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:49 p.m.)