Debates of June 1st, 2009

Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Act

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Québec for her speech.

I listened to her very carefully and she talked about the mining industry. As we know, two Liberal members have presented two measures, namely, motion M-293 from the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, and Bill C-300 from the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood. Both measures relate to corporate responsibility in the mining sector.

The Liberals are getting ready to vote for the free trade agreement between Canada and Peru, even though they know very well that the investment agreement based on chapter 11 allows mining companies to sue the state if it improves its legislation concerning the environment, workers' rights and occupational health and safety. They want to liberalize trade, but with such liberalism comes responsibility. How can the Liberals bring forward motions and bills to improve corporate responsibility among mining companies on the one hand, and on the other hand, accept and support such a free trade agreement, when the government should be sent back to the drawing board and forced to take a new approach to free trade agreements?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. This is not the first time we have seen this sort of contradiction or paradox here in the House. We are standing behind companies that violate environmental or human rights laws. We are giving them the right to go to those countries and we are giving them all the tools they may need to hamstring a government that may wish, for example, to stop the use of hazardous waste sites.

My colleague is quite right. The Liberals should go back to the drawing board and have a hard look at their actions, specifically in this matter. We often tend to believe that the Liberals are strong social democrats. However, their attitude is often similar to that of the Conservatives.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague and I would like to ask her a question. What contradiction or paradox does she see in an approach that favours free trade with another country and, at the same time, acceptance by Canadian mines of their social responsibilities?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say to my Liberal colleague that it is the Liberals who are not accepting their responsibilities. We are not opposed to corporations being developed abroad. What we want is for the government to establish a framework that would impose certain rules on corporations. We defend rights in this country and they are the same rights that should exist elsewhere.

If the rules were established from the outset, corporations might find it less lucrative to go elsewhere and take advantage of the fact that workers and the environment are not protected. When corporations work abroad, they should fulfill certain obligations.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member have any experiences that she can share from observing our experience under NAFTA and the side agreement on environmental protection? Do we appear to have learned anything in the crafting of later agreements, including this one?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, chapter 11 of NAFTA was critical in giving companies full discretion to sue governments. Many court actions come to mind. For example, Ethyl Corporation, an American company, sued the Canadian government for banning the use of a fuel additive. The $250 million lawsuit lasted two or three years. Even if a settlement was eventually reached, $13 million still had to be paid out.

There have been many other cases like that. In the Metalclad Corporation case, legal action was instigated after access to a toxic waste disposal site was denied. Again, this was a $16.7 million U.S. action for damages. British Columbia was the one involved in that case. Many examples could be given of the discretion that chapter 11 of NAFTA affords companies to sue governments.

However, setting limits would be desirable, for instance by prohibiting the export of a fuel additive for environmental reasons.

Members of the Liberal Party profess to support the environment. It would come as no surprise from the Conservative Party, but it is rather troubling to see the Liberal Party pursuing today the same objective as the Conservatives. Yes, we must ensure that our companies have some discretion in order to be able to grow, but not at any price, especially nowadays. More and more citizens are increasingly aware of various issues like the environment. There is also the economic crisis, which disrupts things and causes people's attitudes to change. Change will come when proactive political parties which are not afraid to tell it like it is are in power.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to express my profound opposition to this bill. My opposition is 100% premised on the failure to yet again address environmental issues in trade agreements.

Twenty years after signing NAFTA and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, we appear to have failed to learn any lessons. That is despite review after review of the failure to take the approach of making environment and labour issues simply a sidebar, non-binding part of these agreements. We have seen trade agreement after trade agreement come before Parliament, repeating the same mistakes and refusing to listen to the input provided by Canadian experts over the last 20 years on the failings of the NAFTA agreement.

Instead of strengthening the environmental provisions of our trade agreements, we are moving to water them down further. Despite the weaknesses of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, NAAEC, recommendation after recommendation to strengthen that agreement went in the opposite direction. The government has chosen to further downgrade any responsibilities for environmental protection either on this country or on the countries with which it signs trade agreements.

In place of non-binding side agreements, why did the government not take the environmental provisions and incorporate them into the text of the trade agreement? That is precisely what President Obama raised during the last election. His issue with the NAFTA agreement was this very issue. It was the fact that environmental and labour issues had been sidebarred. We should revisit these agreements, not to open up and provide for even freer trade without any limitations, but to reconsider them and make these environmental conditions binding.

The government seems to have an inability to understand that it is not economy versus environment. I had the privilege of attending meetings of world and industry leaders in several countries in Europe with the Minister of the Environment. We heard from world leaders and CEOs of major industries, including the major coal-fired power companies. They said that we must incorporate environmental considerations into our economic development. They said that we must shift to incorporating environmental considerations in any economic or trade policy.

The government has turned a blind eye. It has blinders on to what is happening in the rest of the world. We seem to have blinders on in our attitude toward negotiating trade agreements. We need to enter this century. We are mired in old concepts. It is incumbent upon the government to take this bill back, reconsider it, rewrite it and negotiate it with the Canadian public and the public of Peru.

The rest of the world agrees. We need to step up to the plate. We need to shift our economy into the new green economy. We need to make those kinds of negotiations open and transparent and include the very people who are impacted: our Canadian industry and our Canadian public.

Let me talk about some of the provisions of this sidebar agreement on environment to the Canada-Peru trade agreement proposed under the bill. That is what it is: a sidebar, non-binding document.

This agreement, as with similar agreements and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, does not demand or compel Canada or Peru to protect the environment. It merely encourages the parties to not weaken or derogate from their environmental or health laws or measures to attract or encourage investment or trade.

First, we are simply saying that it might not be a bad idea, as a sidebar, to give a thought from time to time to not downgrading our environmental and health standards to get a trade or investment advantage. That is absolutely reprehensible. This is the kind of measure that should be at the heart of any trade agreement Canada signs.

Second, this sidebar environmental consideration to the trade agreement, similar to the other trade agreements we have signed, commits Canada and encourages Peru to ensure environmental impact assessment processes are in place.

Forgive me if I hold back a deep laugh. We have just witnessed in this Parliament the demise of federal environmental impact assessment laws, and we have the gall to propose signing off an agreement where we will hold Peru to account for implementing environmental impact assessment laws. I think we better step back and take a look at the record of our country before we make recommendations to other nations that are looking to trade with us and benefit from our experience.

The provisions are non-binding and non-enforceable. They provide for absolutely no recourse or penalties if they are not abided by, unlike, as the previous hon. member mentioned, the provisions in the agreement where a private business can file a legal action for compensation should we not abide by these agreements. There is absolutely no mechanism in these sidebar agreements to hold either government to account for abrogating its environmental assessment or environmental standard setting laws or for the failure to enforce those laws.

We have mentioned the record of the government in relegating our 30 years of development of strong, laudable environmental laws to mere red tape. Is that the lesson we are taking to the table with Peru? Is that the example we are setting? Is that our expectation of Peru? Sure it should go ahead and pass environmental impact assessment laws, set environmental standards, but do as we say, not as we do.

The sidebar agreement also commits, not requires, Canada and Peru to comply with and effectively enforce their respective domestic environmental laws. As above, we have witnessed the actions of this federal government in the failure to enforce its own environmental impact assessment law on its own expenditures.

One of the backbones of federal environmental law is that all expenditures by the federal government will undergo a careful assessment to ensure they are not having an unnecessary and reprehensible environmental effect. What did our government do? It moved behind closed doors, with no public notice and no opportunity for public comment, to rescind and exempt major federal expenditures and project development from environmental impact assessments. Is that what we can expect on this provision of this sidebar agreement?

Another foundation of these sidebar environmental agreements that we have seen with the United States, with Europe and now this one, is the commitment to transparency and participation. This sidebar agreement, mirroring the North American agreement on environmental cooperation, commits Canada and Peru to increased transparency and public participation in the making of our environmental laws and policies. Let us witness the decision by the Minister of the Environment to waive even the notice requirement when he exempted massive projects from environmental impact assessment regulations. Can we expect something different here?

Witness the continued dialogue with the United States on energy and climate change held behind closed doors. Having participated last week in the world dialogue of business leaders and another world dialogue among nations on innovative technology and the urgent need to address climate change, did this occur behind closed doors? No. It was a live broadcast on webcam.

However, when we come back to Canada and our dialogue with our neighbour on what we are going to do jointly on addressing energy issues, energy security for this country and climate change, we go behind closed doors. Is this what we can expect to witness in the Peru-Canada agreement? It looks like it.

Witness the refusal of the government to finally bring forth the negotiated action plan on addressing air pollution, which was long promised by the government and unaddressed, and the failure to bring that proposal before the public, before this Parliament, so we can review it.

Where does it sit? It is on the minister's desk, again turning a blind eye to years of voluntary commitment by business leaders and the environmental community and ignoring the effort to provide input to the government.

Under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, the Government of Canada, the Government of Mexico and the Government of the United States made a very bold decision. They included mechanisms whereby there would be public advisory councils. The joint public advisory committee, to advise the North American council of environment ministers, was also established under that agreement. The agreement also provides for national advisory councils to advise the environment minister with respect to the three countries.

What has the Canadian government done? It simply allowed the organizations to die. No new appointments have been made under its control. Is this what we can expect under the Canada-Peru trade agreement? Is this what we can expect under the non-binding, ever friendly environmental side agreement? I would hope not, but experience shows otherwise.

Despite the review after review commissioned by independent experts on the relationship between trade and environment, on extensive analysis of how well the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation has effectively delivered on the commitments to protect environment as we practise trade, what have we learned from those reviews? Apparently very little. We do not see major changes advancing the consideration of environmental protection in this agreement. For that reason, we must oppose it.

Another clear mechanism in the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation is the right of citizens of North America to file a complaint of failure by any of the three countries to effectively enforce their environmental laws. The successive governments of Canada have undermined that process. Instead of embracing this agreement and treating it with the seriousness that the European Community has treated its environment commission, and respecting the direction, the directives and the policies of that commission, our governments have chosen to implode and undermine the very process set up to allow for the transparency. There is delay after delay, interruptions of reviews, and dragging out the process. Even despite that, when the secretariat of the North American commission has come forward with a very thoughtful, independently prepared report, the recommendations simply gather dust.

Have we learned any clear lessons? I guess the lessons we have learned are that the government is turning a blind eye to what we have learned over these 20 years.

I find it extremely regrettable. I think that Canada, in reaching out to other nations, reaching out to nations in South America, Latin America, European nations and Asian nations, could be setting the bar. We could be setting the example for future treaties of this kind. We could be coming to the table and demanding that environmental measures be incorporated into the text of these agreements, that our environmental commitments become enforceable and binding and that there be clear penalties that can be imposed on a nation that abrogates those provisions.

Therefore, I stand clearly in opposition to this agreement. It is with great regret that the government has not taken this opportunity to take the bold, progressive step to make the statement that environmental protection is actually part of any economic development for the future of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the United States-Peru agreement includes labour and environmental agreements, but within the agreement. Whereas this particular agreement leaves labour and environment as side bar issues.

The question I have is this. Why would Canada not get as good an agreement as the U.S. did with its U.S.-Peru agreement?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, indeed it is most disappointing that we have chosen to take a different path than the path taken by the United States in forging its trade agreement with Peru. Clearly it is practising what it has preached. It is actually taking what were once sidebar agreements in the NAFTA and apparently incorporating them into the binding text of its trade agreements.

It raises the question of what is going behind closed doors at the United States-Canada dialogue on energy, security and climate change. Perhaps the United States is actually proposing that we move forward with these types of measures. If that is the case, it is indeed a sad day for Canada.

I implore the Government of Canada to open up that dialogue so that Canadians can participate and that Canadian interests are put at the forefront in the negotiation of these agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently and I did notice a theme throughout the hon. member's speech. It seems to be a paternalistic theme and a theme of disrespect.

One thing the NDP forgets is that the countries involved in these free trade agreements are actually democracies. In other words, here in Canada, whether the NDP likes it or not, Canadians have a democratic right to elect a government based on a platform, the same as Peru and the same as other countries where we are negotiating free trade agreements. One of the things that political parties run on is a platform, and some political parties actually run on a platform to help promote free trade. This happens to be the case between the two countries we are discussing now, Canada and Peru.

I am wondering why the NDP has such disrespect for a democratically elected government. That was put forth by the people of Peru and the people of Canada in this negotiation. These two democratically elected governments came to an agreement that would benefit both countries. I am wondering why she has such a paternalistic attitude towards these democracies and how she can explain that disrespect.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the only evidence of paternalism I see in this House is evidenced by the minority Conservative government to the will of the House.

I ran on a platform of making sure we give due consideration to the rights of workers and our protected environment in any future trade agreements. I find it absolutely incredulous that the member would make a suggestion that we would be paternalistic in suggesting certain measures in the agreement.

Any measures in that agreement would apply equally to Canada and to Peru. In signing on to the agreement we would be undertaking that we will effectively enforce our environmental laws and we will ensure that workers' rights will be protected here.

What we have found under the NAFTA and the sidebar agreement is that far more complaints have been filed against Canada than any of the three nations in its failure to effectively enforce environmental laws.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that I cannot respond directly to the Conservative member who asked a question of my colleague in the NDP. If there is a party that lacks respect in this House, it is surely the government. This can be seen from the way it proceeds with free trade agreements. This government has never tabled any reports or impact assessments on free trade negotiations. The members of the committee and this Parliament have never been able to see an impact assessment for any of the agreements it has negotiated. Worse still, in committee we have proposed amendments and the Liberals and Conservatives have voted against them. Given that we cannot get impact assessments, we have asked to at least have some follow-up on the free trade agreements. That way we might be able to prove to the Conservatives and the Liberals that there are some negative aspects.

I would like to know whether my colleague would agree to having the side agreements that are being established—whether on human rights, particularly in Colombia, or labour rights and environmental protection—incorporated directly into the main agreement, not for the appearance of good will, but to formalize things and demand that workers’ rights, occupational health and safety rights, and environmental protection not be further diluted but improved and augmented.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, many studies were commissioned by both the Council of Environment Ministers and the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. It is incumbent upon the government to obtain and review those reports and take into consideration the profound recommendations. There has been article after article critiquing the way we entered into the NAFTA and the failure to incorporate labour and environmental standards into that agreement.

The government is turning a blind eye to any independent analysis. The main question that needs to be raised is in whose interests this agreement is being signed.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, her colleague who sits on the Standing Committee on International Trade surely must have told her that it would be best if the government went back to the drawing board. I imagine that my colleague is in favour of the government reviewing the way it does its free trade agreements, and going back to the drawing board.

In my opinion, we cannot let this opportunity pass by. Things must be done differently starting today: we must partner with emerging countries so that their citizens can truly benefit from that partnership and not be exploited by Canadian firms like the mining companies.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the earlier question from the member opposite, it is not paternalistic to bring to the table sage advice and learnings from previous experience. It is for precisely that reason that it is necessary for the government to bring forward these documents and share them with the other nations, particularly emerging nations, so they can learn from the mistakes made previously.

Why do we want to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over? This countries does not seem to want to follow the path taken by other nations. We are doing it on environment, on climate change and now we are doing it on trade. We are regressing instead of progressing. It is absolutely incumbent upon the government and the parties that are negotiating this agreement to revisit the agreement and move us into this century.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather paradoxical. I had the opportunity to go to Peru with the Minister of Labour, who at the time was a Liberal minister. I was able to see the situation of the workers in Peru and that of the children, who work for nothing and do not even have shoes on their feet to work. I could speak at length about this, but I will return to it. I would like to state the position of the Bloc Québécois, which is against the Conservative government’s strategy of concluding trade agreements on a piecemeal basis. We prefer the multilateral approach.

The present economic crisis shows us that a market economy cannot function properly unless it is regulated and stabilized by an institutional, political and ethical framework. Instead of making piecemeal agreements, Canada must work within the WTO to ensure that the rules that govern international trade are the same for all, without exception. We are also now talking about a free trade agreement with Colombia, concerning which I will also speak a little later.

We believe that trade can contribute to the enrichment of peoples, and in that sense can be an important instrument of socio-economic development. For that to happen, however, trade agreements must contain measures to guarantee that the populations concerned can develop sustainably and thrive, in other words, to guarantee workers’ rights and human rights. The free trade agreement with Peru contains an investor protection clause, copied from chapter 11 of NAFTA, which will permit companies to prosecute governments. The presence of a chapter on investor protection could constitute an impediment to the social and economic development of Peru.

As we all know, Canada’s principal commercial activity in Peru is mining. Peru does not have a glowing record on protecting the workers in that sector because it does not have the resources. In the absence of a genuine accountability policy for Canadian mining companies, ratification of this agreement will permit those companies to extend their operations without being subject to any rules or consequences when they pollute the environment or flout human rights.

We will therefore be voting against this bill. Nor must it be forgotten that we are at third reading, a stage at which it is impossible to amend the bill. The attempt was made in committee. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP tried to find out more. Everything was done on the sly. It is worrying when things are not put clearly on the table, when documents are not clear, when we do not have access to certain documents and we do not feel that we are being listened to. Instead they want to pass this bill as quickly as possible to get the Canadian economy rolling in another country, because we are in an economic crisis and we have to make money to repay the debt and see that our companies make money. It all appears to be based on worry.

I would like to talk about chapter 11 of NAFTA. We have been through highs and lows on this subject. To set the context, NAFTA chapter 11 on investment permits investors in a member country of the North American free trade area to claim compensation from the government of another party to NAFTA when they feel they have been prejudiced by the adoption of regulatory measures that modify their company's operating conditions. These regulatory or legislative modifications must, however, be comparable to direct or indirect expropriation or to a measure equivalent to expropriation.

NAFTA is the only major free trade agreement binding on Canada that contains such extensive provisions on the treatment to be given to investors in the other parties. Since the free trade agreement with Peru contains a similar clause, the Bloc Québécois considers that it is not in Quebec’s interest to support such an agreement, and we shall oppose ratification of the agreement with Peru.

In reality, it is difficult for the free movement of goods not to be accompanied by the free movement of capital.

When specific provisions are not incorporated in free trade agreements, bilateral agreements generally provide for the protection of investments coming from the other party, and all these agreements contain substantially similar provisions, that is, a neutral arbitration procedure in the event of a dispute between the foreign investor and the host state of the investment. There are presently over 1,800 bilateral agreements of this type in the world.

The provisions of chapter 11 of NAFTA governing investments have been called into question. They are the source of numerous proceedings that have been brought against various governments in Mexico, the United States and Canada. They sometimes result in millions of dollars in compensation being awarded. We need only think of the whole softwood lumber saga. I went to the United States several times myself to meet with American senators and representatives to make them aware of our problem and tell them that it was not true that we were subsidizing softwood lumber. They used chapter 11 against us, and that cost us millions of dollars more. We have to be careful.

In short, for the Bloc Québécois, chapter 11 defines an entire investment regime. The definition of investment is very broad, perhaps far too broad. Some of the provisions of that chapter, including the concept of expropriation, have generated numerous proceedings. In addition, the current trend is toward extending that concept to encompass lost profits.

I have a number of examples here. I was speaking earlier about the softwood lumber quotas. There is one legal action on the banning of MMT, another resulting from the prohibition of a toxic waste landfill site, and many others. We have many examples of proceedings.

In addition, many questions are raised about the dispute settlement mechanism provided for in this chapter. That mechanism provides that a company that considers a government to be contravening the investment provisions may bring an action directly against that state before an arbitral tribunal. The arbitration tribunals that hear these disputes are formed to hear a specific dispute. The deliberations of these arbitrators and their decisions are secret, unless both parties to the dispute decide otherwise.

Once again, everything is done in secret, behind closed doors. Even if an agreement is reached that does the least possible harm to either party, we are still talking about millions of dollars that have to be spent to settle a dispute, and that dispute can drag on for years.

While the free trade agreement with Peru contains certain advances in terms of transparency—something we do not deny—the Bloc Québécois feels that disputes should be settled on a multilateral and centralized basis, instead of case by case between the different states that sign bilateral agreements.

In fact, the NAFTA provisions on investment are similar to the ones in the proposed free trade agreement with Peru. They give very broad powers to businesses and give us concern as to the ultimate sovereignty of governments and their ability to take measures to protect the health of people and the quality of their environment.

The Bloc Québécois will therefore oppose this agreement. I have shown what chapter 11 means. As I said earlier, I had the opportunity to go to Peru with a Liberal Minister of Labour, and I saw the working conditions of the people who live there. I also saw the conditions of the indigenous people. Certainly, if you go to Lima, the country's capital, you will see a completely different reality than if you go into the mountains and meet with the indigenous people who are born there. It is a completely different reality. These are people who have no way of defending themselves. They have no unions.

They can be made to work for starvation wages. As I said earlier, children who are actually barefoot are going to be made to work. That is a fact; I am not exaggerating. Adults who have no resources and will have no choice but to work for starvation wages are going to be made to work, and our wealthy mining companies, which make bags of money around the world, will exploit them, which is unacceptable.

Once they have finished exploiting them and emptied the mine, they will work the ore elsewhere. But they will leave the mining site in a sorry state. They may have contaminated the water table, in which case the water will no longer be potable.

Peruvians already have serious drinking water problems. In fact, they have serious education, health and environment problems. Yet we are sending companies into Peru that, under this agreement, are not required to follow strict rules. Their compliance will be voluntary. I cannot get over it. I have sat in this Parliament for 16 years, and I know that voluntary measures inevitably lead nowhere.

We have seen it in every aspect, including the environment and labour, and it is not working. We have to force these companies to abide by stringent and specific rules, and we have to make sure they follow them. It is all very well to make rules, but there also has to be monitoring and an authority to do the monitoring. There are non-governmental agencies that can monitor, but that is all there is.

Canada has responsibilities to these countries. When it sends its companies to do development there, it has to make sure that this does not serve only the companies’ interests, that they are not the only ones that make money, and that the host country also benefits properly, which means that it benefits in environmental terms.

We now have methods of extracting ore and working in mines that are much better for the environment than they were in the past. We have to know how to use these resources. Obviously, the mining companies want to go as fast and as cheaply as possible, and will want everything to be as profitable as possible for them, because they are not forced to follow rules and the measures are voluntary. Well, voluntary measures lead nowhere, and will not help Peru to develop. That is what is troubling us about this agreement.

In Canada today, there are mining companies already being blamed because they do not do their work properly and they exploit people, they exploit young people and children. These companies exploit the people and the environment, and then they leave and go on their merry way. When there is no more ore and no more money to be made, the country is the one with the problem then, but it does not have the resources it needs to remedy the environmental situation.

When the environment is destroyed, it can be expensive to try to restore an acceptable environment. We talk about acceptability. The country may not even have the resources to think about investing in the environment. Very often, the country invests in essentials and tries to save its people before investing in the environment.

I have seen children there who simply did not eat and who slept in cardboard boxes. We, citizens of wealthy countries, who have a roof over our head, we need to go there and see how they live. I am not persuaded that when mining companies set up facilities there and exploit their resources it will mean that those people will not still be living in little cardboard boxes.

When this agreement was negotiated, on the sly, as I pointed out before, we should really have made sure that stringent constraints and monitoring methods were included, for overseeing work done there.

Perhaps then we would not see children and families living in cardboard boxes, but rather families making money with the prospect of forming a union. We can help them. We have expertise here. We can also send them this expertise when we send the mining companies. We cannot send only big business and not provide resources to the people in the host countries. These countries really do not have a lot of resources, and we, for our part, go there to exploit them. We lead them to believe that they will make money, but in the end they are the ones who pay the price, once more.

The same is true in the case of Colombia. There are emerald mines there, and we know the value of emeralds. When the mining companies get there, they will work them thoroughly and make a lot of money. How can these countries defend themselves against big companies, the multinationals making a lot of money? They can afford lawyers and court cases lasting five or ten years. The host country is poor and does not necessarily have the means to contend with these multinationals. So, we must help them. We are going there. There must be very strict rules to ensure that their environment, their life, the life of their children, the life of the indigenous people and the beauty are not destroyed. Peru is a magnificent country. If operations begin without a thought to the environment, whole landscapes may be destroyed there and waterways essential to the life of the country may be rerouted.

My concerns are real. I am even more concerned when I think of Peru, because we can see the agreement was negotiated on the sly. They do not want to give us information. They keep everything hidden. We do not know how it will be operated. We also see that only Bloc and NDP members are interested in discussing the matter.

We are really on the wrong track. This is 2009. There is a worldwide economic crisis to overcome. It affects these countries too. It is having a huge impact on them. In addition, we are running the risk of destroying what little they have managed to build over the years, in terms of the environment and labour with the help of NGOs and in terms of drinking water, culture and agricultural development. If we come lumbering in and destroy all that, there will be nothing left. We will have to live with the horror of saying it is our fault. It is in fact the fault of the Conservative government, not of the Bloc. Unfortunately, there are not enough of us to defeat this agreement and renegotiate it more intelligently. The Conservative government will have to take the flack.

We can imagine the impression this will leave internationally. We can imagine what people will think of Canada and what these so-called will voluntary measures will do to our international reputation.

Of course, we will oppose this agreement. I sincerely hope that this people does not suffer from the mismanagement of the Conservative government, which is sending mining companies to develop there unrestricted.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague in the Bloc a question. Free trade agreements are usually negotiated by and for the rich. We have a good example of that here in Canada with the softwood lumber agreement negotiated with the United States. Rich Americans got everything and we lost $1 million. John Deere, another very profitable company, is in Mexico now.

I would like to ask my colleague from the Bloc whether it would be worthwhile sending this bill to committee or whether the House of Commons should just immediately vote it down.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are at third reading, and at this stage, a bill cannot be sent back to committee or amended any more. There is nothing more we can do. We have reached the end. We can only talk about it here in the House and make people aware of what our position is. We are boxed in and our hands are tied. Nothing more can be done, other than to inform the people listening to us about what is happening.

We get information from our fellow citizens. We are currently getting postcards on the free trade agreement with Peru. There is a large Peruvian community in my riding that is very aware of this issue. I have received telephone calls telling me how concerned they are about the free trade agreement because it does not contain any measures on respect for the environment, human rights or labour rights.

Thus, we are at third reading and we are stuck with this bill. We have to vote for or against it. We have decided to vote against it and the NDP will certainly adhere to the same position. It is our task to show that the Conservative government and the Liberals, who will vote in favour, are making a monumental mistake by voting for such a poorly written agreement.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her remarks and especially on her sensitivity to the situation that could arise. The agreement that has been signed does not make it possible to force Canadian companies that invest in Peru to improve their records on labour rights and the environment. Companies that are globalizing their investments obviously think Peru is more profitable than Canada. These profits will often be derived from working conditions and the environment, especially in the case of mining companies or oil and gas operations.

The government needs to be sent back now to do its homework. Therefore, we should vote against this implementing legislation. We should also ask the Liberals not to be two-faced and to uphold the values they are really most attached to if they want to return to power some day. If they want to return to power, they really should abide by those values.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague. One cannot speak from both sides of the mouth at the same time. One cannot talk about environmental protection on one hand, and then accept an agreement as badly written as this one. The Liberals should do their homework. If they vote with us against the bill, the agreement will be rejected. If they vote for the bill, they will have the shameful task of defending their position later on. I find their position appalling because they will destroy instead of building.

Of course, when multinationals and mining companies go into countries like Peru, they should contribute to the improvement of the population's standard of living. Oftentimes, that is not what we see because people in those countries do not have the means they need to defend themselves. In this case, the agreement does not give them those means. There will be only voluntary measures. That is unacceptable and it must be denounced. A great many of us will vote against the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke eloquently about the government's claims and about the effects of this so-called free trade agreement. In fact, the government claims that the agreement will improve the economic situation of Peruvians. However, as the member clearly said, poverty is rampant in Peru. Only improvements in workers' rights could eventually raise the development level of the country.

Does the member see in the agreement any single measure that could guarantee Peruvian workers some rights that could lead to economic development and improve their economic condition? I would also like to know how she reacted when she learned, as all hon. members in this House should know, that the Peruvian government even refused to respect its own signature on the International Labour Organization treaty. In other words, the government of Peru already reneged on past commitments aimed at guaranteeing the rights of the workers. Does the agreement include measures to prevent that from happening again or will it perpetuate the problem we see with the Peruvian government refusing to recognize the rights of the workers?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this will simply perpetuate the problem and the situation will get worse. It cannot improve, particularly when there has already been a signature opposing labour rights.

Imagine that a union tries to organize in Peru to protect mine workers, when the government has already refused to sign. At present there is absolutely nothing in this agreement to allow a union, an environmental group or any group that would be good for the country to take action and speak out against what is going on. They could have some power to respond and to make the company engaging in misconduct respond.

It is a waste of time from the outset. It is too bad. It is sad to see, but that is the decision made by the Conservative government, supported by the Liberals. We will remind them of it in the election campaign. Have no fear about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but listen to the member's response, saying that this is a decision of the Conservative government. This is a decision of the democratically elected governments of Canada and the democratically elected government of Peru.

The sadness here is the Bloc member, who claims to support democracy, standing in this House and saying that even though two governments have come to a decision on trade, the Bloc members will vote it down and disrespect that decision.

As we see historically with free trade agreements, when Canadian companies go into other countries they raise the bar and provide jobs. What I am hearing from that member and other members in the House is that they immediately start to disrespect Canadian companies that have a wonderful reputation around the world by saying that our companies are out there exploiting people in these other countries, which is entirely disrespectful.

What does the member have against Canadian companies and Quebec companies going out into the world to provide jobs for people and raise their standard of living? Why do the Bloc members not respect the democratic right of these countries to make trade agreements in order to raise the bar for all citizens involved?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, they were democratically elected. I understand that quite well, but they are a minority. As long as they are a minority, that is how it will be. We will always have our say, and I too was democratically elected here to this House,just like all the members from all parties. I think we do not need to keep bringing that up.

We have nothing against the companies, except that we know, and we have the evidence, that there are problems with Canadian mining companies all over the world. They have engaged in bad exploitation.

Why is there nothing in this free trade agreement with Peru about requirements to avoid these situations? On the contrary: preference is given to adopting voluntary measures, well never mind that, just say openly that you are going to exploit.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow my colleague for Rivière-du-Nord and her learned presentation. We share many of the concerns raised by my colleague. This is the second time today I have spoken to an issue brought forward by my colleague for Rivière-du-Nord. She is having a very illustrious day in the House of Commons today.

The position of the NDP has always been that we are not opposed to free trade providing that it is fair trade. We sounded the alarm in the 1980s when the first free trade agreement was introduced. We cautioned people that the globalization of capital was not some force of nature, that it was not like gravity or the conservation of mass. This is a choice made by nation-states on behalf of corporations. The free trade agreement and the NAFTA became like a charter of rights and freedoms for corporations to move freely and override the sovereignty of nation-states.

What we cautioned then, we continue to caution today, which is that there is an erosion of sovereignty associated with the free trade agreements that we have entered into so frequently and freely since the early 1980s when the first FTA was put into effect.

Mr. Speaker, you know that I am a socialist and a trade unionist and you should also know that I am a fiercely proud Canadian nationalist. As such, on all of those fronts, we are dedicated to a multilateral point of view. We are dedicated to elevating the standards of wages and working conditions for people all over the world, not just for Canadian workers but for the international movement of workers' rights. The international solidarity of workers' rights is alive and well. In fact, it is the free trade agreements entered into so freely by nation-states around the world that have revitalized the importance of workers coming together through their free trade unions, where such free trade unions are allowed, and through the international plenary umbrella of international organizations of those unions.

It seems that we alone are standing to try and caution people about the predictable consequences of some of the causes associated with what are called free trade agreements, such as the one we are contemplating today.

The international trade critic for the NDP, my colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster, has been a tireless champion of these issues. Again, this is not to be negative and try to criticize the concept of freer trade, tearing down barriers to trade or some of the non-tariff barriers to trade. Granted, we want the free movement of capital and of goods and services. We even want the free movement of people around the world. However, we also suggest that when there is the globalization of capital there must also be the globalization of labour rights, human rights and environmental standards. We want to harmonize at the highest common denominator, not the lowest, and that has been the actual empirical evidence in many of the free trade agreements that we have now had the luxury of time to study.

The old yarn put forward by the neo-Conservative movement that a rising tide lifts all boats, is not in fact true. If our boat has a hole in it, it does not rise with the tide. It simply stays down. We watched this movement propel itself around the world and, frankly, capitalism does not had a very good name lately.

When I announce that I am a socialist, I guess it is no surprise because we are all socialists now. We just bought General Motors. I always thought that one of the signs of the apocalypse would be when General Motors went bankrupt. Is that not when the four horsemen appear on the horizon and there is darkness at the break of noon when GM goes bankrupt?