Debates of Oct. 20th, 2010

Canada-Panama Free Trade Act

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

Madam Speaker, we need to ensure that they are of benefit to Canadian citizens.

A member across is asking when is the last time a New Democrat agreed to a trade agreement. We have not because we do not see a benefit to Canadians. Often we are accused of just opposing things. We have actually had some proposals about what trade agreements should look like. New Democrats talk about fair trade, not free trade. I want to talk about a couple of those elements, because they are absent from this agreement.

New Democrats believe that a trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade. Equitable trade is an important aspect of any agreement.

We also believe there are a number of overall strategies that should be in place when we are looking at trade agreements. These include a comprehensive, common-sense impact assessment on all international agreements which demonstrates that trade deals that Canada negotiates are beneficial to Canadian families, workers and industries. The government should not sign any trade agreement that would lead to a net job loss. I referenced the softwood lumber agreement earlier and the impact that has had on jobs in our communities from coast to coast to coast.

Trade agreements that Canada negotiates should support Canada's sovereignty and freedom to chart its own policy, support our ability to be a competitive force on the world stage, and support the principles of a multilateral, fair trade system. Of course with these trade agreements and what is happening with foreign takeovers of our industries, that kind of impact assessment simply is not happening, especially around the issue of sovereignty.

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

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

There are other elements that we propose are important to any fair trade agreement. We simply find that the agreements that come before the House do not include those elements.

This Panama bilateral free trade agreement has four components: free market access in goods and services, investment protection, labour protection and an agreement on the environment. The labour protection agreement and the agreement on the environment are side agreements. They are not even incorporated into the trade agreement.

I want to touch on three aspects of this because I only have a brief period of time.

Regarding labour co-operation, we have seen this in other agreements. Under the Colombia free trade agreement, we saw what was being characterized as pay a fine, kill a trade unionist. In Colombia, we have certainly seen continuing violence against trade union members.

When we look at the Panama free trade agreement, we see that it is going to make it easier for Canadian and foreign corporations to flout Canadian labour laws, to pay their workers in Panama an average wage of about $2 an hour, and not have to pay for pension or sick leave benefits.

In Canada, we have laws that protect workers. We have some minimum standards. I think many of us are concerned about the erosion of some of those standards. We only need to look at what is happening with private sector pensions in Canada, but workers in Panama simply do not have access to the same level of benefits as in Canada, nor is there anything in this agreement that would ensure that workers in Panama would not be subjected to conditions that we would simply find intolerable here.

The labour co-operation agreement within the Panama free trade agreement does not have any vigorous enforcement mechanisms. As I mentioned, this is a very similar template to what was used in the Colombia free trade agreement. Because there are not these kinds of protections, that should be of concern to this House. In the Colombia free trade agreement, there had been a recommendation made for a full study on any kind of human rights violations before we proceeded with that agreement, and that did not happen.

It is the same thing with the side agreement on the environment. It has no effective mechanism to force Canada or Panama to respect environmental rights. The agreement commits both countries to pursue environmental co-operation and to work to improve their environmental laws and policies, but it can only ask both parties to enforce their domestic laws, and if they do so, there are very few remedies if they violate their own laws.

I would argue that what we have here is an agreement which, if Canadians truly understood both the labour and the environmental aspects of it, they would be saying not to sign onto it.

A number of other members have touched on the issue of tax havens. I am going to raise that issue as well because the government says it is going to crack down on tax havens and yet we are signing onto a free trade agreement with a country that has a notorious reputation for being a tax haven. I want to touch on a couple of aspects around tax havens and the investor portion of it.

The trade deal does not provide investors or labour with a level playing field. While under chapter 11 investors have the right to seek binding arbitration, they can pursue independently a trade union in Panama that does not get to pursue a case to arbitration. They can file a complaint that would lead to an investigation report, but it is up to the government to seek remedies and damages. I mention that because chapter 11 has been a serious problem for us and we feel that this is another way of simply brushing some of the issues under the carpet.

Other members have talked about the opposition in the United States to this free trade agreement. When members of the U.S. Congress speak out quite vocally, it is important for us to pay attention.

In a letter signed by two members of Congress in April 2009, they indicated that Panama's industrial policy is premised on obtaining a comparative advantage by banning taxation of foreign corporations, hiding tax liabilities and transactions behind banking secrecy rules and the ease with which U.S. and other firms can create unregulated subsidiaries.

According to the state department, Panama has over 350,000 foreign registered companies. We can almost guarantee that those are shells that allow the flow-through of money to avoid taxation in the countries where those companies actually operate. The member for Elmwood—Transcona mentioned that AIG is very keen on these tax havens in Panama, and we heard about the court cases and whatnot that are unfolding.

An article on the Dow Jones Newswires says that tax haven questions could trip up the Panama trade pact. It says that the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, listed Panama as one of the 30 tax haven jurisdictions that have committed to international standards on bank secrecy but have not yet substantially implemented those standards. The member for Elmwood—Transcona mentioned that there are eight countries that now have agreements with Panama. But, as usual, the devil is in the details.

With its track record, its history of secrecy, its unwillingness to supply information, one would wonder why at this point we would be willing to sign an agreement without some of those guarantees, some of that transparency and accountability that the Conservative government always references being in place to protect Canadians and Canadian companies.

New Democrats will be opposing Bill C-46, and I think with very good reason. We encourage other members in the House to take a close look at some of the flaws in this agreement.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan packed a lot into a short amount of time and pointed out some of the ideological flaws that exist. I want to ask her about a specific one.

She talked about the tax havens. I would like her to bring this home to what the impact on average Canadians might be if this trade agreement were to go ahead, if Panama were to maintain these shell corporations that evade taxes here in Canada while making their profits here in Canada and other countries. What would be the implications for working Canadians, for governments and for our economy to sign a so-called deal with the devil, as they say, sign a deal with a party that is a known violator of international tax laws and the trade deal does little or nothing to correct that? What would be the impact on Canadian families if Canada were to go ahead with this flawed agreement?

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things that often gets lost in these conversations is what it is our taxes pay for. Not only do Canadian families benefit from taxes that are paid in this country, whether it is good schools, education, health care or roads, the TransCanada Highway, but corporations also benefit from taxes that are paid in this country.

When corporations pay their fair share of taxes in this country, they get an educated workforce. They get people who go to kindergarten through grade 12, graduate and go on to universities, which are also publicly supported. They get access to workers who have access to a publicly funded, publicly delivered health care system. They get access to the roads and, let us face it, municipal infrastructure which is also supported through federal tax dollars with various agreements that are put in place.

We need to turn this conversation around and talk about the corporations that are avoiding their responsibilities, getting a free ride in Canada by getting access to benefits that the rest of Canadians are paying for through their tax dollars and they are not contributing their fair share to the upkeep and maintenance of our infrastructure. We need to be putting hard questions to those corporations that are evading their tax responsibilities in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that Germany and France have actually been collecting a lot of the back taxes from the people who have been investing in these tax havens.

France showed us how to do it. France got its black list together of 18 countries, and scared the companies. France levied a tax of 50% on dividends, interest, royalties and service fees paid to anyone based in France to a beneficiary based in the country on its blacklist, including Panama. What France did is it scared its own companies. France was taxing them right at the source.

No one, that I know of, has ever done that before. Look at the results. Panama rushed over and signed an agreement, exactly what they wanted. Panama signed a double-taxation avoidance treaty with France in the last few months, and now eight countries are on board. That is how to get action.

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

Madam Speaker, I would argue that responsible government is about making sure that people are paying their fair share, that people are making sure that somebody is not getting a free ride.

I talked earlier about the benefits to Canadians and to corporations when everybody pays their fair share of taxes. One of the benefits they get is a qualified workforce. A qualified workforce includes first nations, and I know that first nations often come up as a topic of discussion because they are the labour force of the future.

Just imagine if those corporations were paying their fair share of taxes and children on reserve and off reserve were getting access to an education that was equal to other Canadians. Looking to the future, 15 or 20 years from now, those young aboriginal kids would be the future employees of these corporations. That is being responsible corporate citizens. That is paying their fair share of taxes to make sure that their legacy and their workforce is available.

There are examples of other countries making sure that they are collecting those taxes. Canada should look to some of those other models.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter this debate today to talk about the proposed trade deal between Canada and Panama, our neighbour to the south. It is an interesting and engaging debate, because it brings up philosophical differences between the progressive politics of the New Democrats and the anti-progressive politics of the Conservatives, when it comes to approaching trade negotiations with other countries.

It is worthy of note that New Democrats have supported fair trade deals throughout our history. We have empowered governments to say that they must trade in the world. We are a trading nation, but we must trade on terms that are ethically and morally correct, in the eyes of contemporary and future Canadians. A trade relationship with another country is an opportunity to share values, to exchange the best of both countries in the way of products, ideas, management of markets, responsible extraction of resources, and protection of the rights of workers.

We have a government in office that is interested in any trade deal, as opposed to a good one. It crows over the number of deals it has made or has in progress. However, I would suggest that a bad deal is worse than no deal at all. This can be true for both sides.

All the government seems to be interested in doing is ticking another number off on the trade-deal front. It goes into negotiations with the notion that we will make a trade deal, regardless of the terms or the net benefits to Canadians, and ignoring the grievances that will be caused to people on the other side of the deal, in this case the Panamanians.

There is a philosophy underpinning this approach. It says that any trade deal will automatically bring greater democracy and accountability to the trading nation, particularly if it is a country like Panama, which has suffered for many years under various dictatorships and foreign influences. We saw the episode with Noriega. We saw the U.S. influence through its corporate lobby pressure, using the CIA and whatnot, and the ripple effect that occurred throughout Central America.

I have worked in Panama and in various surrounding countries, and one can see the erosion of democracy at a foundational level when outside countries exert irresponsible influence. Panama, having recovered somewhat from this, still struggles with some of the basic principles of transparency and accountability.

In that regard, it shares a lot of similarities with the current Conservative government. It agrees that accountability might be dangerous for the sitting regime, it does not call ministers to account, and it feels that allegations of corruption should remain allegations, without any actual investigation. Perhaps this is why it has been able to march in step to a trade deal that does not address some of the most fundamental values of Canadians. I will go into some of them.

It is important for members to keep in mind the real impacts on constituents and working people. As a trading nation, we should always seek the most favourable terms for ourselves and our trading partner.

We must also seek terms that align with our own values and beliefs, not just the belief in trade. That is a fine and noble principle, but it is also important to leave the planet a little better than we found it. If one is part of a labour union, one's life should not be on the line. Fair wages for an honest day's work should be a principle embedded in every government policy.

We have fought and struggled for these principles in this country. Sometimes these struggles have resulted in protests, violence, and great disruption to our national fabric, but we have come out the other end. We still have many struggles to go. Pay equity is a fantastic example: working women still earn only 78¢ for every dollar a man earns doing the same job. These are struggles we must face and counter. I would suggest the current government has not devoted enough time to issues like this.

First nations, mentioned earlier by my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan, are still living in conditions of poverty that no Canadian, regardless of political background, should accept. We have much work to do together.

However, when we engage in trade, when we engage in the effort to deal with another country and export the best of ourselves, our ideas, our products, our innovations, and our industries, this benefits us and the country we are dealing with as well.

For the riding I represent in northwestern British Columbia, trade is inherent in who we are and what we do. From time immemorial, the first nations of our region have traded across the continent and in fact around the world. Just this past weekend I was at a celebration of the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Tahltan Declaration at Telegraph Creek, British Columbia. One of the issues that came up and was celebrated was that the obsidian arrowheads the Tahltan people have made for thousands of years have been found in Africa, Europe, and South America, traded hundreds and hundreds of years ago.

It is a natural orientation for us in the northwest. We have things that other people want. But the principle was always that we would never degrade our own environment, our own quality of life, to enable that trade. We certainly would not want to export misery and enable other places to do harm to their people through our trade. Whether we were trading fish, arrowheads, or modern minerals, the companies and the communities that I represent seek to have a true net benefit, putting people to work in our region, putting food on the table and allowing good things to happen, while enabling other countries to receive the benefit of any technological improvements.

We have come to a strange and unusual moment in the international trading market. Prince Rupert, British Columbia, for example, has been the hub of fish processing for many decades. But now we are seeing job after job lost. Fish caught in British Columbia waters are put in freezer trucks, transported on highways to another port, put on freezer ships to China, processed there, then put back on a ship and sent back to us, to be sold at 15 or 20 times the original value. Somehow, the government says this is the rational market at work. It says this is the way things ought to be: a fish steak eaten in Prince Rupert and caught 50 kilometres away goes around the world to get back to our plate. It is a kind of insanity, and it leads us to a degraded, unsustainable world. The local impacts are significant and serious.

For the mining sector, which is now undergoing a renewal in my part of the world, exploration rates are through the roof, and companies are spending more and more money seeking out those minerals. We have seen an evolution from within the mining sector itself, brought about by companies that 50 years ago maybe did not do such a great job. They left behind mines that polluted, and they treated the local first nation population with disrespect, not hiring locally as much as they should have. These companies are now signing protocol agreements with first nations. They are co-operating in revenue-sharing streams, giving guarantees of local hiring, and adopting environmental standards that go far beyond the the weak and watered-down regulations that the government has provided. These companies have come to realize that the social licence to operate is critical.

In these trade deals, there is social licence to operate. There is a social test that we have to put these deals through. We must ask governments in this trade deal and the previous ones if they are willing to commit the deal to measurement. They say these deals will open up labour markets. They say they will improve working conditions and will not degrade the environment. If they are so confident, they ought to be able to specify environmental and labour standards in the agreement itself, rather than in side agreements, and measure compliance with those standards. We need to see the before and after. Show us the benefit. Are they willing to commit to that type of accountability, that type of transparency? Of course not. That is a shame and it brings great suspicion on the deal itself.

If it is so great for the labour community in Panama, if it is so great for the environment of Panama, if it is so certain that nothing bad will come out of this, then let us measure it. If we cannot measure something, we cannot manage it. Certainly, the government is not interested in abiding by any of these principles, which I believe are fundamental Canadian values. When a government operates outside the values of the country it represents, then that government is not capable of making good deals. This is certainly not a good deal.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could comment on this: I remember a time when the argument for NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, was that it would lift people in the developing country out of poverty. Contrary to that, what we saw was an exploitation of these same people. Young men and women worked in factories, manufacturing clothing or car parts, and they were paid so little that they could not afford to buy the very clothing they were making. They were compelled to send their own children to work at an age that would make most of us very concerned.

What occurred was child labour and taking advantage of young people: many of the people subject to this kind of exploitation were young women. These free trade agreements did not help the people who were struggling. I wonder if my colleague would comment on the young people, the workers of Panama.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the tragedy is that trade deals like NAFTA could have helped. There was an opportunity available to a previous Conservative government to put into the deal something that would result in a net benefit to both sides, to the working people of Mexico, the United States, and Canada. Instead, we saw the operation of the maquiladoras just across the border in Mexico continue at a rampant pace.

We should ask the Americans how the border is doing these days. One of the promises of NAFTA was that illegal immigration would go from a flood to a trickle after the signing of NAFTA. The Americans are building a massive fence along the border. The problems are maintained because, when we have bad trade deals, we do not actually affect the foundational problems of an economy. The foundations within the Mexican economy encourage people to leave, because they are exploited ruthlessly in some of these factories, and much of this exploitation is directed at women and children.

“Women and children first” was the old patriarchal slogan. It was not meant this way. It did not mean they could line up first for the exploitative jobs. But that is what happens, and it happens time and time again. Will it happen in Panama? Absolutely. We have seen it in NAFTA, and we saw it in the so-called softwood trade deal. It was supposed to be a benefit.

This week I will be in Bella Coola. They have virtually lost their entire forestry sector, in part because of the softwood lumber deal. Now they are also under floods and in a state of emergency, compounding the troubles the community is going through. But they are resilient. They are willing to work and they want to work. They want to work in the things that they know how to do, which is producing the resources the world wants. But they need a government that is a partner and a supporter of small resource communities across Canada. They built the country, for goodness' sake, and government after government has allowed them to erode and die slowly, town by town. That has to stop. These trade deals compound on one another. They do not achieve enough benefit for either us or our trading partners. They help only the few, the rich. It has to stop.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Etobicoke North, the Environment; the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, International Aid.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sudbury.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-46, which would implement a bilateral free trade agreement with Panama.

As we do with all free trade legislation, I along with my NDP colleagues have carefully examined the details of this bill. We need to ensure that any free trade agreement we sign is progressive, that it looks closely at the treatment of labour activists and equality for women and minority groups, and that it contains provisions for environmental protection.

Unfortunately, this free trade agreement with Panama falls short on the protection of labour activists. While there are provisions for labour protection, there is no means with which to enforce this part of the treaty. It seems that the provision is there to placate critics without trying to accurately tackle the issue.

This is a real issue in Panama. July saw a massive crackdown on union members and labour leaders in Panama. New legislation was brought forward by the government, which limited the rights of workers to strike and even their freedom of association, including provisions to jail for up to two years any workers taking their protests to the streets.

These are rights that are enshrined in article 23 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and in the declaration of the fundamental principles and rights at work of the International Labour Organization. Yet the Government of Panama seems happy to trample on 60 years of international law.

If this were not bad enough, when the citizens took to the streets to legitimately and democratically highlight their opposition to this legislation, the government reacted violently. More than 100 protesters were injured, some fatally, and more than 300 protesters were jailed, including the leaders of the SUNTRACS and CONATO trade unions.

The government is clearly not committed to the rights of organized labour, and its violent reaction to the protest shows that a toothless labour provision is simply not enough. If this government were serious about the labour protection, then this free trade act would have a real means to enforce the labour provisions. Without it, the provisions are worthless.

When considering this free trade agreement with Panama, we must also look at Panama's tax code. Panama is recognized both by international bodies like the OECD and by other countries as a tax haven. Tax havens allow large corporations and rich individuals in Canada to shelter their income from the government and avoid paying the tax they owe the government.

While thousands of Canadians are struggling to pay their bills, I cannot understand why this government would try to ratify a free trade agreement with a country that is allowing people and corporations to evade paying their taxes. Let us not mince words here. Those people who are avoiding paying these taxes are stealing from the average hard-working Canadian.

This government, which claims to be tough on crime, is happy to have different rules for these high-earning criminals than for the average Canadian. It claims it wants to crack down on tax evaders, but while it talks the talk, it certainly does not walk the walk.

When the government got the names of Canadians illegally sheltering funds in Europe, it offered them a voluntary disclosure program, which is nothing more than a partial tax amnesty. Sure, they had to pay some interest and penalties to the CRA, but these are not people who accidentally filed their taxes incorrectly. These are people who purposely hid money from the government for the explicit reason of avoiding paying taxes. This is not a mistake. It is criminal intent.

If someone steals a TV from your home, the police do not just get them to return the TV and give you ten bucks for your trouble. This is effectively what the government did to these tax evaders. It was an economic slap on the wrist maybe, but certainly it was very lenient punishment. They certainly were not treated like the typical criminal would be.

It is not just that this free trade agreement does not try to put in place a provision to deal with the shelter of income from the government. It is also that the free trade agreement will undoubtedly create additional loopholes, which will be exploited so that even more income is sheltered offshore.

Think of what we could do with the extra tax revenue, which we are not already losing. How can the government tell people that it cannot afford to cut the federal tax from home heating or increase payments to pensioners when it is happy to sign off on a free trade agreement that allows for so many individuals and corporations to avoid paying taxes?

The bill points to an increasingly worrying trend where the government is trying to hollow out the role of the state. It is happy to allow foreign takeovers without really studying the effects on the communities that are affected.

Look at the year-long strike that took place in my great city of Sudbury after the Conservatives approved the sale of Inco to Vale. The government refused to step in and protect the members of USW Local 6500 and the whole community, which also suffered.

When the strike was over, it loaned Vale $1 billion. Now the government is making it easier for corporations and individuals to avoid paying tax by sheltering their money illegally in Panama, and it will then use lower tax revenues as an excuse to cut important state services.

The bill does nothing to support hard-working individuals in Canada or in Panama. In fact it undermines them, in Canada by cutting the federal tax revenue and in Panama by giving the government international credibility on labour issues when it is violently and undemocratically cracking down on union members.

The bill is an insult to anyone who works hard and pays taxes while rich individuals and corporations avoid their responsibilities.

This is why I will not be supporting the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for an excellent presentation on the bill.

The fact of the matter is that no fewer than 54 United States congressmen have demanded that President Obama forgo the agreement with Panama until Panama has signed the tax information exchange treaties, which by the way, France got in short order when it started taxing the French corporations that were part of the 350,000 that are operating in Panama.

The fact of the matter is that the Americans also know Panama is a tax haven. In fact the justice department of the United States says that Panama is a major conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers. Therefore it is not only a tax haven like we are normally used to but it is also a conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers, says the U.S. justice department, and money laundering activities. I do not know how much worse it can get.

Surely the government would not want to be associating with and helping to facilitate drug traffickers and money launderers when it purports to be tough on crime. Obviously when it comes to white collar crime it is very soft on crime.

The Prime Minister is off to Switzerland with cap in hand to talk to the Swiss prime minister about getting information on our people hiding money in tax havens. We give amnesty. That is how we treat people who cheat on taxes.

Yet the French government simply took the bull by the horns, got a list of 18 tax havens in the world and brought in tough tax regulations on its own companies. That caused them to start putting pressure on the Panamanians who were now going to lose business. When they saw they were going to lose business, guess what. They went to France and signed the agreement. There are eight agreements signed now just in the last few months, and Canada is not one of them.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's question brings to mind the year-long strike we just had in my community of Sudbury with Vale Inco.

What it brings to mind is that, if we go back 40 to 50 years, we remember that the steel workers were actually out demonstrating in the streets. And they just did this; the steel workers just did this over the duration of that strike. To see what happened in Panama when the government violently cracked down on striking workers, it sends fear to think what would be happening here.

Fortunately we have been able to advance, but we need to be able to support countries like Panama to be able to advance, to move forward so people can democratically protest in the street.

We need to be progressive when we are looking at fair trade agreements. The point that my hon. colleague brought up is that this agreement is not fair. It is an open door to almost anything, tax havens and so on. There are not enough protections in the agreement for the environment; there are not at all enough protections for labour activists; and we need to continue to make sure there are protections in it for women's rights and minority groups.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I was wondering why, in a period of economic recovery, the NDP is so opposed to free trade and helping Canadian businesses and families succeed. This trade agreement will actually eliminate tariffs on 90% of the products that we ship to Panama. This will help agriculture. This will help forestry. This will help the business sector grow and expand. It will help families have jobs. In fact, in the pulp and paper industry I understand that 30% more can go into Panama once this deal goes through.

Why would those members be opposed to that? It just blows my mind. I wonder if the member could explain that.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, here is something that will help continue to blow the member's mind.

We are talking about fair trade, fair trade to ensure environmental protections, fair trade to ensure rights for labour activists and women's groups and minority groups. We can continue to trade.

My hon. colleague talked about the agreements that France has signed with Panama. Has the government even asked Panama to look at those similar types of agreements? Or does it just say that it is an open-door policy, so Panama can shoot and kill labour activists and destroy the environment, we can sell a few more pigs and that is great? Farmers in my community have told me they do not want blood on their hands, if we are looking at trading with places like Colombia and Panama.

The important thing we need to do here is ensure that we talk about fair trade.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleagues this afternoon to speak to this bill, a bill that is us causing some real concern.

New Democrats have a tremendous interest in everything fair and just. I do not see much fairness and justice in moving ahead holus bolus in the way we are. We have seen so many free trade agreements come before the House in these last few months. This is another in a series of agreements that the government has chosen to aggressively move toward signing, without really considering the long-term and short-term ramifications to workers, the environment and particularly to the people of Panama, as we challenge them to live up to some of the international accords and agreements that so many countries have signed, such as the environment, the rights of workers and that kind of thing.

I spoke on the Colombia free trade agreement not that long ago. I will make some of the same arguments tonight that I made then because it is not that dissimilar an agreement to the one in front of us.

Canada is entering into an arrangement with a country that has a questionable track record with regard to looking after its workers, protecting the rights of workers to organize and protecting the environment. Not to speak of the impact that all of this will have on the domestic economy of Canada, which is what we should be most concerned about right now.

Across Canada we are working hard in community after community, with provinces doing their bit. However, the federal government in many ways is missing in action, because it is so focused on these kinds of initiatives.

We are pulling ourselves out of the recession and are trying to find ways to create work, get people back to work and get our own local domestic economy in place. We need to rebuild communities that have been challenged, threatened and shattered so badly.

The collapse of the global economy and the financial system was in many ways affected by the rush of countries, like Canada, the United States and others around the world, to deregulate and get into global trading in a way that was not well thought out. In doing that, they forgot that the end result of anything we do, in terms of an economy and trading and work, should benefit people, communities and the country.

The free trade agreements all started by the late 1980s, early 1990s when Brian Mulroney and his government of the day delivered the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Then we saw the Jean Chrétien-Paul Martin Liberal government come into power. We thought it would revisit and rethink some of this and in fact sit down with our partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement and fix some of the obvious shortcomings. However, it did not do that. It did more, from right-wing ideology point of view, to fast-track free trade, not only with the United States but with Mexico as well.

In doing so, it got us into a vortex that has seen the lives of working men and women in Canada become less and less valued. The standard of living has been reduced. The amount of money being spent on programs to support people has been reduced significantly. The role of government has been questioned and reduced.

If we are to continue down the road of free trade agreements, and particularly in this instance of a free trade agreement with a country of questionable labour practices, we end up with is a local domestic economy in Canada that is less than it has the potential to be.

In the mid-nineties and into the late-nineties, Paul Martin moved to deal aggressively with a deficit and tried to create an environment in Canada that was more conducive to this free trade regime. As he began to see the result of that deficit fighting, the program cutting, the government reduction and an improving economy, instead of rethinking that approach to public life in Canada and reinstating some of the programs and money that flowed to provinces and municipalities to support people, he began to give huge corporate tax breaks.

We were told and bought into a way of thinking that we could reduce government spending, which is another way of speaking about reducing deficit because all governments have a deficit and they keep it in balance with the GDP, et cetera. However, as we reduce government spending and the role of government in the public life of a country and as we deregulate more and more industry and reduce the amount of taxes coming in through business and corporations, a number of things begin to happen. One is the government loses its ability to intervene, to be helpful and to support the people that it is elected to serve. However, the thinking is if we do that, we make ourselves more attractive to foreign investment. That is why we can then sign on to more of these free trade agreements. People want to come here and take advantage of some of the human resources and natural resources that are available to us in Canada. However, the rules that attend these free trade agreements are not necessarily in the best interests of the people in the jurisdiction in which the agreement is being implemented.

For example, I was up in the Northwest Territories two weeks ago at a poverty conference. People from every community across those territories gathered in Yellowknife to speak about poverty. Two members of the legislative assembly in the Northwest Territories moved a motion to introduce an anti-poverty strategy, something that six other provinces have done.

In developing this strategy and looking at the needs of the people they are trying to serve and trying to improve the lot of citizens in the communities that they work in, they are turning to their provincial governments. The provincial governments in turn, as they roll out their anti-poverty strategies, are looking to the federal government for involvement, to be engaged, to give leadership, to come to the table and provide resources.

However, the federal government is saying that it does not have the money because it has a huge deficit to deal with now because of the collapse of the economy and the difficulty in the financial world. The government of the day is putting together a plan to deal with the deficit that will be in keeping with the track record we have seen over the last 10 to 15 years our country.

Before we do anything else, before any other priority, including dealing with poverty, we have to ensure we are creating a climate—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. member for York South—Weston.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to what my colleague was saying. I was very interested in the case study with respect to the Northwest Territories and its legislature in developing an anti-poverty strategy. Surely he would agree that an anti-poverty strategy in an underdeveloped or developing economy is creating jobs.

If this treaty creates jobs, and there are protections in side agreements with respect to civil rights issues, human rights issues and the rights of employees, would he agree that the climate he was just starting to allude to is the kind of climate that we need to set an example of with fair trade between ourselves and developing economies? It is good for the economies of those countries and ours if it is fairly done.

Would he agree that this is the kind of climate we want to create and that this legislation is an attempt to take albeit a modest step in that direction, but one that will trickle down and benefit the people in Panama?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, that question allows me to finish my thought.

If we are talking fair trade, I have no problem. I do not think anybody on this side of the House in the New Democrat caucus has any problem with fair trade. The problem is with the kinds of trade agreements we are and have been entering into.

The environment we seem to be creating is causing poverty like we have not seen for a long time, particularly following the collapse in the financial world over the last two years. We are trying to make Canada attractive to foreign investment to the detriment of the people of Canada.

The thinking is this. If we reduce corporate taxes, which takes money out of government coffers, reduce government spending and cut programs, then we become more attractive to foreign investors that we want to take advantage of our resources. This is what in many ways then creates the lack of resources we need to deal with some of the very difficult challenges that poverty presents in places like the Northwest Territories. That is the point I am making.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, could the member answer the following questions?

I understand in part what he is saying, but it does not seem to compute. Does he not see this as a good first step for the people of Panama and Canada? How does it help the people of Panama if we do not remove artificial barriers, if Canadians do not buy their products, if Panama is not able to sell its products here? How does it help the people of Canada if they do not have more choices, if they cannot buy more products and sell more products to Panama? I just do not understand how this does it. Could the member answer those questions?

Also, would he mind answering the question that is on the minds of most Canadians? New Democrats are using a type of technicality to thwart the democratic will of the people of Canada and the majority of members in the House. Could he answer why NDP members are so anti-democratic and why they do not want to help the people of Canada, farmers in particular, and the people of Panama?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, does he not feel I have a democratic right to stand in this place and make my case on behalf of the people who elect me? If that is not democratic, then I guess we could have further discussion about that.

He asked a question about the people of Panama. Certainly the NDP has a concern and interest in the welfare and well-being of the people of Panama. However, if we simply enter into agreements with it on trade without insisting on strong regulation where human rights are concerned, for example, the government of Panama will think it is fine to continue with the track record that it has shown over the last number of years such as trade unionists being killed simply for exercising the democratic rights that we take for granted in Canada.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to join the debate on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

It is a bit of a shock to see yet another trade agreement, especially with a country that represents about only 1% of our trade, but I will add my 2¢ nonetheless.

What we are being asked to approve is another in an ever-growing line of NAFTA-style agreements. These are agreements that promote what many call the race to the bottom, agreements that seek a level playing field which we are well aware is level for some, like investors, and lopsided for the rest of those affected by them.

I am sure that most in this chamber are familiar with the concerns New Democrats have been raising about these kinds of agreements. We have been consistent in our criticism of agreements that make a mockery of environmental standards and labour practices; fail to protect or promote human rights; entrench poverty in already struggling populations, just like we see here in Canada where a quarter of a million seniors live in poverty; and ultimately lead to a siphoning off of Canadian jobs.

Many of my colleagues have raised these very points again and again. Yet, they seem to fall on deaf ears as the ideologically-driven right wing cements a world that is defined by haves and have nots.

From my perspective, this deal is flawed. We are being asked to cozy up to a country with a terrible record when it comes to labour standards and the rights of workers. This is a country that has new legislation restricting the right to strike and freedom of association. In this country, Panama, this past summer we saw several workers killed, over 100 injured and more than 300 arrested as they protested the legislation. Is that what our government hopes to promote with this deal?

It is truly a step backward from the rights and freedoms fought for and enjoyed by Canadian workers.

It is all the more disappointing that labour is dealt with as a side agreement. It would be refreshing to see an agreement come about where human rights and labour standards are the primary goal and investor rights are dealt with as an afterthought. However, I do not imagine we will be seeing that any time soon from the current government.

What we see here is another in a long line of measures from the current government, and its predecessors, that pays attention to the needs of banks and CEOs at the expense of everyday people.

The current government likes to say the economy is its number one priority. I say it is too bad Canadians were not its number one priority. If that were the case, our trade policy would take a different shape. We would not have thousands of forestry sector workers unemployed. We would not be fighting foreign ownerships to honour pensions people worked their entire lives for, just as we saw in the case of Vale Inco. And we certainly would not be debating endless trade agreements that are not beneficial to most Canadians.

Ultimately, with this agreement we see that again all the meaningful regulations protect investors. If the NAFTA example is any indication, we will watch as money flows out of Canada in chapter 11-type dispute settlement payments. And if recent history is any indication, the government will not even bother to defend Canada when the claims are made.

If we take a look at the side agreement on the environment, it has no teeth. It does not ensure that Canada or Panama will enforce their environmental laws and this is worth considering. We actually have trouble enforcing the current environmental laws we have in place here in Canada.

A good portion of our trade with Panama would be in agriculture. The agreement would remove tariffs. If Panama were to follow the example of Brazil, we would be seeing a significant growth in cattle farming. Panama has some of the most important rainforests on the planet. It is not unreasonable to suspect that this agreement could lead to the destruction of these important cloud forests so that we could have cheap leather and burgers. This is why an environmental side agreement with no real teeth is such a disappointing feature of this agreement.

I do not think it is possible to overstate the fact that Panama is a tax haven and is largely uncooperative with other countries that would like to repatriate missing money.

We have just seen the kind of money that could be hidden from our tax collectors as a result of leaked documents from Swiss HSBC accounts. Why would we pursue a trade agreement with a country as notorious for this as Panama? Not only are we charging ahead with a deal that will mostly benefit large investors, but we will not even be demanding an end to the tax havens they can use to further avoid contributing to our country. It is enough to make one's head spin.

As I said at the outset, this agreement is typically that of a race to the bottom mentality that really does not address the needs of the average person.

I will leave it there because I am sure there will be questions that will need to be answered and I can present more of my speech afterwards if need be.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I actually have the same questions for this member that I had for the last one because they simply were not answered. Again I ask, is this trade agreement not a great first step for the people of Panama, a great first step for their ability to have the things we enjoy here in Canada, the great employment rights that we have, the right to speak our minds, and to have the democratic right to vote?

In this place we all want to have an opportunity to vote on this piece of legislation, except for the NDP members, but they are trying to use some sneaky tactic that is allowed in this place, and I agree to it, but it quite frankly allows a very small minority in this place, a very small number of people who represent a small number of people in Canada, compared to the rest of us, to actually hold up a piece of legislation that would help the rights of people in Panama.

It will actually allow the products of our farmers to be sold in Panama and it will help Canadians, Canadian trade, and the people of Panama. Certainly, the influence Canada has in the world will assist us to trade with Panama and help the people there.

I wonder if the member might answer that question and why we cannot have the democratic right to vote today.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member said the questions are not being answered. I think he is just not listening to the answers.

Why would we want to take on trade deals with people who actually kill trade unionists, who kill their workers? This is basically the same type of labour cooperation agreement, without any vigorous enforcement mechanism, the same template, that was used in the Canada-Colombia agreement: kill a trade unionists and pay a fine.

In the Canada-Peru FTA as well, the labour side agreement does not deliver an effective mechanism for the protection of labour rights. Once we see that, we will be glad to support fair trade agreements.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, the--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!