Mr. Speaker, as members will recall from my participation in the debate yesterday, one of the big concerns I have about this free trade agreement is that labour rights, in fact, are part of a side agreement only.
Earlier today I heard members of the government side say that this is all right; a side agreement is still part of this free trade deal, so all is well.
In fact, all is not well. First of all, the side agreement is completely inadequate, because it simply asks governments to acknowledge the labour laws in their own countries. Under those labour laws, we know that just this last summer there was more anti-labour repression in Panama during which workers were killed, 100 were injured, and 300 more were arrested. Clearly, Panama's labour laws are not up to either Canadian standards or international standards.
The big problem with side agreements has been demonstrated in a different kind of labour context. In my own hometown of Hamilton, Local 1005 of the Steelworkers had a side agreement with a company, which they thought the company would honour, in much the same way the government has faith that its side agreements will be honoured. In that side agreement, cost of living increases were guaranteed to pensioners, steelworkers, who had worked hard all of their lives, had bargained pensions, and were counting on those cost of living increases to make ends meet.
However, the company decided unilaterally that since it was only a side agreement, it would ignore those obligations. Pensioners now are not getting the cost of living increases.
I want to ask the hon. member for Western Arctic whether he agrees with the government that side agreements are good enough to protect workers' interests or whether those side agreements are not worth the paper they are written on.