Debates of Sept. 30th, 2010

Canada-Panama Free Trade Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his input into the debate again on a bilateral trade proposal.

One of the reasons I acknowledged the member when he stood to speak was that he has the conviction to put on the table where he stands on some of the issues that he thinks need to part of the conversation. If we talk about bilateral trade in a vacuum, that this is trade, we trade with them, they trade with us and it is a win-win situation, we do not have to consider the ripple effect of other things that are going on.

The revelations on the Swiss bank accounts, with Crédit Suisse and HSBC, raised the fact that even in Canada there were almost 1,800 private bank accounts, only two of which, they discovered, had ever reported income. There are some bad things that are going on and some of those things are facilitated by other countries, as the member has raised, whether it be in Colombia or in this case here.

I would encourage the member to present this dilemma where, yes, we want to do trade but we cannot do trade at any cost. There must be a point at which we need to have those other arrangements also addressed as a part of the trade deal. There must be other conditions. I ask the member if he wants to comment on how we can do trade ethically.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish the member for Mississauga South was the trade critic for the Liberal Party because, when he rises on trade issues, he makes a great deal of sense.

Those are exactly the kinds of questions that should be asked in the House. He is absolutely right. Here we have one of the most notorious, drug-pushing, money-laundering tax havens on the planet and the government says that it is okay, that it is going to give a stamp of approval to the actions of that government and that it will not address any of the money laundering, not a word on the tax haven status and not a word on money laundering.

As the member for Mississauga South has mentioned, Canadians' values are profound. Canadians are honest, hard-working people who pay their taxes and it is not reflected by the dishonest action by the government. To try to pretend that it is in some way dealing with the drug-pushing, money-laundering, tax haven status of Panama, when any member reading through this will see that there is not a word addressing that issue, is simply hypocritical. There is no other way to put it. I think Conservative voters will punish Conservative MPs for this kind of hypocritical action.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to clarify something our colleague said in his speech when he said that his party was the only one that speaking out for the manufacturing sector. The Bloc Québécois has done a great job of defending the manufacturing sector and, of course, workers in recent years. So I wanted to make that clarification.

I agree on some level with my colleague's comments. The Bloc Québécois does not understand why the Conservative Party always favours bilateral agreements, especially with right-wing governments, as we saw with Colombia, and as we are seeing with Panama. Often, in these countries, workers and environmental standards are not respected. We believe that we should favour multilateral agreements, which would mean that a group of countries—and Quebec should be its own country one day—must respect the working conditions, environmental standards and labour standards of the group. We must oppose child labour. In bilateral agreements, it seems as though this government often favours mining companies and certain companies at the expense of the collective good.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for asking a good question.

I did say that we are the only national party standing up for these issues. However, on the Colombia file, the Bloc Québécois has been a major ally. That may not have been the case with respect to the softwood lumber agreement and the shipbuilding agreement. So today, it is important for us to work on this issue together.

Yesterday, our labour critic did a great job talking about another aspect of the agreement. I had only 20 minutes to talk. She talked about the fact that there is ongoing union suppression in Panama and that union members have been killed. The Conservatives seem to think that is a good reason to sign another agreement, as they did with Colombia. The Conservatives do not seem bothered by the fact that people have been killed. In fact, they seem all the more eager to sign an agreement. I think that is a terrible approach. We should be taking a multilateral approach instead. I think everyone can find common ground on that. We should be holding multilateral negotiations based on fair trade, not free trade, because free trade has cost Canadians dearly.

It is interesting to note that even the Minister of International Trade avoids using the term “free trade agreement” when he is in Europe because the term lost so much value during the Bush era in the United States that nobody uses it anymore. We should focus on fair trade. The NDP is ready to work with all other parties in the House to implement a functional international trade policy based on fair trade.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé for his enthusiasm. His riding and mine are neighbours.

From the outset, I want to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois does not have an ideological position on matters of free trade, liberalizing trade, or open markets. We think that open markets and liberalized trade are conditions for economic growth. That is true for Canada and Quebec and for most industrialized and emerging countries. It is perhaps less true for some countries, especially African countries that, despite measures to open up borders, have seen their situation deteriorate.

Accordingly, knowing that liberalizing trade can be a way to increase wealth, we also have to consider that wealth is often poorly distributed around the world and within industrialized societies. In his book The Conscience of a Liberal, Paul Krugman points out that in 1980, 1% of the American population had roughly 8% of the total wealth and total revenue. In 2007, that same 1% of the population held 24% of total American revenue. This situation has not been seen since 1928. It is interesting to note that inequality of wealth contributes to economic instability.

The recent and ongoing economic crisis for which we are calling on the government to continue providing stimulus measures, namely by pushing back the deadline for the infrastructure programs which is currently March 31, 2011, was originally a financial crisis, of course. Nonetheless, income inequality in the United States caused a major portion of the American public to go into debt, to buy property in particular. The entire chain reaction that brought in the unsound financial products that provoked this crisis was caused in part by income inequality.

Therefore, we cannot simply open our borders, move forward and hope for the best. That is why, since its inception, the Bloc Québécois has always wanted the opening of markets to be regulated by the state. That is one of the reasons why we want Quebec to become a sovereign country. It would allow Quebec to take part in international forums during which basic rules must be formulated in order to avoid uncontrolled globalization and problems like the ones we encountered during the financial and economic crisis that originated in the United States and spread across the globe. We examine all agreements negotiated by the government through that lens. When agreements are negotiated on the basis of equality and mutual respect, we support them.

For example, we recently supported the Canada-European Free Trade Association free trade agreement. This association consists of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. Members will say that, until recently, at least two of these countries were considered to be tax havens, which is the case for Panama. However, these two countries—Switzerland and Liechtenstein—were removed from the OECD list because they agreed to co-operate and transfer tax information to at least 12 other countries.

It seems that their economies are somewhat similar to Canada's, not in terms of industrial composition, but level of development. There was no chapter 11—I will come back to that—as there is in some free trade agreements recently signed and ratified by Canada. Therefore, we did not have a problem with that agreement.

The same goes for Jordan. The free trade agreement did not provide for the protection of investments beyond what is normally covered. Once again, I am referring to chapter 11 of NAFTA. I will have an opportunity to come back to this because some of Canada's free trade agreements include investment protection.

We did not have that problem with Jordan. I also believe that we must send a message to Middle Eastern countries that Canada has a balanced policy with respect to countries that may not be openly at war, but are in a conflict situation. I am obviously referring to Israel, with which we signed a free trade agreement in 1994, if I recall correctly. We are not challenging that. Having a free trade agreement with Jordan balances Canada's position in the region. Thus, we had no problem supporting the free trade agreement with Jordan.

However, we were fiercely opposed to the free trade agreement with Colombia because of the human rights situation, and we were quite right. It is completely wrong for Canada to sign a trade agreement with a country where human rights are widely violated.

For example, in my riding of Joliette, there is a community of new Quebeckers of Colombian origin who had to leave their home country because of violence. These people told me that they did not understand how Canada could sign a free trade agreement with Colombia, when the country does not respect human rights and people are victims of violence, particularly at the hands of paramilitary organizations that have ties to some Colombian political leaders. They told me that they did not understand how Canada, which is trying to improve respect for human rights around the world and at home, could sign this free trade agreement. Many of us regularly take action to address human rights violations, such as those the first nations suffer in many areas.

Therefore, we opposed that free trade agreement, as well as the agreement with Peru, because of chapter 11 on investment protection and the lack of a framework to make mining companies, specifically Canadian ones, accountable.

In looking at the free trade agreement with Panama, we can see that there are some problems. We do not think it will benefit Canada or the people of Panama. I am not necessarily referring to some industries here or in Panama that could benefit; I am referring to the people of Panama, Canada and Quebec.

How about the infamous chapter 11? I remember that NAFTA was the first free trade agreement to include that provision. The provision allows foreign companies to directly sue the Canadian, American or Mexican government before a special tribunal. That did not exist before. Any trade disputes between countries were resolved at the WTO.

This meant that multinational companies became a new entity, a new player on the international law scene. That makes absolutely no sense. It is extremely dangerous, and I think that the increase in the number of lawsuits and complaints filed under chapter 11 of NAFTA is proof of that. So far, there is not much jurisprudence, but the free trade agreement is relatively new. I believe that we opened a Pandora's box, and we need to close it up.

Unfortunately, the Canadian government decided to use this model as the inspiration for its bilateral agreements, in particular those with countries in the global south. That was the case with Colombia, Peru and Chile. We believe that it is completely immoral to allow companies from Canada, the United States or any other country to take governments to court over public health, environmental issues or industrial policies.

We cannot accept that Canada includes such investment protection measures in its bilateral agreements, particularly with more vulnerable countries in the global south. That is the main reason we are opposing this free trade agreement. The second reason is because of the issue of respect for human rights and workers' rights, as was brought up by my NDP colleague earlier.

Again just recently, in June 2010, there was a protest against changes to the labour code. These repressive changes were decried on July 14 by the International Trade Union Confederation, which is made up of practically the entire labour movement on the planet. We are not the only ones who are concerned about respect for workers' rights. If we move ahead with this free trade agreement, we will be accomplices in contravening certain international conventions of the International Labour Organization. I am specifically thinking about convention no. 87 regarding the right to freedom of association.

So, after this chapter on investment protection that gives too much power to multinational companies—or that gives them power that they should not have—there is issue of respecting workers' rights, which is the second reason we oppose this agreement.

There is a third very important reason: the fact that Panama is a tax haven on the OECD's grey list. It signed co-operation agreements with a number of countries, but does not abide by those agreements. So here we are signing an agreement with Panama, which has signed agreements to disclose and exchange tax information, but does not follow through on those obligations. And we are not even talking about the fact that the corporate tax rate is insignificant, that there is a lack of transparency—as I mentioned earlier—and that there is a lot of information missing about what is going on with tax treatment, especially for foreign companies.

I am not leaving out the other two issues I mentioned, but we think it makes perfect sense for Canada to start by signing a real tax information exchange agreement with Panama, at the very least. If that works, then we can figure out what comes next. The problem is that the Conservatives included in this tax information exchange agreement a provision making subsidiaries located in jurisdictions with which we have agreements tax exempt.

Panama's corporate income tax rate is insignificant. If Canadian companies report profits made in Panama there, they pay 1%, 2% or 3%, as in Barbados, and they can transfer that capital without paying tax in Canada. Once again, this is a manoeuvre that found its way into Conservative budgets that were passed in collusion with the Liberals because they were too weak to oppose them. Not only do we want a tax information exchange agreement, but we also do not want exemptions for profits taxed in Panama because the tax rate there is just too low.

We should take our cue in this matter from France. The French president decided that French companies, especially banks, located in tax havens that appear on the OECD's grey list had to divest their assets. This is how it happened. In a September 30, 2009, press release, the French economy and finance minister announced that companies, banks in particular, operating in jurisdictions like Panama would be penalized. Bercy implemented retaliatory measures in early 2010.

This made the banks think twice, and a few days later, the banks announced that by the end of March 2010—so a few months ago—they would divest themselves of all assets in any tax havens still on the OECD grey list. So as I said, on September 30, 2009, the French finance minister announced his intention to take retaliatory measures and the next day, the banks themselves, through the Association Française des Banques, announced that by March 31, 2010, they would divest themselves of all branches in any tax havens still on the OECD grey list.

We do have the means, and this is a perfect example, but it takes political will. Unfortunately, despite the fine words of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the government on this issue, what we are seeing is quite the opposite.

The government has made it very easy to use tax havens. Do people know who bought the French bank branches in those tax havens? Most of them were purchased by Canadian banks. Clearly, our banks are confident that they have the support of the Conservative government to invest more in these tax havens, particularly Scotiabank, the Canadian bank that uses tax havens the most. This has already been criticized in this House. We now know that it is one of the banks that purchased many of the French bank branches in these tax havens. That is unacceptable.

In closing, I would remind the House of the point raised by my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, specifically, that the bilateral approach to these trade agreements is not beneficial for Canada or for emerging and developing countries. This strategy was imposed by the Americans in the Bush era, which is now over. President Obama has said he would like to return to multilateralism. It was reminiscent of Mao Zedong's strategy in the 1940s, before his successful revolution in 1949, of encircling the cities from the countryside.

How does it work? We attack the weak, like Panama, and we get them to sign a free trade agreement that suits our vision of unbridled liberalization, what we call neo-liberalism, which has now been completely discredited by the financial crisis and the economic crisis. We impose our view on the weak to try to encircle countries like Brazil, which is currently putting up resistance at the Doha round, as are India and China. The Doha round is at a standstill because industrialized countries like the United States and Canada do not realize that the old negotiating process does not apply in this new climate. China is a major player. Brazil, in South America, is a major player. They have managed to make the point that the agenda the industrialized countries wanted to set does not serve the interests of the vast majority of countries around the world. As long as Canada, the United States and Europe do not understand that, it is quite clear that we will not make any progress on issues related to multilateral negotiation at the World Trade Organization.

I find it particularly ironic that Canada is in such a hurry to sign a free trade agreement with Panama and that we are being presented with a bill to ratify the agreement as quickly as possible, when this is dragging on in the United States and in other countries, where the long-term effects of these bilateral agreements are assessed more seriously than they are here.

This is an ill-conceived and outdated bilateral negotiation strategy, and we are not in favour of this free trade agreement.

We think the future is in multilateral organizations such as the World Trade Organization. Obviously, we have to go further. People are starting to talk about it. We support the idea of second-generation free trade agreements. What is more, Europeans do not like the expression “free trade” whatsoever. They prefer to talk about partnerships. The agreement currently under negotiation is a partnership agreement. This goes far beyond free trade. This partnership must include more than just trade. Second-generation agreements absolutely must take into account the effects of trade liberalization on industrial sectors. There need to be conversion periods for industrial sectors that might otherwise be left out in the cold.

The Bloc Québécois thinks that agriculture should be left out of trade negotiations, as culture is or should be, because these are not commodities as other things are. Culture is not simply about entertainment. It is a nation's signature, a country's signature. So we must ensure that there is a convention to protect these cultures, and more specifically cultural diversity.

Canada and Quebec were driving forces behind the convention, and I congratulate everyone on that. For agriculture, it could be the same thing. We should perhaps exclude some sectors, give them the time to adapt and include mechanisms so that respect for environmental rights recognized by major international conventions, such as the Cartagena convention, which Canada has still not signed, and the major conventions of the International Labour Organization is a condition for opening our markets.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is a bad example; it is not the right way to go. I can assure this House that we will continue with the debate and that we will vote against this agreement if we do not see some considerable improvements. I think that there are far too many improvements needed for them to be made here.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member and his party are going to oppose this free trade agreement, as they have opposed so many other free trade agreements before, but he mentioned that one of the reasons he is opposing it is because he believes there is a failure to protect labour and the efforts of workers to get proper living conditions and wages.

I do not know if he is aware that there is a supplementary agreement to this free trade agreement, called the agreement on labour cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, which actually addresses those very issues and is tied into the international treaties relating to labour. This declaration covers specific things such as the abolition of child labour; the right of freedom of association, for example, unions; the right to collective bargaining; elimination of discrimination; and the elimination of forced or compulsory labour. These are all protections that are built into this free trade agreement.

I wonder if the member is aware of those protections. Secondly, if he is and is still concerned, why would he not at least allow this agreement, which is good for Canada because it builds on our trading relationship, to go to committee where he can review it, together with other members of the committee, and perhaps make amendments that would satisfy him?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, on July 14, 2010, the International Trade Union Confederation joined its affiliates in Panama in condemning the violent repression of the strike movement by workers and in demanding the repeal of the controversial Law 30, which has become a licence to kill for the police, creating a climate of extreme violence. Those are not my words; they are the words of the International Trade Union Confederation.

There is likely a side agreement about the environment, too. As the member just said, there is one concerning labour. There are side agreements in NAFTA and in the agreement with Chile, but we have yet to see any concrete results because they are not binding agreements.

As a bit of an aside, I would like to say that even Canada disagreed with including side agreements on labour and the environment in NAFTA in 1992. When Bill Clinton was elected as president in 1992, the Canadian government, which was Conservative at the time, had to accept this inclusion. They are strictly co-operation and training agreements that are in no way binding. And if they did not work with the United States, Mexico or Chile, I would be surprised if they work with Panama.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure that members of the House are quite taken by the depth of knowledge that the member has and I found it instructional myself with his analysis of two major issues.

One is the international regime with respect to labour standards and occupational health and safety, and so on. The question was trying to extract what this agreement would do to firm up fair labour relationships.

The member has also addressed the issue of tax havens. He has talked about the second generation of globalization as a need to reassess, for example, mechanisms such as the WTO and chapter 11 dispute mechanisms that are not working properly. We have heard before that crime and international criminal activity are focusing around the whole issue of tax havens and the lack of accountability in the international banking regime. He has indicated that the OECD is grappling with this very same issue.

Would it not be better to send the bill to committee, given the member's approach and his overview with respect to globalization, and look at the experience of late through the OECD to see if we can come up with mechanisms similar to the labour initiative that would allay the fears put forward with respect to the international banking regimes that in fact are very problematic to trade?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, we could do that if we could imagine—and this is my reasoning—that it would be possible to correct some of the agreement's shortcomings. However, some of the problems with the agreement or relations with Panama are beyond Canada's control. For example, there is the issue of police repression of unions. Although we could study the issue in committee, we would be wasting our time if the Panamanian leaders have no interest in examining and addressing the situation. As for chapter 11, we have raised this on a number of occasions. It would require a change in the government's philosophy, and there is absolutely no indication of that. We believe that it would really be a waste of time.

I just wanted to highlight one of the concerns that was raised. When I say that we must comply with the major international labour conventions, I do not mean that we all comply with them in the same way. We respect the rights that are protected. I would like to give a brief example and end on that note.

The right to unionize is for the most part respected in Canada and Quebec. The closing of the Walmart in Jonquière showed us that there are still shortcomings in the law, but we do unionize to a certain extent in Canada, Quebec and the United States. It is different in Europe. We are not asking others to do as we do, we are asking them to respect a right. For the time being, this does not seem possible for Panama.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, it appears that the Conservative government and the Liberal Party are intent on building a free trade platform that provides corporations with additional powers and indeed with incentives. It would give them the right to challenge Canadian regulations and standards and shape trade to serve their needs, and not necessarily in the public interest.

My colleague talked about being in such a hurry for this trade agreement to go through. I would like to ask my colleague, why does he think the Conservative government and the Liberal Party are in such a rush to allow multinational corporations to leverage additional power, and in his case, to leverage additional power over the Quebec government?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I too have to wonder about this, but it seems to be the strategy chosen by the Canadian government. I was talking about Colombia. While the United States-Colombia free trade agreement was debated at length in the U.S. Congress, here, the Conservatives tried to impose it by shoving it down our throats. The same goes for the agreement with Panama. Discussions are currently underway between the United States and Panama. I believe they have agreed to enter into a free trade agreement, but there will be a ratification process that is much more involved than what we have at this time. This stems from several problems, but I will mention only one, specifically, the fact that free trade agreements are negotiated by the government, by the executive. We, as parliamentarians, have no influence over these agreements, except when an implementation act affects Canadian legislation.

In the case of chapter 11, for instance, we have no influence, either as a committee or as parliamentarians. It was negotiated by the government, the executive, and from a legislative standpoint, parliamentarians cannot add a thing, except very indirectly. What we need in order to have a process that is at least equivalent to that of the United States is a process to ensure that before any free trade agreement is signed with any country—Panama, in this case—a debate would have to be held here in this House and the House of Commons would have to give the executive the mandate to negotiate that agreement. Unfortunately, this is not possible for treaties at present. Let us hope that, for democracy's sake, the ratification process will be taken further.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, before asking my brief question, I would like to congratulate the member for Joliette on his excellent speech, which summarized the Bloc's thoughts on free trade agreements.

I would like to ask my colleague how this government—the last I heard, it wanted to lead a fight against tax shelters—can sign this agreement with a country that is considered to be a tax haven. I would like him to specifically address the impact these tax havens have on the tax revenue Quebec or Canada could bring in to improve our healthcare and education systems. There is enormous pressure to privatize these systems because of a lack of tax revenue.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will answer the last question. Canadian banks are required to disclose how much the federal and provincial governments lose as a result of the banks' use of tax havens. Last year, the annual reports of Canada's banks showed that $2 billion was lost because the banks take advantage of havens. We are talking about several billion dollars that is being paid by the middle class and by taxpayers—businesses or individuals—who are not able to pay accountants and lawyers to take advantage of these havens themselves. That is completely anti-democratic.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not an expert in foreign trade, although I am a person with a small business and I do some foreign trading in a variety of forums. I am a forester and a biologist, and I am still listening and learning in this debate.

However, I am alarmed about what I hear about Bill C-46. Despite popular mythology, the NDP is not protectionist. The NDP believes in trade and the jobs that are created by trade, but we believe in fair trade, trade that is fair to all parties, all Canadians, not just large multinationals but fair to average Canadian citizens, to our middle class, our working people, people with small businesses, trade that is fair to workers and fair in the area of women's equity.

Forget about Latin American countries, where they have far to go. Canada still has huge gaps in pay equity, which is shameful. We believe in trade that is fair to farmers, especially farmers of small and medium size farms across Canada.

My area of expertise is in the environment and I am concerned about fairness to the environment, not only the Canadian environment but also the global environment.

Fair trade would be fair in the areas of clean water, water quality, surface water, ground water and especially drinking water, which should be a basic human right and not traded away in trade agreements anywhere. I believe in trade that is fair to air quality, which we now realize is a global concern and not just an urban concern. I believe in trade that is fair to biodiversity. We have important biodiversity in Canada, but in Panama it is amazing. It has over 10,000 documented species in Panama, but almost 1,300 of those are found nowhere else in the world. I am concerned that in our rush to promote multinationals, in promoting quick development in Panama, that we will put many of these species and rare diverse ecosystems, forested ecosystems at risk.

Canada has its own endangered species and biodiversity problems. Some of them are very small and very little known and some of them are quite well known, like grizzlies, wolverines and polar bears.

Speaking of polar bears, I am concerned about the entire lack in Bill C-46 and the proposed treaty to do anything about concerns of greenhouse gases and global climate change.

As many of us recognize increasingly that the Conservative government is more interested in protecting the rights and benefits for large multinationals, especially big banks and big oil companies.

In the name of big oil and the Conservatives attachment to it, several decades ago they brought us NAFTA. As we know, the Liberals won a majority election by promising to scrap NAFTA, but they did not keep their word.

Now the Conservatives, through a series of serial bilateral NAFTA-style agreements, are pandering to the aspirations of those large multinationals with which they seem to see as their main client base.

This template is well documented and forecasted in Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine. Every Canadian who can read should read Naomi Klein's book. It is alarming, it is prescient and it should be required reading.

As we can see, the Bill C-46 treaty will move this agenda one step forward. It is a small step, a small country and a small portion of our trade, but it is part of a disturbing trend.

Let us talk about a few specifics.

With respect to the area of market access, an important part of this treaty, Bill C-46 would eliminate all non-agricultural tariffs in to and out of Canada. It would eliminate most agricultural tariffs either immediately or within the next five to ten years.

Let me get back to the environment and some of the wording in the proposed bill.

The bill promises not to weaken environmental regulations. As we know, environmental regulations in Canada are already disturbingly weak, but in Panama they are virtually nonexistent. Bill C-46 proposes to enforce existing regulations. In theory that sounds great, but, again, Canada is already doing little in the area of environmental enforcement. Panama has virtually no environmental enforcement.

In the area of disputes, Bill C-46 proposes to hold consultations, information exchanges. We have seen these kinds of words before in Conservative legislation and we know what kind of commitment to protecting our environment, or Panama's environment or the world's environment for that matter, would entail.

Where is this free trade agreement and other various free trade agreements that the Conservative government has been signing not fair?

Let me talk about some of the problems with so-called U.S.A.-Canada relations. Very few Canadians, and even some members of Parliament, know that the nominal tax rate for large corporations in the United States is 36%. Very few know that in Canada, under the Conservatives, it has been reduced to 18%, half of the U.S. rate.

That has been justified by those who know about it and agree with it. They claim it is an alleged stimulus to investment, but that investment has not occurred in Canada. The moneys from those huge tax breaks to big corporations has moved out of Canada into the U.S. and into various tax havens, including Panama. That investment simply has not occurred in Canada.

I can understand having slightly lower tax rates than the United States, but half the large corporate tax rate? How will we continue to pay for our health care system? How will we continue to invest in the technologies and industries of the future, such as clean energy, sustainable energy?

Let us talk about another aspect of the bad NAFTA agreement and a bad softwood lumber deal.

The U.S. has rolled over our economies in many of the areas that are covered by NAFTA, which is most of our areas. It has exported jobs from Canada. It has exported natural resources in low value-added form, in the form of minerals, trees, cereal grains and other crops and especially in the area of oil.

Under NAFTA, we can either do as we are doing now, which is giving the United States relatively low cost oil, but we have to charge ourselves the same for that oil. We cannot take advantage of our natural asset, sell it at the world price and sell it to ourselves at a reasonable cost that Canadians can afford to foster economic development in Canada.

Canada could choose to be 100% self-reliant on oil and energy, but we export about half of it to the United States and import roughly the same amount from places like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Most of the oil that runs our cars and heats our homes in eastern Canada comes from those places. It does not come from our west at an affordable price with a guaranteed supply for the future. Rather it is imported from other places so large multinational oil corporations benefit by exporting those jobs and those litres of oil to the United States.

The government does not believe in fair trade on oil. It does not believe in fair trade on energy self-sufficiency. It does not believe in fair trade on Canadian autonomy.

Let us go back to Panama and why I and my party are inclined to oppose Bill C-46.

Panama is a well-known source of drugs. It is a well-known tax haven for those wealthy multinational corporations and wealthy tax-avoiding Canadians, whose interests the Conservatives seem to be placing paramount.

It seems this is a new opportunity for the Conservatives, with the passive support of the Liberals, to export lost tax dollars, low value-added resources and hundreds of thousands of jobs: manufacturing jobs, real jobs, productive jobs, jobs that can support a family, jobs that can support the Canadian health care system.

The Conservative initiative in Bill C-46 is one more new opportunity, it seems, in a small, symbolic but worrisome way, to sabotage Canadian regulations, autonomy, health care and Canadian labour standards. The labour agreement here is not in the treaty itself; it is a side agreement. The side agreement has no effective mechanism to protect our labour rights, not to mention the labour rights in Panama.

The side agreement on the environment for this Panama treaty will unfortunately continue the degradation of the natural environment not only in Panama, but probably will help to continue the stagnation of dealing effectively with our environmental degradation. It is a side deal with no teeth.

Let us talk about tax havens. In 2000 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, blacklisted Panama as, “An unco-operative tax haven”. In 2008 Panama was one of only 11 countries with no tax sharing information.

I would like to ask a large question, much bigger than Panama, much bigger than Bill C-46. What is happening to our Canada under this Conservative government?

In looking at the past Conservative government of Brian Mulroney, if one liked Mulroney, then one would love the current government. It is moving faster and more effectively to undercut the core of Canadian values, jobs and autonomy.

We have half the large corporate tax rate in Canada than what there is in the United States, 36% versus 18%. We have a huge growth in Canada, in a time of fiscal difficulty, of banks, big oil, their executives and a variety of speculative traders.

Canada has a huge growth in unemployment, especially in real full-time jobs. Those are not the part-time, or underground jobs. Those are not the jobs of people scrambling to survive after they have given up trying to look for real jobs, which are not even reflected in the statistical figures anymore. These are the kinds of jobs that will support families, mortgages and a university education. The quality of life that Canadians have come to expect for decades is eroding. We have a huge loss in Canada of our middle class.

The Conservatives have been doing a wonderful job of distracting Canadians, distracting the media, and distracting the House of Commons with wedge issues. There was a huge one last week. Wake up, Canadians. Wake up, parliamentarians.

As I said, Naomi Klein, in The Shock Doctrine, does a good job of documenting the blueprint for this plan. If members have not read it, I urge them to read it. It documents the right-wing agenda, which is clear. It is as clear as Das Kapital. It is as clear as what was in Mein Kampf.

I would like to recommend another book, called The Spirit Level. The Spirit Level is by Wilkinson and Pickett. Wilkinson and Pickett are epidemiologists and statisticians, and The Sprit Level is full of graphs. It does not sound very interesting, does it? However, it is fascinating.

The Spirit Level documents scientifically what many of us have known for decades, which is that trickle-down economics is baloney. Wilkinson and Pickett, in The Spirit Level, have taken the figures and facts from the United Nations and other data sources for all the developed wealthy countries of the world and have shown clearly that the best countries in the world to live in are the Scandinavian countries. When it comes to health, happiness, fairness, equitableness, crime, and prisons, the United States heads the list of the worst developed country in the world in which to live.

They do a wonderful job of showing how that is highly correlated with the gap in income in those countries. Those countries that have a reasonable gap in income between the bottom 20% and the top 20% are happy, healthy countries. They are the Scandinavian countries, some of the European countries, and Japan.

On the other hand, countries such as the United States, Portugal, and others have a huge gap and a growing gap.

Where is Canada in that spectrum? Canada is right in the middle. We are halfway between the Scandinavian countries and the United States in terms of happiness, welfare, and quality of life, and we are also halfway between those countries in terms of the spread of income.

My question for this Parliament, for Canadians, is this: Do we want to drift or be driven, as is happening now, closer to the U.S. greed-based model, with its excessive gaps in income, or do we want to move back toward the Scandinavian model that has done such a good job of providing employment, wealth, happiness, and security for Scandinavians?

The last thing I would like to say is that Panama is less than one-tenth of 1% of our trade. It is pretty minuscule. In 2008, we had a trade surplus. We exported $128 million, and Panama exported $21 million to Canada. It has been going down since 2008, though. In 2009, it was $91 million and $41 million. The trend throughout Latin America has been that the balance-of-trade deficit is getting worse for us.

As we make hard decisions in this act, over how many months and years and coming elections, I hope we will give real consideration to how we get back to fair trade rather than alleged free trade and to how we get back to a Canada that has values based on a middle class and full employment.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not certain about how to really begin. I am very disappointed by what I just heard from the member. I commend him for the way he presented his speech. He did it in a calm way, which is different from other NDP members whom we have seen today. His approach was fairly calm, but his substance I found quite offensive.

The member stands in this House and says, “Wake up, Canadians. You are being sabotaged. The autonomy of your country is at stake. Your health care here in Canada is at stake. All labour agreements are at stake. The well-being of every Canadian is at stake”. I find that offensive. He points to this legislation, as well as at the government, and says that everything about Canada is bad.

We look around and we see that Canada is coming out of this recession in probably the best position of any other country, and the member stands here painting a picture of nothing but doom and gloom.

I believe that one of the problems of this House is that many times we really begin to believe our own rhetoric. I would ask the member to simply calm down a bit.

The government believes in free trade. The Panama free trade agreement is here to enhance the environmental and labour practices of both countries, and agreements have been negotiated to do that.

Is it because of his frustration with Canada that he does not want to have us influence that country and continue to enhance trade?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe that most of the members of this House believe in the kinds of traditional values that have helped Canada become the wonderful country it has been for a century and a half and beyond, but I think we are in trouble. I am going to stand by my comments.

Our middle class is disappearing. We have increased poverty. The gap in income is growing, and I unfortunately believe that most, perhaps not all, people who stand on that side of the aisle believe that the model we need for the future is one of greed. It is a U.S.-based model. It is a so-called free trade model. It is one on which we will just have to agree to disagree, and I just hope that in the future, Canadians will vote for parties that believe in more equity and more fairness.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have said before that I find the NDP approach to economic policy, to put it politely, a bit old fashioned. I am curious. It has consistently opposed free trade, which is wrong-headed in general.

My question is very simple. Is there any country in the world, any country on this planet, with which the NDP would favour free trade with Canada?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, time is limited, so I will keep my response short.

The countries that obey and follow the precepts of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights would be basic ones. The ones in which the gaps in income, as indicated in the book The Spirit Level, which I mentioned, are reasonable and moderate I would say are the countries we want to trade with.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Name one country. Just name one.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Name one.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Japan.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

There is Scandinavia, Japan, and the list goes on. There are many.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

How about Cuba? You like those guys.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

There are some fine countries in this world. Canada is still a fine country but we are headed in the wrong--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I will not be recognizing members who heckle across the way when they have not been recognized.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan.