House of Commons Hansard #175 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was panama.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders
Abbotsford B.C.
Conservative
Ed Fast ConservativeMinister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway
moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
On division.
Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity ActGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House today to talk about the importance of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. As the hon. members of the House may know, negotiations for this agreement were concluded and announced in August 2009 when the Prime Minister travelled to Panama City. In May 2010, the agreement was signed and it was first tabled in Parliament later that year.
Nearly two and a half years later, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement is still in Parliament pending ratification. In fact, members may recall that former ambassador Francisco Escobar had taken a keen interest in this file. He had his term extended with the prospect of getting this deal done before he left Canada and returned to Panama. Unfortunately, that did not happen because of delays caused by the opposition members, specifically the New Democrats who, as we know, are anti-trade and anti-investment.
The New Democrats have accused our government of trying to fast-track the Canada-Panama free trade agreement through Parliament. We are talking about two and a half years and it is still not done because of all kinds of delays and obstacles presented by the New Democrats. To date, we have spent almost 60 hours debating the merits of this agreement.
What the opposition members do not realize is that trade and investment drive economic growth and job creation here at home in Canada. As members know, Canada's economic fundamentals lead much of the developed world. Our growth rates and our job creation record are the best among the G7. Yet, these are very fragile times for the global economy and that is why we are using trade and investment to open up new opportunities for Canadian companies around the world. We need to provide them with opportunities to be successful, to grow their businesses and to take advantage of some of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Latin America is one of those areas and Panama has been a special target for us. We have a very good relationship with the Panamanian government, which also recognizes that expanded trade is important for its long-term prosperity.
The fact of the matter is that reaching a trade agreement with a key hemispheric partner such as Panama is a logical step in our policy of pursuing deeper integration and closer co-operation throughout the Americas. In fact, we have an ambitious plan to expand Canada's footprint in Latin America. Our Conservative government recognizes that protectionist restrictions stifle our exporters and undermine Canada's competitiveness. On the world stage, Canada has been a champion in the fight against protectionism. We promote free and open trade around the world. We have collaborated with some of our key partners around the world to drive home the message that protectionism is toxic to the global economic recovery. We also understand that in order for our companies to succeed, we need to create the right conditions for their success through freer and more open trade.
This agreement with Panama would help do this by providing Canadian businesses with improved market access for goods and services and a stable and predictable investment environment. We want to ensure that when Canadian investors look to Panama as a place for investment, there are clear sets of rules in place to address the investment and also the dispute resolution process. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement would also eliminate tariffs in a range of sectors, including industrial, agricultural, forestry goods and of course fish and seafood. It would also expand market access for Canadian service providers in information and communications technology, in energy and in financial services. Something a lot of Canadians do not recognize is that 71% of Canada's GDP is driven by the services industry. It is the largest industry in Canada.
When we forge new opportunities around the world for Canadian businesses to trade and invest, we also want to provide them with opportunities to build on our strengths in the services sector, strengths in areas such as engineering. A lot of Canadians do not understand that Canada is the fourth largest exporter of engineering services in the world. We are world leaders in that area, but unfortunately there are sometimes barriers to allowing our engineering firms to compete abroad. We are removing those barriers by engaging in free trade negotiations, especially with countries such as Panama.
Just to provide some context, Panama is a dynamic and fast-growing market for Canadian exports, one that has continued to grow despite a time of global uncertainty. In fact, our bilateral trade with emerging economies such as Panama is growing very rapidly. Those are our growth opportunities around the world. Over the past five years, bilateral merchandise trade between Canada and Panama has increased by 105%. That is a staggering figure and it really frames how important it is for us to deepen our trade and investment relationship with Panama.
To ensure that Canada's economy continues to grow, we must forge closer economic ties and seize new opportunities with thriving and emerging economies such as Panama. Our bilateral trade with Panama has been growing rapidly because the Panamanian economy is in the midst of a period of impressive economic expansion. In 2011, Panama's real gross domestic product growth was a stunning 10.6%. That is just in one year. According to the International Monetary Fund, Panama's GDP will continue to grow at over 6% per year over the next five years. By any standard, that is remarkable growth in these very difficult global economic times.
Where there is rapid growth, there are also significant commercial opportunities, especially for Canadian businesses, which are world leaders in many different sectors. Sadly, the New Democrats do not believe that Canadian businesses and workers should have these opportunities. They do not believe that our businesses can compete. They do not believe that trade creates jobs and economic prosperity for Canadians and our international partners. In fact, the NDP believes in an inward-looking Canada, a Canada that cowers in the face of competition.
Our Conservative government categorically rejects that view and vision for Canada. We believe that Canadians have proven time and time again that we can compete with the very best and win, and we will continue to do so as our government opens up new markets.
However, we see efforts in the House by New Democrats to characterize themselves as pro-trade. They refer to it as fair trade and we all know across Canada that fair trade, when it is defined by the NDP, means no trade. There is not one trade agreement that they do not criticize. There is not one trade agreement that they see as moving Canada's trade objectives forward.
When they speak of being born-again free traders, it belies the fact that, for example, the NDP member for Ottawa Centre asked dismissively, “Does anyone really think that signing a free trade agreement with Panama will lead to the economic prosperity of Canada?” There are others. For instance, the NDP member for British Columbia Southern Interior recently wrote that trade agreements “threaten the very existence of our nation”.
Can anyone imagine that trade agreements are threatening our very existence as a nation? Quite the opposite is true. Trade is a key driver of economic growth and prosperity in Canada. In fact, Canada is one of the great free trading nations of the world and we benefit from more open and freer trade.
Then there is the former NDP trade critic, the member for Windsor West, who supported the Canadian auto workers' call to abandon our current negotiations for free trade agreements with countries such as Japan and the European Union. That is pretty sad. We reject that approach to trade. We also reject the New Democrats' approach to investment, which is to say no, and they have done that again in recent weeks.
According to the International Monetary Fund, Panama's GDP is recording very significant growth. It opens up new opportunities for Canadians to sell their products and their expertise into the Panamanian market. For example, Canada's agricultural exporters, on whose products Panama currently maintains tariffs reaching peaks of as high as 260%, those tariffs would be eliminated under this agreement.
Our government is proud to be promoting an ambitious pro-trade plan that is opening up these markets, removing those tariff and non-tariff barriers to ensure we can compete effectively and drive economic growth right here at home.
The opportunities for Canada are not limited to exporters. It has been widely reported that Panama is undertaking an ambitious $5.3 billion project to expand the Panama Canal. In fact, the canal's expansion project is already under way. The ongoing operation and maintenance of the canal is expected to generate significant opportunities for Canada's investment community in the years to come.
Furthermore, Panama has announced an infrastructure plan valued at $13.6 billion over five years in its effort to become a trade and logistical hub in the region. Canada is one of the leaders in infrastructure and related technology. We have some of the top firms in the world that are experts in infrastructure, construction and development.
The more that time passes by, the more that opportunities for Canada's exporters and investors are placed at risk. That is why the House must act quickly to ensure that Canadian companies have the competitive advantage to see some of the growing commercial opportunities in Latin America, and specifically in Panama.
I would remind the House that Panama has already concluded free trade agreements with the United States and the European Union, two of our fiercest competitors. Panama's free trade agreement with the European Union could enter into force as early as the end of this year. More pressing is the fact that the United States-Panama trade agreement entered into force on October 31, 2012, just two days ago.
What does that mean to Canadians? We have lost first mover advantage. We had an opportunity to get this done sooner but because of the opposition parties and the obstacles raised by the NDP, the anti-traders, the anti-investment folks on the other side of this House, we have lost that first mover advantage. Now, the United States and its exporters and its investors will have a leg up on Canada. What a shame.
While Canadian companies continue to face duties, our American counterparts are already seizing the excellent opportunities freer and open trade has brought to their workers and businesses. Now, of course, Canadian products are at a competitive disadvantage due to prohibitive duties, while 87% of products from the United States now enjoy duty-free access.
We have missed that window of opportunity to take the lead. This will adversely impact the Canadian manufacturers, producers and exporters who want to grow and expand their commercial ties with Panama. It is absolutely imperative that we implement this agreement to defend the competitiveness of Canadian firms in Panama and solidify our Canadian presence in a growing and strategic market.
Our Conservative government clearly understands that our standard our living and Canadians' future prosperity will be generated by deepening and broadening our trade and investment relationships around the world, especially in the highest and fastest growing markets of the world.
Opening up new markets in Panama and increasing Canadian exports will benefit workers and businesses in every region of our country. We have already lost tremendous opportunities in Panama by waiting to implement this agreement. It is time to get this bill through the House.
I ask that all hon. members of this House, on both sides of this House, support the swift ratification of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for quoting me. I was going to make that point but he has done it for me.
When we see the trade deals that the government has brought forward, does it really think that free trade agreements with Iceland, Jordan and Panama will actually open up our economy to the extent that we will lift all boats up? Unemployment is stubbornly at 7% in this country. We just heard the job numbers.
The government has done nothing to focus on a job strategy and yet it puts out these pithy agreements that make us vulnerable because of the way they are negotiated. We put forward many amendments on this trade deal. We believe in trade but we need to ensure it is for Canadians as well as the people we are trading with.
Exactly how many good jobs will be created for Canadians, jobs we can count on because we will put this on the record for later? Why did the Conservatives reject the amendments we put forward which would protect the labour rights of those who we are trading with, in this case Panama, as well as the environmental protections? Why did they reject those amendments which were reasonable?
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, due to our government's economic action plan, our global commerce strategy, under which we have created the most ambitious trade plan in Canada's history, we have seen tremendous growth in very difficult economic times around the world.
At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned that Canada's economic fundamentals lead most of the developed world. Our job creation numbers lead the G7. In fact, I would remind the member that since 2009 and the depths of the recession, Canada has created 820,000 net new jobs. Much of that is due to the fact that we have had this ambitious investment strategy that is opening up new opportunities around the world for Canadian companies to be successful.
I also would remind the member that this free trade agreement also has a parallel agreement on labour protections. He must have missed that as he read the agreement.
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister for the hard work that he has done. I mean that in all sincerity. It is incredible the amount of trade and the work that we are continuing to do. We are not stopping.
In my riding of Chatham—Kent Essex, a largely agricultural riding, what will it mean for the people who are involved in the agricultural business and trading and some of those aspects? What will it mean for trade for those farmers?
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, my friend and I have become very close friends over the years. He is someone who really cares about Canada's economic health and he has intervened on many occasions to express how important it is for Canada to grow its economy through using trade and investment.
In trade agreements, we focus on eliminating two things, one being tariff barriers. In other words, the duties that are imposed when Canadians want to export agricultural products abroad, whether it is wheat, pulses, fruits, pork or cattle. When we are exporting these products abroad there are usually very heavy tariffs on them because other countries are trying to protect their economy. What they do not understand is that free and open trade actually builds a much bigger overall pie.
When we negotiate these agreements, we are negotiating market access, the elimination of these tariffs, and beyond that we are also negotiating the elimination of non-tariff barriers which are all the rules and standards that are behind the border that prevent Canadian farmers from being successful when they export their products abroad.
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to let it be known for the record that on this side we agree with fair trade, not free trade at the expense of everything else. I am also a bit tired of the gibberish that I hear coming from that side and the words the minister says in his attacks that somehow I am against trade as is my party.
The minister mentioned CETA. Is he willing to sign a free trade agreement with Europe if this allows the European multinational corporations to sue the Canadian government, if the municipalities choose, for example, to give local preference to contracts and hire local workers? Is he willing to sign this agreement if the cost of prescription drugs in Canada goes up by $2.5 billion? Is he willing to sign this agreement if those in the supply management sector see supply management gutted because of the pressure coming from Europe or Japan or in the other agreements with other countries? What if this hampers provincial governments in instituting good green energy policies? Is he willing to sell out Canada because of these so-called free trade agreements?
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I think the member has just answered his own question. It is very clear that he is anti-trade. It is very obvious from that answer.
I will again quote for the House what that member recently stated. He said, “trade agreements threaten the very existence of our nation”. That is a broad unconditional statement that says that he opposes free trade. His party, the NDP, has consistently opposed our free trade agenda.
I would remind the member that the New Democrats has opposed free trade agreements with countries such as Iceland, Switzerland, Peru and Liechtenstein. The NDP are not born-again free traders over there. It is very clear that the NDP is anti-trade and anti-investment. Its record shows that. It has opposed almost every free trade agreement this government has ever signed.
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
Mr. Speaker, I compliment the trade minister and this government on what an excellent job they have done to get out there and try to find new markets.
How exactly would Canada, with some 35 million people, grow our economy if we were to do as the opposition wishes and only trade with ourselves? I do not understand that. What we are trying to do is eliminate barriers and tariffs, things that would create access to markets where,in some cases, our companies are already trading but on an unfair basis.
We are looking at trying to develop rule-based trading where our companies could compete on a fair ground, where they could go out and export our products and do a better job, which means they can employ more people for Canada.
I would like the minister to comment on where exactly we would sell our goods if we could not sell them to other places in the world.
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, as members know, Canada is the second largest country in terms of land mass in the world. We are a country that is incredibly rich in natural resources but we only have a population of 34 million. That is not a large market. If we want the ability to grow the economy, we need to look outside of Canada. I am not asking the New Democrats to understand that because they have tried to understand it and it has just not gotten through.
We know that Canadians understand that trade is a kitchen table issue and that is critical to their long-term prosperity. As we seek these new markets, we remove barriers to trade around the world. We do exactly as my colleague has suggested. We find new markets. We create new markets for our Canadian businesses to be successful in and to increase their exports, not only in goods but also in services where Canada is a world leader.
I make no apologies for our ambitious trade agenda.
Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister.
If Canada were to enter into an agreement with the Cayman Islands, would the agreement include an exchange of tax information and banking secrets, or would we simply sign it without even looking at it?
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled as to why the member would refer to the Cayman Islands. We are discussing the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.
Canada is presently in discussions with Panama to sign a tax information exchange agreement that would make it easier to detect money laundering, to ensure that our tax regimes line up and that the information that flows between two trading partners, Canada and Panama, is sufficient for us to identify when nefarious activities are going on. We have made it very clear that we see that as being part of this ongoing relationship with Panama.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, today we have heard, yet again, the government talking more about others, casting aspersions on people and making up fictitious policy statements of other parties, as opposed to talking about the merits of this trade deal. That is unfortunate. A responsible government model would be to bring forward one's best ideas, talk about the benefits, make sure they are understood and that Canadians are aware of the benefits.
Alas, this government is more interested in throwing political mud as opposed to promoting its ideas. I guess it is nothing new. We hear it every day in the House. The Conservatives like to throw mud even more than talking about their own ridings. I guess it is not a surprise that again today we have the minister spending more than a third of his speech attacking our party and trying to in some way paraphrase us. It was fiction, indeed.
We really need to take these trade deals seriously. For most of his career in the public service, my father worked on negotiating GATT agreements. One of the things he was very clear about was that in getting involved in trade agreements, Canada has to make sure it understands all of the issues on the table. He used to negotiate the GATT agreements in Brussels on behalf of our country. He was very proud of our country's ability to take away barriers where we could, but also make sure we had a balance.
The government does not seem to understand that; it is in such a hurry to sign a free trade agreement with whomever. This is a problem, because once these free trade agreements are stacked up, they actually have to be monitored. People have to be in place to follow them.
The minister was bragging about the great robust global trade strategy. Then, who did he cite? Liechtenstein. I have nothing against the good people there, but it does not amount to lifting all boats up.
We should also note that the government has had free trade agreements with countries like Honduras, for instance. With regard to the amount of value recently concluded for the free trade agreement in Honduras, in a full year, our trade with Honduras is equal to 71 minutes of the trade we do with the United States. It is interesting that the government brags that the equivalent of 71 minutes of trade with one of our bigger trading partners is somehow going to lift all boats up
The government has not been able to sign one agreement with a major Asian economy. It has stumbled around trying to figure out how to deal with China. It has members who still do not believe we should even have a relationship with China. I cite some of the members who have spoken for themselves. I will not quote them.
We have a problem here in terms of the government's credibility on trade. It says one thing and it talks about this robust strategy, but when we add up the list of countries, including Panama, it really does not amount to a comprehensive strategy.
This is a changing world. In the decades ahead, we will see a dramatic shift in global power. Projections indicate that by 2050 only the United States will represent the western nations among the top seven largest economies. China will be first. India, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Indonesia, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany, Nigeria, France, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam will have larger GDPs than Canada. This is a manifestation of a truly multipolar world, which the government does not understand. While the economic power is dispersed, new cultural, diplomatic and military strengths will be asserted that will effect trade.
What will the world look like in 2050? That is something we need to keep in mind when we are talking about these trade agreements. What values will guide our trade agreements in international politics, and how will Canada project and promote our values and interests in the future? The answers to these questions will depend on the choices we make as a country. Will Canada be isolationist, as we have seen lately, in terms of its diplomacy and the notion of signing a trade agreement with whomever and not looking at strategic interests, or will Canada assert itself as a responsible leader, comprehending this ever-changing world?
The reality is there are vital economic and trade interests that we all recognize are important. However, the problem with the current government is that it lacks a coherent strategy and the competence to assert Canada as a responsible leader on the global stage. In doing so, it fails to achieve the very objectives it sets for itself, as I already mentioned.
There is rhetoric in saying that we have a global trade agenda and when we look at the tally sheet, we have Liechtenstein, Iceland and Honduras. There is not one single trade agreement with any of the major Asian economies.
Let me talk about Asia. It was just a month ago that Canada was denied a seat at the East Asia Summit. This adds to our collective embarrassment of losing our seat at the Security Council. I am not sure if many Canadians know this, but the East Asia Summit is where decision-makers and those who want to have a voice in the Asian economies go to meet to assert their interests.
Canada was shut out. Two other countries were allowed in. There are 18 countries around the table. We have not heard that from the government. The government has not even explained why we were shut out.
Why were shut out of the East Asia Summit? This is a table where, as I said, important decisions are made that have major impacts on our country. We all know it is the Pacific powerhouses where trade is going to be. I just listed the 2050 projections in terms of where the GDP growth is going. However, in our absence, we will not have the input at that important table at the East Asia Summit.
I will quote for members the words of the General Secretary of the ASEAN. Mr. Surin Pitsuwan explained that Canada failed to get a seat at the East Asia Summit as a result of a lack of engagement that would project Canada's qualities. He said:
The goodwill is there. The name is there. But you don't see the sustained effort of trying to project it out.
What did he recommend?
What Canada can do is to transform its expertise in those areas of peacekeeping, peace-building into a more mediating role. A country like Norway has been very active and engaged. Canada has been less than Norway, maybe by choice.
He argued that while everyone wants to expand trade in an economic partnership, it comes along with leadership at the same time. Leadership, in Canada's case, is because of our history in conflict resolution.
I will finish with this quote, which he said at the end:
It has to be a package, an integrated approach.
This should have been—sadly, I do not think it has been—a wake-up call for the government. When we are shut out of the most important table when it comes to the Asian economy, it says something.
When we have a bill like the Panama free trade agreement and we have the government suggesting this is a wow moment for us and our economy, we really have to wonder if the government is actually in tune with what is going on in the world. We were shut out of the Security Council.
To my embarrassment, as a representative of this Parliament, we had an opportunity recently, at the General Assembly, to have our Prime Minister come forward to say what our country is about, what our values are and indeed what our trade interests are. Instead, he did not take that opportunity and sent the foreign affairs minister, who then wagged his finger at the UN and many member states and, as an aside, quoted Kahlil Gibran, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, with some of the most misplaced quotes I have heard in a long time.
However, if we are going to take trade seriously, then we have to understand the importance of relationships. When we do not take diplomacy seriously, then it is hard to see how we can further advance trade. That is the point in critiquing our failure to get a seat at the East Asia Summit.
Having a free trade agreement with countries like Honduras and Panama is not going to get the job done. In fact, there is a very interesting critique on trade that was brought out last spring. I know the Prime Minister has read it and, in fact, I think he got most of his front bench to look at it. It is titled,“Winning in a Changing World: Canada and Emerging Markets”. It is an interesting document.
The Conservatives often like to accuse us of having tunnel vision and that we only listen to certain people. Well, in this particular critique, there are some recommendations for the government. For example, it is this document that cites that the free trade with Honduras amounts to 71 minutes of trade with our partner to the south, and the value of it is questioned. It comes up with some different recommendations than the path the Conservative government is following and suggests not just looking at a free trade agreement cookie-cutter approach. Why? It is not strategic.
I remember my father telling me about his work and that when we get into trade, if we just put all-in agreements and language saying we would open up major sectors without understanding the implications, we lose our strategic advantage.
The report suggests, and I applaud the authors on this, to look at the sectors here that we should invest more in to help us trade and make sure we are going to get competitive advantage with the emerging markets that I mentioned. It also points out that we cannot do these free trade agreements with emerging economies like India, China and Brazil.
I was in Brazil when the minister was there a couple of years ago. I was there for a conference on the Global Fund to fight HIV-AIDS. The whole world was there, but I was the only Canadian representative. The minister happened to be in Sao Paulo that day pitching trade, but we would need a search warrant to find evidence of that. There was no evidence in the media and absolutely no indication of what he was doing there.
Meanwhile, the story of the day was how Brazil was reaching out to Africa, looking at making sure we are going to be more connected in the world to helping those who are suffering from HIV-AIDS, malaria and other diseases. This was actually a strategic approach as well as doing the right thing.
Others have criticized the current government on being one dimensional. If all it is worried about are free trade agreements, we can see the results: a total shut-out in Asia. After seven years, the Conservative government has nothing to show for its robust global trade strategic plan other than a couple of pithy agreements, as I have mentioned already.
However, my concern is that we have a minister who travels to one of the most strategic should-be partners in the BRIC, Brazil, but we do not even get noticed. In fact, when we talk to people in the Americas, they scratch their heads and ask what happened to the Americas strategy.
I remember the fanfare when the Conservative government announced there was going to be this great Americas strategy. Well, we had a rescue mission a couple of summers ago with the Prime Minister who, I guess, had to rescue his trade minister. He travelled around South America yet again, but the question is, what do we have to show for it? Where are we with Brazil? Why are we not focusing on a relationship with them? Why does the Conservative government not understand that it is trade diplomacy as well as investment? The debates we are having right now are clear that there is a problem in terms of the government understanding how to layout not only its strategy, but the rules.
The report I mentioned, “Winning in a Changing World: Canada and Emerging Markets”, is written by Derek Burney, as well as a former chief executive officer representative, Thomas d'Aquino. These are clearly not people who would be noted as radical leftists. When speaking about on getting trade right, they said that:
Canada should target markets with significant potential instead of those with which agreements are easy to conclude.
I want to emphasize this because this is where the government's strategy fails. They are saying that in our guiding principles for trade:
Canada should target markets with significant potential instead of those with which agreements are easy to conclude. A smart engagement strategy invests political and negotiating capital in talks that deliver real benefits and clear results. In the long term, the hectic pursuit of “announceables” serves neither public nor private interests.
This report is saying that the strategy of the current Conservative government is not going down the right path. However, as the Conservative backbench and front bench know, their game is to try to set up a narrative where they are in favour of trade; they are good, but the others are not and they are bad.
The fact is that when we have people who know what trade is about, there has to be political investment. The study talks about that. This is diplomacy. This is where the government has been unable to get the job done. It is not just talking about going after “announceables”. The government could be classified as a government by press releases and not results. When I asked the minister exactly how many jobs would be created with the Panama free trade agreement, he attacked me. When we ask how this would enhance our opportunities, there is no response except that the NDP does not like trade. It is bizarre and I do not bother responding to it. I leave his rhetoric alone and people can gauge it.
Let us go further into what the study looked at. It looked at what Canada needed to do, which is to look at emerging markets and negotiate customized trade and investment arrangements with this in mind. It says that we should abandon these free trade agreements and this cookie-cutter approach. I know the Prime Minister has read this and hopefully the trade minister has as well.
Let me explain what the words mean. The authors say, “We must negotiate customized trade and investment arrangements”. Customized trade arrangements, as my father used to say when he negotiated GATT, is ensuring that our producers are not going to be subsumed and played by other producers. Things like nomenclature are important. Allowing a foot in by other economies is not going to mean the abandonment of support for the economies, producers and those creating jobs in Canada. It means doing trade differently.
With due respect, the government is kind of fighting the last war. It thought that just saying free trade and finding a sign-off with anyone was a strategy. It turns out to be political grandstanding. When the media is not around and people talk about diplomacy and trade, they scratch their heads and ask why the government is going down the path of these pithy free trade agreements when the world has changed and moved on.
I will go through the emerging economies that I mentioned earlier, which we know are Brazil, India, Russia and China. What the authors are saying in the report is that we cannot make free trade agreements with these countries because they do things differently. The trade agreements have to be customized. When the government trumpets the free trade approach, we have to question not only the benefits for Canadians but, most important, just like when we sign off on international agreements in diplomacy, where we are going to land in 10, 15, 20 years. How are we going to be locked in?
The FIPA that we have been debating in the House is a classic example. Not many Canadians are aware that we will be locked in to this financial arrangement with China for 31 years. Most financial agreements negotiated in the past provide an option for us to say that after six months' notice, we are out of the deal. Not in this case. On the one hand, the government is signing a free trade agreement with Panama, which has questionable benefits for Canadians. On the other hand, it signs a FIPA with China which locks us in for up to 31 years.
One has to wonder what the government's strategy is, other than “announceables”, as was critiqued in the report that I read, saying the government was able to announce something and that is somehow that is good policy. It is not. In fact, when we look at the countries I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, in 2050 the largest economies will be China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Indonesia, Japan, U.K., Germany, Nigeria, France, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam. When we look at each one of those countries individually, they are very different. We cannot sign one of these free trade agreements, like the government has, with each of these countries.
The nature of a multipolar world means that we have to change our mindset. It is not just about one big trade agreement with one country. The critique of our trade arrangement with the United States was always that it locked us in too much and we needed to ensure we would provide more opportunities for Canadian companies and workers.
At the end of the day, the problem with this agreement is the lack of vision of where we are going with comprehensive free trade. As I mentioned, reports by those who have looked at where Canada is going in trade show it is actually in the past. We need to be looking for tailored, comprehensive free trade agreements and this is not one. That is why we cannot support it.
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Speaker, we have heard the world according to the member for Ottawa Centre, who states that people take different views of international free trade agreements. I would imagine there are numerous approaches in people's minds about how trade should be done.
The fact is that our Minister of International Trade has taken a very aggressive, measured and strategic approach. We are signing more trade agreements than the previous government's members ever thought of doing in the 13 years they held a majority. While we are signing trade agreements, the New Democrats are voting against every single trade agreement we bring here for passage in legislation. We are signing them; they are complaining about our signing them and voting against every one.
I suggest that our economic record, given this recent time of global pressures, has indicated to countries around the world that we are on the right path, that we are a leader in the global economy and that our country is stable. We still have pressures coming our way, but we will manage them because we have good government, and that is why we are sitting on this side with a strong, stable majority government.
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, if I could paraphrase, the member says that they are awesome and we are not and this is the way it is.
Let us have a debate on facts here. That is what is often so deadening in this House. I laid out a critique of what is problematic with the government's trade approach. I quoted the Secretary General of the ASEAN who has said that Canada has abandoned diplomacy and that this has affected our trade. That is why we were shut out of the most important trade table in the Pacific region, the East Asia summit. The Conservatives do not want to acknowledge that.
It has been pointed out that the free trade deal with Honduras amounts to the equivalent of just 71 minutes of Canada's daily trade with United States, and yet the former agreement is what the Conservatives want to trumpet. Seventy-one minutes of trade with Honduras compared to our daily trade with the United States is not something to be joyful about. With all due respect, the same applies to Liechtenstein, which is not a global powerhouse.
In contrast, the Conservatives have not signed one trade agreement with a major Pacific-Asian country and they talk about what a great strategy they have. So we have to measure their rhetoric with their results.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of thoughts, followed by a question for the member for Ottawa Centre.
First and foremost, the Liberal Party has been fairly clear in its support for freer trade with other countries around the world. As much as we respect the economy and the environment and labour laws, we do believe it is important when we are living in a global economy that we explore the opportunities for freer trade when they arise and where we can sign something that is in Canada's best interest.
Having said that, we are concerned that the government has been somewhat negligent on probably the most important file and that is with the U.S.A. Canada is very dependent on the U.S.A. and has not given it the attention necessary to provide and guarantee the types of jobs that we need to maintain and grow our jobs.
My question for the member for Ottawa Centre is something that many Canadians wonder about. Has the NDP ever stood inside in the House of Commons and actually voted in favour of a trade agreement? Have the New Democrats actually stood and recorded a vote where they said yes to any trade agreement in the history of our country?
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Liberals on one day are all in favour of trade agreements, then on another day they do not like them any more, and then they go back to saying yes again. We have seen this a bit with FIPA. The Liberals just do not know where they stand. It gives us whiplash wondering what they believe in. It is really hard to know.
Yes, we did support the trade agreement with Jordan, as was pointed out already. In terms of the approach that we need to take, it needs to be combined with diplomacy and an effort to make sure that we are not one just dimensional. When we see the hollowing out of our diplomacy, we lose on trade. That is why the Secretary-General of ASEAN said the following:
The goodwill is there. The name is there. But you don't see the a sustained effort of trying to project it out.
He continued:
What Canada can do is to transform its expertise in those areas of peacekeeping, peace-building into a more mediating role. A country like Norway has been very active and engaged.
I could not agree with him more. We were shut out of East Asia Pacific table. Others are in, we are out. The government claims that it is great because we are signing deals with Lichtenstein. It is very sad.
Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. I paid special attention to his comments about strategy, and I would like him to elaborate further.
Our goal should not be to simply sign agreements here and there, with this or that country, without any real plan. We need to identify areas where Canada performs well. We also need to look at our economy, identify strengths and weaknesses and conduct an analysis. Then we will be in a position to enter into agreements that will benefit both parties.
That is not what is happening right now. Instead, we see the government blindly signing agreement upon agreement. It is a very pleasant activity, for sure, a great opportunity to have fun, travel and make new friends all around the world. It is all very nice.
But does it really serve the interests of our economy and of Canadians to have agreements like those, which will amount to 70 minutes worth of trade with the Americans? The Government of Canada is unable to take a stand and negotiate profitable agreements with major countries. We must enter into agreements not only with developing countries that need our help, but also with major nations that provide greater opportunities for Canadian exports.