Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2012

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to support the bill. Liberals see the bill as an important piece of legislation. If history demonstrates anything, it is that over the years the Liberal Party has recognized the value of freer trade with nations around the world, though we are a little disappointed that the government has not put more of an emphasis on what is happening with our largest trading partner, the United States of America. Having said that, I want to recognize just how important it is. At the end of the day, Canada is a trading nation. The amount that trade contributes to our national GDP is virtually second to no other G7 country, or we would definitely be in the top three in terms of being a trading nation.

As a whole, it behooves us to look at ways to increase our markets. We can go back for decades. One of the first real tangible trade agreements that I can think of offhand was in our automobile industry. That played a critical role in the development of hundreds of thousands of jobs over the years in Canada. When we talk about the principle of trade, people have a good understanding of the auto pact and how Canada has benefited over the years. Not only has it provided, as I said, hundreds of thousands of jobs, it has provided some of the best cars ever made anywhere in the world.

The principle of free trade and freer trade is something Liberals believe in. We recognize that the government has been negotiating this agreement for the last few years. It was back in August 2009 that an agreement was reached. The government has not been successful in getting the bill through committee. It has had significant support, though not from the New Democratic Party, in terms of the bill being passed.

As I commented at the beginning of my remarks, we are concerned that the government has not been as aggressive in looking at the larger markets. We look to the government to do what it can to expand trade and secure the markets that are of critical importance. I will point out a couple of them, but before I do, I will briefly comment on the Panama agreement.

Central America is a very important region in the world. My understanding is that today Panama is the number one country in that region in terms of imports and exports. There are many benefits with regard to this agreement setting some ground rules and assisting us in being able to grow in the future.

From a Manitoban perspective, a province for which I have a very strong bias and preference, it produces a great deal of potatoes and potato products. One of the largest consumers of those potato products is the country of Panama. I suspect going forward there will be more potato products being consumed in Panama that, hopefully, will be from the province of Manitoba. If we take a look at the potato industry in the province of Manitoba, we will find that it generates and creates hundreds of relatively good-quality jobs, such as the farmers who plant the seeds and ensure there is a crop in the ground.

There are hundreds of acres of potato farms in rural Manitoba. Our farmers do a phenomenal job. I would argue, although some of my Atlantic colleagues might question it, that the best potatoes not only in North America but anywhere are found right in the province of Manitoba. Of course, we give the credit for that production to our prairie farmers.

There are also jobs in the processing plants. For example, we have french fry plants in the province of Manitoba that create hundreds of jobs. Whether it is the farmer or the person on the line who is cutting up potatoes or producing the many different potato products, those are all good-quality, valuable jobs. A good percentage of those potato products ultimately end up in Panama.

The potato industry is just one industry. I think during second reading I was able to make reference to it, but there are other things.

Manitoba Hydro is one of Manitoba's, and ultimately one of Canada's, largest corporations. Manitoba Hydro has been around the province for a good number of years. It ensures that we have, if not the cheapest, very close to the cheapest utility rates in North America. Manitoba Hydro also explores the world and provides consulting and professional services. The country of Panama has recognized that and has turned to Manitoba Hydro for consultation and advice on the type of technology we use in the province of Manitoba, to ultimately help grow hydro development, electrical grid lines and so forth in the country of Panama.

I suspect we could go from province to province throughout Canada and find there are different connections that allow each province to see the benefits of having freer trade in the flow of commodities and other forms of trade, whether that is tourism or contracting, that generate economic opportunities for Canadians in each of the different provinces.

Obviously, there is benefit for Panama at the same time. That is why I started off by saying Canada is indeed a trading nation.

I listened to many members of the New Democratic Party try to play down Panama, saying it is a small country and very little trade actually comes to Canada or that it is a very small percentage of the overall trade.

One of the things that we should always be cognizant of is that every country in the world is an important country and has something to offer. I believe that Canada also has an obligation to work with countries, big and small. There are challenges in the country of Panama, as there are challenges here. Do we have concerns within the Liberal Party? Sure, we have concerns. I think all people have concerns.

However, given the importance of recognizing Panama, the country we trade with more than any other in Central America, there is great value in terms of having this agreement.

Earlier today, in talking about Panama, I posed the question to the member for Ottawa Centre in regard to whether the NDP has actually supported any free trade agreement. I was quite specific in my comments, asking if NDP members had ever literally stood up inside the House to support a free trade agreement with any country throughout the world.

After a while, the only thing the member could come up was that he somewhat implied the Jordan agreement. From what I can recall, there was no standing vote on the Jordan agreement. To the best of my knowledge, I do not believe the NDP has ever supported or stood in their place to vote in favour of a trade agreement in the history of our country.

I believe that to be factual, and would look to the NDP members to correct that if that is not the case, to show me where, within Hansard, that they support or have supported a trade agreement.

Why is it important to recognize that? It is because consistency is important. At the end of the day—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to assist my hon. colleague in making sure he always seeks the highest principles in this place, which is to tell the truth. A number of times in his speech he repeated something that the record shows not to be truthful.

On June 4, 2012, the NDP did in fact support a trade deal.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

That is not a point of order but rather a point of debate. The House leader knows full well there will be other opportunities for members of the official opposition to respond to this matter according to the facts as they see them.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to be very factual, and I look forward to a question from the member. Prior to the member posing a question, I would suggest that he go back to that particular date so he could tell us whether all members stood in their places and voted for that bill. I look forward to hearing the question from the opposition House leader on that particular point.

He raised, through a point of order, a very important issue. The NDP, as official opposition, is trying to fool Canadians. It is trying to give the impression that it is open to free trade agreements. Yet, on the other hand, it has never supported a free trade agreement.

The member points out Jordan. During his question, he could point out which members of his caucus actually stood in their place and voted for the Jordan agreement. If they did speak for Jordan, I am sure he will correct me, if that is the case.

Having said that, it is also very important for us to recognize that consistency is important. When I raised the issue of freer trade among different nations the last time I had the opportunity to speak, I made reference to other countries. There are many countries throughout the world on which we need to focus attention, not just the small countries.

I made reference to the United States and how important it is, as our trading partner, that we invest more time and energy to secure the markets that are so critically important to Canada. We have found that it is roughly 75% in trade. I believe it is just under 75% now, but that is fairly recent. Basically since the Conservatives have been in government, we have dropped below 75% in terms of the overall share in trade between Canada and the U.S. However, at just under 75% of our overall import and export, I would suggest it is of critical importance. That is why we believe the government needs to do more to secure those markets for Canada.

There are other countries. We talk about the big ten, or the ten countries in the world that have these huge economies, such as China. There has been a lot of discussion about China, but it has been more from a regulation point of view. I do not see any grand vision. The last time we saw something coming out of the Government of Canada that was of great significance in relation to China—and China is number two, I believe, as an economy in the world—we would have to go back to the years when Jean Chrétien was Prime Minister. He said the Liberals would take the Team Canada approach in going in to China. There were invitations for a wide variety of stakeholders here in Canada, who ultimately went to China to try to create and enhance connections so we could improve upon trade relations with China.

We often make reference to Japan. India is another huge country. India has grown at a rapid rate. Many, myself included, think the future of India in terms of its economic importance in the world is incredibly positive. It will become a significant powerhouse economically. Canada is in an excellent position because of the size of our Indo-Canadian communities from coast to coast and the potential opportunities that could be had if we took advantage of that.

That same principle would apply for many other communities. Ultimately, I would argue, one of the greatest natural advantages that Canada has over virtually any other country in the world is our ethnic diversity.

A good example of that is India. Here there is an economic powerhouse that will continue to grow well into the future. Moreover, we have a strong, vibrant, wealthy, well motivated Indo-Canadian community that is in an excellent position to be able to capitalize on that growth.

We can talk about Germany, Russia, Brazil, U.K., France or Italy. Those are really the major players in the world economy and we need to see the government aggressively dealing with these countries.

However, I want to talk about a country I have talked about in the past because I feel very passionate about the Philippines. It is a country that I have had the opportunity to visit on numerous occasions. I came back from the Philippines recently where I met with Governor Garcia from Cebu and Governor Pineda from Pampanga. I have also had the opportunity to meet with Mayor Lim from Manilla and many different congressmen.

When I meet with elected officials I talk about the relationship between Canada and the Philippines needing to go beyond immigration. Yes, the Philippines is Canada's number one source country for immigrants. There is no doubt about that. It has been the number one source of immigrants for the province of Manitoba for many years, but I believe there is a very real opportunity today to go well beyond that.

I understand that the Prime Minister is going to India and the Philippines in a couple of weeks. I hope he will take my advice and the advice of others by looking at the Philippines as more than just a country for immigration. Let us look at ways in which we can have freer trade with the Philippines. Yes, there are large countries with large economies and some with smaller economies, but they are still worthwhile for Canada as a nation to reach out to and build economic ties with, ties that will ultimately allow for more trade.

With the exception of the New Democrats, who do not support freer trade, I believe it is important that we recognize the value of how that is going to generate jobs in the future. If we recognize that value, then I think that actions ultimately speak louder than words. I anticipate and would like to see ongoing agreements into the future that will enhance the opportunities for people to gain employment and to participate and engage with many other countries throughout the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise with some concern for my friend, who seems to have cribbed much of his notes from the Conservative Party's talking points regarding the NDP and trade. The fact is that under previous Liberal regimes, 13,000 consecutive foreign takeovers were approved without one single rejection. Not once in all of those years and all of those takeovers did the Liberal Party think that standing up on Canadian sovereignty issues and the rest was important.

To clarify the record, because I know my friend is very keen on records, I would point out that when the motion was presented by the members for Calgary Northeast and Wild Rose with respect to some trade negotiations and trade legislation, particularly around Bill C-23, the act with Jordan, that act was passed by this place.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

But the member himself did not vote.

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

My friend now heckles me to say that we did not vote for it. However, neither did he. How this place actually works is that from time to time, it gets along and Parliament decides to pass legislation by voice votes. Parliament decides to pass legislation together.

My friend would like to make a distinction without a difference. He did not stand in his place and vote for this trade deal. In fact, no member of Parliament stood in this place and made the trade deal. He would like to present that as somehow true, that we did not stand and support this particular trade deal. He knows it to be false. He spends enough time in this place to know how it works and he knows that the NDP supported this trade deal at committee stage and then finally at the last stage in Parliament. If that were not the case, then we would have opposed it like we have opposed other bad trade deals, like we are opposing the China foreign investor protection agreement that is selling out Canadian resources.

To my friend, he might wish to stand and correct the record and be honest with all of us here about how it works and what the NDP's intentions and actions actually were with respect to trade. We seek fair trade, not this ridiculous neo-con free trade that the member so much promotes and that his government did when the Liberals were in office, allowing 13,000 consecutive foreign takeovers to happen without once—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader is daydreaming. The member says that out of all the free trade agreements in the history of Canada, the NDP members found one, sat on their hands, and we have to believe them members because there was no recorded vote. Apparently, they say that they voted in favour of it.

The record is very clear. We know there are a lot of bills, probably more than 50%, where there are votes. The NDP members knew this was important legislation. If they wanted to send a message to Canadians that they were prepared to vote in favour of legislation, they had the opportunity to stand in their place. I suspect it is because the vast majority of their caucus would not have supported having a recorded vote. They were quite content to let it be just a voice vote. Therefore, we do not know how they would have voted.

The member made reference to the 13,000 takeovers. What the member does not recognize is that a vast majority of that investment was the creation of new jobs. It was new companies being established. I would challenge the opposition House leader to tell me which ones out of the 13,000 he would not have supported if he were in government, Heaven forbid? At the end of the day, which one would he have opposed? That is even with the ability of having hindsight. I look forward to having a response from the member on that question.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of focus on our party and not a lot on what we are debating, which is trade. I guess it is a difficult issue for the member and for the Liberal Party because there is difficulty in establishing exactly what their criteria is on trade at times. When there is an option to amend things like this trade deal, where we wanted to have better transparency and more accountability for Canadian workers and for the environment, we put forward amendments. Maybe not to our surprise, the government voted against them. However, his party, which claims to want to protect the rights of workers and the environment, did not. It decided that it would vote with the government on this.

Therefore, if we are going to talk about doing trade and doing it smart and well, we need to have some protections. We cannot give away the store. These free trade agreements are problematic because they are cookie cutter approaches. We need to look at the details and ensure there are provisions in them that have teeth and not these side agreements. Side agreements are just what the language would suggest. They are on the side, there is no teeth in enforcement.

Why did the member did not even think of mentioning that and why his party rejected amendments to have accountability?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I did talk quite a bit about the Panama agreement and the benefits. I used the province of Manitoba as an example, whether Manitoba Hydro, or potatoes that are produced in the province and how Manitoba would benefit through this agreement. It will not create hundreds of thousands of jobs, but there are jobs there as a result of free trade with Panama. In general, free trade with other nations is what has allowed Canada to do as well as it has as a nation.

I appreciate the member's comments. He is probably more true to form in terms of why the NDP never really votes for or supports free trade agreements. It is because of things which he has listed. However, that same principle could be applied on virtually any agreement that is out there. That is the reason why the NDP does not support free trade agreements, and I respect that.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the international trade committee and it has been my privilege to do that since I was elected some four and a bit years ago. Throughout that time, I am proud to say, our Conservative government passed a number of free trade agreements. I am really proud of that accomplishment so I would like to share some of those with members. We passed the European free trade agreement with Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. We passed free trade agreements with Peru, with Colombia and with Panama. Members also know that we passed a free trade agreement with Jordan, with all-party support.

However, the issue is not whether it was Jordan. Sitting in my committee, it has struck me that, while the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition are not members of that committee, but certainly have opinions on it and that is their entitlement, Her Majesty's loyal opposition has been constantly and consistently negatively criticizing these deals, notwithstanding that we have labour and environment protection.

Do members know what businesses want? They want a rules-based system because we do business with every country in the world, including China.

Because I appreciate that the Liberal Party has been supportive, why does the member think there has been such vehement objection from Her Majesty's loyal opposition to every effective trade deal that we have put in place? I have made the comment about Jordan already.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect it probably has more to do with a historical perspective of the New Democratic Party. I understand that the New Democrats are being more challenged in the last year or so in regard to trying to change some of their party policy. They have a history in which they have been very clear that they do not support free trade agreements and I think they have been challenged to come up with a better approach.

I recognize the number of agreements that the member has talked about and I do believe we need to start making it higher a priority, not only of the smaller economies but also to do more in larger economies. That is where ultimately there is a lot we could do, and I use India as a great example, just given the size and diversity of our ethnic—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle is rising on a point of order.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a procedural expert, but I believe we are discussing a bill. It seems to me that the other two parties, who have always gotten along well, are now putting the official opposition on trial. I also get the impression that we are wasting our time and going around in circles. We need to get back to today's discussion topic.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is being very touchy. The NDP has often voted with the conservatives.

The hon. member has missed a few years of debate since he is new to the House, but I understand his point of view.

When we discuss the ins and outs of a bill, it is normal to also speak about its pros and cons; I think that is good. That being said, I do not believe the hon. member's remarks constitute a point of order.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

I agree with the hon. member for Bourassa. This is not a point of order.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has about 25 seconds.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize how important it is for us to be more aggressive at looking at countries like India. Our greatest asset is our ethnic diversity. The Indo-Canadian community is one of great proportions, so much talent and amazing resources. If we tap into that, we could have additional and more trade and more jobs being created between India and Canada. The same principle would apply for any other country throughout the world, if we tap into the expertise and diversity of our ethnic country.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I do not think the hon. member on the Liberal side will be disappointed. In the coming years we will be working on these deals. There will be many more in the making.

It is a pleasure to rise today to talk about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the concrete benefits that this trade agreement will provide to Canadian businesses exporting to Panama.

The member for Malpeque has criticized this agreement, saying that trade with Panama is in insignificant and accuses the government of exaggerating its benefits to Canadians. Apparently the $111 million worth of exports that went to Panama last year is insignificant. What that member fails to realize is that every one of those dollars directly supports our economy and Canadian jobs and that is in no way insignificant.

During the 13 years in office, the Liberals signed 3 trade deals, but in less than 6 years this Conservative government has signed agreements with 9 countries and we are negotiating with many more.

This is why I would like to share with the House the impact that this agreement will have on Canadian companies and exporters.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is a high-quality, comprehensive agreement that will bring tremendous benefit to our economy. A free trade agreement with Panama will give Canadian exporters, investors and service providers preferential access to a dynamic and fast-growing economy that recorded a GDP growth of 10.6% in 2011.

Once implemented, the agreement will improve market access for Canadian exports in the Panamanian market by lowering trade barriers. The elimination of tariffs will create tremendous opportunities for increased Canadian exports to Panama.

Once the Canada-Panama free trade agreement is in place, Panama will eliminate tariffs on 95% of recent non-agricultural imports from Canada. The remaining tariffs will be phased out over 5 to 15 years. This is significant considering that Canadian exports on non-agricultural products are currently facing tariff peaks of up to 81% of Panama, while the average most favoured nation tariff rate for non-agricultural products stands at 6.2%.

The elimination of the vast majority of tariffs will benefit Canadian workers from coast to coast to coast, including producers of forest products, pharmaceuticals, machinery, automotive, vehicles and parts, information and communication technology and aerospace products.

Let us look at the impact of the agreement on some specific sectors of our economy.

The pulp and paperboard producers of British Columbia will certainly benefit from this agreement. In 2011 Canada exported $5.3 million of pulp and paper board products to Panama. Though many of these products were not subject to custom duties, tariffs ranging from 5% to 15% are levied by Panama on a range of paper products. Obviously market access is not optimal. This agreement will eliminate those tariffs, which will consequently offer new commercial opportunities to Canadian exporters of goods, such as wallpaper, packaging materials, boxes and corrugated cardboard.

Another sector that will see benefits is the pharmaceutical industry, which saw Canadian businesses export $5.1 million of pharmaceutical products to Panama in 2011. According to the terms of this free trade agreement, Panamanian tariffs ranging from 5% to 8% on certain pharmaceutical products will be eliminated.

This trade deal with also benefit Canadian exports of industrial machinery and certain electronics. In 2011 Canada exported $12.8 million worth of machinery and equipment to Panama. These Canadian exporters will benefit from the elimination of Panamanian tariffs ranging from 5% to 15% on a variety of current and potential Canadian machinery exports. If Canadian businesses are able to sell their products in Panama despite these tariffs, imagine how much more successful they will be when their products have gained preferential access.

Another sector that stands to benefit from this agreement is the aerospace industry. Members of Parliament are likely aware that Canada's aerospace sector is highly competitive and has acquired a worldwide reputation for outstanding quality and performance. It is also important to note that it is a highly export-orientated sector. In fact, 80% of this sector's annual revenues are generated through exports. Panama imports some of these products.

In 2011, Canada exported $8.1 million worth of aerospace products, including various ground flying trainers, turbo propellors and airplane and helicopter parts. The implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement would further those export opportunities by eliminating Panama's tariffs on aerospace products that are currently as high as 15%.

It is undeniable that by creating new export opportunities in these sectors, this agreement will help foster economic growth. However, that is not all.

One additional sector that would particularly benefit from this agreement is the Canadian agricultural sector. Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector is innovative and competitive and is becoming increasingly focused on international markets.

In 2011, Canada exported nearly $25 million worth of agriculture and agri-food products to Panama. In agricultural products, Panama currently maintains tariffs reaching peaks as high as 260%. Upon implementation of our trade agreement with Panama, tariffs will also be lifted completely on 78% of Canada's agricultural exports to Panama.

Canada's high quality agriculture and agri-food products, such as beef, pork, frozen potatoes, malt, maple syrup, pulses, canola and sunflower seeds, will benefit from immediate duty-free access to Panama. For example, producers of frozen french fries in P.E.I. and New Brunswick would no longer face Panamanian tariffs of up to 20%. Canada's exporters of frozen french fries would benefit from the immediate elimination of Panama's tariffs on this product. Between 2009-11, Canada exported an annual average of $2.7 million worth of frozen french fries to Panama.

Our pulse and cereal exporters in Saskatchewan will also benefit from immediate tariff elimination with the implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Tariffs currently amounting to 10% to 40% respectively will be gradually eliminated with the implementation of the FTA.

Another sector that would benefit from the free trade agreement with Panama is our pork sector. Pork producers of fresh and chilled pork cuts and sausages would gain preferential access. In 2011, Canada exported about $5 million of pork products to Panama.

Canadian beef exporters would also benefit form this agreement. The FTA would result in the immediate elimination of Panamanian tariffs ranging from 25% to 30% on all of Canada's high quality beef cuts within a 200 ton tariff rate quota.

This agreement would provide significant benefits for our Canadians farmers. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement being debated here today would ensure that our Canadian agriculture and agri-food producers and exporters are fully able to compete with other preferential suppliers to Panama.

There are many more examples that I could cite but the fundamental point is that the tariff elimination driven by this agreement would create the potential for increased Canadian exports to Panama, and that is a good thing for Canadians.

Pursuing new trade opportunity is a win-win for Canada and its trading partners. Canada benefits from the jobs, prosperity and consumer benefits that come from increased trade. That is why it should not come as a surprise to the members of this House that Canadian companies are in support of this agreement. Throughout the negotiations, Canadian officials consulted with the private sector and the message was consistent and clear: Canadian companies want this deal. If Canadian companies are telling us that they want their government to implement this agreement, why should we, as elected officials, deny them those benefits?

Canadians value the real and tangible benefits that trade brings to our country and that is why Canadian companies support our government's efforts to forge new trade opportunities around the world.

Closer economic integration with Panama promises to deliver further gains for Canadian exporters, investors, consumers and the economy as a whole. By eliminating tariffs on these goods, Canadian exporters and producers will be able to compete on a level playing field against competitors from other countries, such as the United States or the European Union, that have or will soon have preferential access to Panamanian markets in the near future.

For all those reasons, I ask all hon. members to support the implementation of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague why the government defeated the amendment we proposed in committee, which stated that before entering into an agreement with Panama, Canada would require a tax information exchange agreement, like the U.S. did. Indeed, the U.S. required Panama to sign such an exchange agreement before the U.S.-Panama free trade agreement could be signed.

Why will Canada not do the same? Was there no time to think about it, despite all the years we spent working on the agreement?

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I heard the question correctly, the member made reference to the American free trade agreement with Panama. He is correct that there are ongoing discussions and, more than that, Canada and Panama are currently engaged in negotiations for a tax information exchange agreement. However, the Americans have ratified their agreement. His premise that the Americans were in the act of doing this and, therefore, we should too, does not exactly add up since the Americans have already ratified their agreement. We feel it is also imperative and important. Those negotiations will take place, as well as the tax ramifications.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for all the work he has done on the international trade files working with the minister.

I want to make a comment and get my colleague's opinion. History shows that Canada is and always has been a trading nation simply because we can produce far more goods and services than we could ever consume in this country. Therefore, it has always been in our best interest to be a trading nation and to aggressively seek trade arrangements with other countries around the world. Canada has built itself through trade with other countries.

As time goes on, there is more competition for the trading dollar and, therefore,Canada needs to stay current and to always be seeking ways to improve trade arrangements with other countries. Maybe the member could give us some reinforcement on how this global trade continues to enhance our economy and how important it is to creating jobs and benefiting our economy.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the hon. member for his fine work and for his tutoring as well. I might add that, since I arrived here, the hon. member has been my neighbour and many times we have had discussions.

It is fairly obvious, as he correctly stated, that as a nation we need to trade and we are good at it. The other thing we need that is absolutely essential is a level trading field. I believe that if Canadian companies, manufacturers or those involved in the service sector, whatever area in which they are involved, including farmers with their produce, can trade on a level trading field, we will be able to trade with any nation. Canadians will always rise to the occasion and be able to compete. The end result is that there will be more employment in this country and more products produced. It is the spinoff to the rest of Canadian society that will benefit us all.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, almost 100 per cent of my Conservative colleague's speech was about the financial side of the agreement. He briefly mentioned Canadian workers but did not say anything about the rights of Panamanian workers or measures to protect Panama's environment. But that is what fair trade is all about.

Do the Conservatives not know what fair trade looks like? Or is it that they have no intention of going that route?