Debates of Nov. 6th, 2012

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River.

I must confess that I am worried about Bill C-24, which will have a serious impact on people's lives. The free trade agreement between Canada and Panama will negatively affect a lot of people. Yet the government flatly refuses to adopt the amendments we have proposed. I would like to explain why I oppose this bill.

First of all, Panama's status as one of the world's worst tax havens is not improving any. I think that one of the main functions of government is to ensure that all citizens and businesses contribute to public revenues in an equitable way. Implementing this free trade agreement will make tax evasion even easier for unscrupulous individuals and businesses.

To ensure that this agreement does not provoke even more tax evasion, a tax information exchange agreement needs to be signed before we go ahead with a trade agreement. That is exactly what the U.S. Congress did. It refused to ratify its free trade agreement with Panama until a tax information exchange agreement was signed.

The Conservatives can claim all they like that these fiscal matters have been addressed, but the truth is that they have not been adequately addressed. And they certainly have not been finalized. I find this very troubling, especially considering the high volume of money laundering activities in Panama, including laundering of money from drug trafficking.

The agreement does not yet contain any provisions regarding the automatic exchange of information. Individual requests must be made. For these kind of requests, it is often necessary to know the name of the person suspected of tax evasion in order to request tax information from the other country. As one can imagine, governments rarely obtain this information unless there is a whistleblower.

The member for Vancouver Kingsway moved a motion that made a lot of sense. He suggested that we postpone the implementation of the trade agreement with Panama until an information exchange agreement is signed. Unfortunately, both the Conservatives and the Liberals opposed this motion. Apparently the U.S. Congress had more foresight than the two old parties in the House of Commons. But during negotiations for this agreement with the Republic of Panama, Canada had the upper hand. That was the time to bring in all of the important clauses. But sadly, the Conservatives missed that opportunity.

We must also consider the environmental aspect. We cannot ignore the fact that this free trade agreement is a gift to large mining companies. The agreement has a chapter on the environment, but this chapter is not binding. The agreement is extremely weak from an environmental perspective. No monetary penalties are imposed if a party violates the rules.

There are some great principles but they are not enforced. There are empty words and honourable intentions, but there is nothing concrete to back them up. There is no control mechanism other than sheer political will, and in Panama, political will rarely favours protecting the environment. So we have to wonder: who will ensure that environmental standards are met?

Under this agreement, international mechanisms will be used for dispute resolution. As we know, these mechanisms are very expensive and cumbersome. Take the case of the American multinational that wanted to locate in Mexico a few years ago. The land had been purchased but construction had not yet started. The local government realized that operations of the plant would contaminate the groundwater and hence the region's drinking water. It was opposed to the multinational moving there. Citing chapter 11 of NAFTA, the U.S. firm dragged the local government before an international tribunal. Although the multinational did not even have a shovel in the ground and its operations would have contaminated the region's source of drinking water, the court sided with the company.

No local community will be able to afford to have its arguments heard before international tribunals. What the men and women of Panama are being told is that this has nothing to do with them and that they have no say. That is unfair and insulting. Why are big companies, such as mining companies, entitled to recourse, but mere citizens are not?

That is the old way of going about development. The NDP intends to promote the sustainable development of natural resources while respecting the will of the people. That is the opposite of the Conservatives' approach.

To conclude my remarks about the environment, I will quote Jennifer Moore, of MiningWatch Canada.

In committee, she said:

...this agreement is going to ensure greater legal stability for the Canadian mining industry within the context of a regulatory regime in Panama that has demonstrated itself to be ineffective at preventing detrimental consequences to...the environment....

Is that really what the Conservatives want? What image do they think that projects of our country on the world stage? This problem would have been easy to fix, but no, the government refused to listen to us. It is unbelievably sad.

Another thing I am concerned about is workers' rights. This is important to me and to the NDP. We believe that major development projects have to be carried out respectfully without ideological confrontations. That is why I wonder why there are no clauses in the agreement on protecting workers' rights. There is no mention of the right to strike, for example. Employers have carte blanche to fire striking employees. They also have the right to hire scabs. For years, the Conservatives have been refusing to add anti-scab legislation to the Canada Labour Code, so we should not be too surprised that they do not object to this practice in Panama.

Workers' rights have often not been respected in Panama. I am not talking about decades ago. Just a few months ago there were violent confrontations between striking workers and the police. They took a terrible toll: six demonstrators were killed, several were injured and 300 union leaders were detained arbitrarily. This is a frontal attack on the fundamental rights of workers. What did the Conservative government do about all this? Nothing at all.

My colleague from Vancouver Kingsway proposed two amendments on this in committee. He wanted to guarantee that unionized workers in Panama had the right to collective bargaining. He also wanted to require Canada's representative on the joint Panama-Canada commission to consult on a regular basis with representatives of Canadian unions. But, alas, the Conservatives rejected all these ideas.

We are being asked to support a free trade area where workers' rights will be further degraded. It is distressing. I would also like to point out how inflexible my Conservative and Liberal colleagues were throughout this entire debate. We proposed a host of amendments to improve this agreement. One after the other, our ideas were rejected, even through there was practically no debate on their relevance. Simply put, they did not take our ideas seriously.

Is that not also the case with several private members' bills that propose changes suggested by the official opposition? This government is making a complete mockery of democracy.

The NDP supports trade, and, like many Canadians, we want to eliminate trade barriers. But this is no reason for us to lose our critical thinking. At second reading, we voted to send this bill to committee in the hope of bringing forward some progressive amendments, but not one was accepted.

Yet this is a simple and straightforward matter. What the NDP wants is international trade that encourages the development of value-added Canadian industries, that creates jobs in Canada by expanding access to foreign markets for our products, and that promotes sustainable development around the world and responsible investment that protects the rights of workers here and everywhere else, while protecting our tax system.

The NDP is in favour of fair trade for all, not just blind free trade that benefits large corporations most of all. But the Conservative government does not want Canadians to know this. Once again, it is imposing a time allocation motion to limit the debate on this.

For fiscal, environmental and social reasons, I do not support Bill C-24. This bill is not good for either Canadians or Panamanians.

I invite my hon. colleagues to reflect carefully on the arguments I just raised. Let us reflect carefully on the consequences of what we are about to do. The consequences will be very apparent for a very long time.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, the member claims that the NDP is in favour of free trade, yet there is no example of the NDP ever supporting a free trade agreement. In fact, the NDP has opposed every free trade agreement, including the free trade agreement with the United States, NAFTA, and dozens of other agreements.

Free trade allows everyone involved to raise their standard of living. Why does the member and her party want to deny the people of Canada and the people of Panama an opportunity to raise their living standards?

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

Mr. Speaker, I just said that we are in favour of trade, but economics is not the only aspect to trade. Yes, the economic aspect is important, but there are also the environmental and human aspects.

We will always oppose agreements that do not propose anything to improve the lives of citizens and workers in terms of their rights, for example. We will absolutely oppose that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat interesting regarding the principles the member talks about when discussing the rights of labourers and the need to protect our environment that the vast majority of Canadians, if not all, would agree with them. That does not necessarily mean that we do not enter into free trade agreements. If we were to apply those same principles to trade in general, we would not be able to trade with many of the countries we trade with today.

Is the member suggesting that the government should not allow for trade with countries that, in her opinion, would be compromising human rights and issues of that nature?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I have said twice now that we support free trade agreements when there are agreements and assurances that human rights will not be violated.

I forgot the second part of my answer. I apologize.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here in the House of Commons for many years. We have studied a number of free trade bills. I remember that the Liberals were against free trade during the time of Brian Mulroney and they voted against it. But when they came to power, they were in favour of it. My memory is good and that is what I remember.

We also talk about fair trade. The Conservatives are constantly telling us that we have always voted against it. Perhaps we will be in power in 2015 and we will be able to negotiate an agreement that would benefit both big business and workers. The existing free trade agreements always benefit major corporations but offer nothing to workers. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now remember the second part of my answer.

We have the upper hand when we are discussing and negotiating the agreement, and that is when we can bring in everything we want. We cannot do it after the fact. Afterward, we no longer have that option. The best time is when we are negotiating an agreement. That is when we should include rules to protect workers and the environment, to ensure that we end up with a real agreement and not an illegitimate one.

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

Mr. Speaker, to respond to one the previous questions by the minister, we have supported free trade and would dearly love to support all free trade agreements, because we do believe in free trade.

However, the Conservatives put forward incomplete agreements. They put forward agreements that with some amendments, like the amendments we put forward to the bill, could be fantastic. I do not know why they only want to go halfway.

Today a number of Conservative speakers talked about the NDP holding up these bills. Let me provide some history to the bill. On August 11, 2009, the Conservative government concluded negotiations for this free trade agreement with the Republic of Panama. The agreement included side agreements on labour co-operation and the environment, and it was signed on May 14, 2010.

[An hon. member]

Where is it now?

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

Exactly. On that same day the Conservative government tabled the agreement in the House as Bill C-46. The bill passed second reading and committee stage, but it died on the order paper at the dissolution of the 40th Parliament. The legislation was reintroduced on November 15, 2011 as Bill C-24. So we can hardly be accused of holding this legislation up.

Nonetheless, we are opposing the bill for a number of reasons. When the committee considered Bill C-46, it heard compelling testimony from witnesses about the use of Panama as a tax haven for tax evasion and avoidance. Furthermore, Panama has a poor record on labour rights and the deal's side agreements on labour and the environment are very weak.

I started my speech by saying that with some amendments and more careful consideration of the bill, we could make it a better bill. Here, I hope that someone on the government side asks me a question about the two side agreements, one on labour and one on the environment. If the Conservatives simply put those side agreements into the body of the agreement, then those agreements would have teeth. Those two side deals would have real consequences in this agreement. We would accept that. That would be wonderful and reasonable, but the Conservatives refused to do it.

We are also very concerned that the agreement provides greater rights and powers to foreign investors. That is worrisome given the controversies on the environmental and human rights records of some firms operating in Panama. Recent committee testimony on Bill C-24 confirms that these issues continue to be of concern. Motions and amendments that would address the glaring issues in the agreement were introduced by our critic from Vancouver Kingsway, but were opposed and defeated by the Conservatives and Liberals.

We have tried to make this a bill that we could support. The amendments were reasonable and well thought out, and I will talk about them in a moment. Prior to clause-by-clause review of Bill C-24, our critic from Vancouver Kingsway proposed to the Standing Committee on International Trade a motion that would stop implementation of the Canada-Panama trade agreement until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement, called TIEA. His motion was defeated.

The Conservatives and Liberals argued that progress was being made in the negotiations under way to sign an agreement. Considering Panama's history and reputation in such matters, it should be clear why such an agreement is necessary before signing a trade deal and why we need to examine its terms to assess its adequacy. The U.S. Congress would not ratify the American free trade agreement with Panama until this was signed.

I do not know what happened behind closed doors with the Conservatives. Perhaps they asked Panama to sign the same kind of agreement the Americans had. Maybe Panama refused, but the point is that the Conservatives have gone ahead without having any sort of agreement signed.

Subsequently, during clause-by-clause review of the bill, our critic proposed several amendments that would have made progressive changes to the bill. These included the addition of the crucial concepts of sustainable development and sustainable investment, a requirement for taxation transparency, and provisions to incorporate in the bill the protection of labour rights, including the right to collective bargaining. Other amendments would have required the minister of international trade to consult with labour and trade unions, as well as to work with human rights experts and organizations to create impact assessments for this agreement. A final amendment would have required Parliament to vote on extending the provisions of the act after five years. All of these amendments were voted down by the Conservatives, with the help of the Liberals.

The status of labour rights in Panama is a major concern, and it is a complete failure of this trade agreement that it fails to ensure that these rights are not denied to Panamanian workers, as they would have been in the past. Moreover, I reiterate that the side agreements could easily have been incorporated into the body of the agreement. Had that happened, there might have been considerable support from this side of the House for this agreement. There were other amendments that we proposed, but those two are very important.

We did support the free trade agreement with Jordan. We have, at second reading, voted to support trade agreements to get them to committee so that we could offer amendments to make the legislation even better. Canadians expect us to work together in the House to come forward with the absolute best legislation we possibly can. In this and the last Parliament, we have seen legislation from the other side that could have been better if the government had just accepted suggestions and amendments from our side of the House. It could have been legislation that all Canadians could be proud of.

Two of the amendments put forth in committee by our critic would have protected trade union workers in Panama by offering them the right to collective bargaining, as well as requiring the minister of international trade, as the principal representative of Canada on the joint Panama-Canada commission, to consult on a regular basis with representatives of Canadian labour and trade unions. Like all other amendments, these were defeated.

Unfortunately, this creates a free trade zone that belittles the rights of labour. This is a serious problem that is already quite prevalent in Panama. I believe that we had 13 amendments to the bill at committee stage. Not one of them was accepted. The Conservatives and the Liberals had no amendments. We have been working to make these agreements better, but we have not had any success.

In addition, two amendments regarding definitions were proposed by our member from Vancouver Kingsway. The first was regarding sustainable development. That amendment defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, as set out in the Brundtland Report published by the World Commission on Environment and Development”.

The second amendment was regarding the definition of sustainable investment. The amendment would define sustainable investment as “investment that seeks to maximize social good as well as financial return, specifically in the areas of the environment, social justice, and corporate governance, in accordance with the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment”.

The labour co-operation agreement is not as strong as it could be. Its enforcement mechanisms are weak, the fines are small, there are no countervailing duties, and there is no provision for abrogation or any such remedy. Quite frankly, it is troubling.

We do want free trade, but we support free trade agreements that expand Canadian exports by reducing harmful barriers to trade. We encourage the development of value-added industries. We believe in creating Canadian jobs by increasing market access to our products; increasing productivity by encouraging new investment; diversifying our exports, especially in emerging markets; and also agreements that help reduce Canada's trade deficit.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is very aware of the area I represent. In fact, he has visited many times and I have welcomed him to come back and visit. He knows my area is richly blessed with primary agriculture and also food processing. I am sure his riding has some agriculture as well.

However, I am concerned that we do not simply throw this trade agreement out. It would have a major impact on our rural communities in terms of allowing them to export agricultural products. We know that beef, pork and much of these processed foods are finding a great market overseas.

I would ask my colleague—and I want to give him lots of time to answer this question—if he would make a list for us of the free trade agreements his party has supported over the last 20 years, and I will take the time to take notes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague for Kitchener—Conestoga. I do know the area well, and I know he is a very hard-working and smart member. However, I am sure he will agree with me that this agreement is not as good as it could be.

I have already said we believe in increasing access to markets for our goods, not only goods from his riding but from mine and ridings right across Canada. We believe that is one of the things free trade agreements should do.

Would this agreement do that? Well, there would be some, but we could make it better. We could make this agreement work not only for Canadian business but for Canadians right across this country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think this might be an appropriate time to highlight the fact that Canada is a trading nation. I like to believe we all recognize that very important fact. Over the last few years we have seen a huge decrease in the trade surplus versus deficit, which has not been in Canada's best interest.

Prior to the Conservatives coming into government, there was a huge surplus, estimated somewhere in the neighbourhood of $25 billion. Today, that has disappeared, and now we have a huge deficit.

Recognizing how important it is for us to get on the right side of the trade deficit issue, does the member believe that the government has been neglecting the trade file and spending maybe a bit too much time on this particular file?

Yes, it is important. The potato industry and Manitoba's important pork industry are important, but we seem to be spending a lot of time on something that could have passed a year or two ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not apologize for trying to make the absolute best trade agreement we possibly can. If that takes a couple of extra days, weeks or months, then that is what it takes because it is important for all Canadians.

The member talked about a deficit and I think it is interesting. Maybe to get off topic slightly, there was a huge surplus when the Conservative government took power and it has been frittered away. We had $50 million in gazebos and fake lakes and all sorts of money spent. There was a surplus in this country, but now, of course, it has all disappeared and it will take years and years to get back to balanced books.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my two colleagues who just spoke, the member for Hochelaga and the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, gave excellent speeches.

My northern Ontario colleague represents many workers who want to protect the environment and, especially, their rights as workers. He finds the debate we are having in the House very interesting.

The member for Hochelaga raised some very serious points about the agreement: the absence of the right to strike and the possibility of hiring scabs in Panama. That is a very aggressive stance towards workers.

Does my colleague not find that this agreement violates the rights of workers in Panama?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for her kind comments and all the hard work she and everybody on this side of the House have been doing in putting forward amendments on this bill. I am on the public safety committee, and we recently put forward a whole bunch of amendments to make the RCMP bill better, but none of them was accepted. They were good, well-thought-out amendments. I do not understand the aversion the government has to looking at our amendments, trying to understand them and incorporating them into bills.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Montcalm, Persons with Disabilities; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Aboriginal Affairs.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House today. The Albas family has a strong connection to Panama. In fact, when my great-grandfather left Spain, he found work constructing the Panama Canal, and eventually was able to work his way up to Canada where he set roots. The rest is history.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Our Conservative government has been very clear about the priority it places on implementing free trade agreements. These agreements help Canadians compete in overseas markets. We know that an export-driven economy helps Canadian companies, producers and investors to grow into international markets. When they grow, they add jobs in our local communities. One in five jobs in Canada is related directly to trade.

It is clear that jobs in the communities across Canada depend on the business we do with other countries. This is certainly true in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla. I would like to share an example of that with the House today.

Recently in my riding, with the support of our government's agricultural innovation program, a new food packaging technology was developed that can drastically increase the shelf life of fresh fruits. This increase in shelf life means that marine shipping can now be an option for international markets instead of very costly air freight. Let us not forget that marine shipping is also more environmentally friendly than air freight.

We have a large number of fruit growers in my riding. I must say I am a little biased, but we grow some of the world's best fruit. Even this exciting new food technology, without having a free trade agreement that opens up new markets, quickly becomes pointless.

That is why trade agreements with countries like Panama are so important. It is why our government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians. Statistics demonstrate that trade flows more than double with our FTA partners after 10 years.

Looking at the Canada-Chile free trade agreement, for example, since the agreement was made 15 years ago, bilateral trade between Canada and Chile has more than tripled. I mention that because one of the largest private sector employers in my riding has built specialized equipment that is also sold into Chile. That provides jobs in my riding. I think that is pretty exciting.

Numerous studies have of course demonstrated the same positive impact of trade agreements on various sectors of our economy, but I prefer to walk through the plants in person to meet the workers and to see the innovative projects on which they are working.

It has been shown that the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America led to an improvement of 13.8% in productivity in the Canadian manufacturing sector, a remarkable trade-related achievement. In turn, increases in productivity lead to higher wages and a higher standard of living.

The benefits are clear. These trade agreements are helpful to our local economies. That is why our government is in the midst of the most ambitious pursuit of new and expanded trade and investment agreements in Canadian history. Since 2006, Canada has concluded free trade agreements with nine countries: Colombia, Jordan, Peru, the European Free Trade Association member states of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, and most recently with Honduras and now, of course, Panama.

As another example, some of these countries are more prone to earthquakes.

In my riding, we have a value-added wood manufacturer that manufactures specialized cross-laminate wood panels. These wood products are as strong as concrete, but four to five times lighter. They require less energy to produce and they can be made from less valuable timber. It is easy to ship, and most important, it is very earthquake resilient.

We have the product. We have the technology and the expertise. However, now we need more markets opening their doors to these innovative products. That is why we are also negotiating with more than 50 countries, including major economies such as the European Union, India and Japan. These are potentially huge market for that specialty wood manufacturer in my riding.

All of these initiatives are critical to the economic future of our country. In order to grow at home, Canadian enterprises must be allowed to succeed abroad. They must be able to compete in a predictable, transparent and rules-based trading environment. More important, Canadian firms must be able to compete on a level playing field. They must not be at a competitive disadvantage in markets where other countries have these trade agreements in place.

There are a growing number of countries where Canadian companies are at a competitive disadvantage because their competitors have preferential market access under some form of trade agreement, and this is precisely what is happening in Panama if this House does not act quickly to approve this free trade agreement. While this House debates the merits of a trade agreement with Panama, the United States and the European Union are moving forward to implement their respective trade agreements with this vibrant and prosperous economy.

The United States-Panama trade promotion agreement entered into force October 31, 2012. Panama also signed a free trade agreement with the European Union this past July, which could enter into force by the end of the year. Many Canadian goods and services are now in direct competition with those of the United States and potentially the European Union in Panama.

Let me provide another example of this. In the community of Okanagan Falls, in my riding, is one of the world's leading manufacturers of electrical power and control equipment. It does a lot of business in the international mining sector, and right now Panama has a thriving mining industry.

It is important that Canadian manufacturers can bid on work equally with their international competitors, and this is precisely why I am here today speaking in support of this agreement. In my view, we cannot allow American and European firms to have preferential access to the Panamanian market on a number of products that are key exports for Canadian firms.

It is not just for the benefit of my riding. Canadian firms exporting products, such as beef, pork products, frozen french fries, pharmaceuticals, pulp and paper, vehicles and machinery will all be at a competitive disadvantage. They will continue to face duties, while products from the United States now enjoy preferential access. We, in Canada, cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while other countries vigorously pursue trade deals to secure better market access for their products and services.

This government will not stand by, and we will defend the interests of Canadian companies to compete on a level playing field. This is precisely what this agreement does, and that is why I am supporting it on behalf of the people in my riding who will benefit from it. It is imperative that we implement the Canada-Panama free trade agreement to ensure Canadian companies remain competitive in the Panamanian market and can quickly move to access that market.

This will benefit Canadian families in my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, and many other regions in our great country. The member for British Columbia Southern Interior has a tremendous amount of timber supply in his riding, which supplies the firm in Okanagan Falls that manufactures the cross-laminate beams. This is important for everyone in the interior of B.C.

Before I close, I would like to share one more thought about free trade in general.

Recently a local newspaper in my riding reran some of the stories of the day from 25 years ago. As some members may recall, the same anti-free trade rhetoric we are hearing today was also being used 25 years ago against the Canada-U.S. free trade deal. Some members may recall that the anti-trade critics in those days ran commercials illustrating the border between Canada and the United States being somehow erased. Claims were made that tens of thousands of Canadian jobs would soon disappear and that Canadian sovereignty itself would be compromised. The critics claimed that Canada could never compete on a level playing field with the United States and that the deal, if it went ahead, would be the end of our great nation. Today we can clearly see how very wrong those critics were.

Since the agreement came into force, in 1989, our Canadian annual GDP has risen by $1.1 trillion dollars. Nearly 4.6 million jobs have been created in Canada, and our two-way trade in goods and services with the United States has more than tripled. Today our economy, our economic growth rate, our unemployment rates all consistently outperform the United States, and Canada is the strongest nation economically in the G7. Recently Canadian household wealth surpassed the United States for the first time in history.

As for the critics who were wrong about the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, in my view, they have simply recycled the same arguments from 25 years ago and are using them again today.

Getting back to that story from 25 years ago in the Okanagan, the story was focused on a local grape grower who pondered what free trade might do to the Okanagan grape growing industry. The comments from the B.C. grape grower were not unlike what we hear from free trade opponents today. Those comments from 25 years ago were as follows:

...B.C. grape growers are doomed once provincial government mark-ups on imported wines are phased out over seven years. “I know for sure there is no way we can compete with California...” The Americans have cheaper land and labour.

Of course today we know we can not only compete, we can produce some of the best wine in the world. Today in the Okanagan, premium grape growing land is some of the most valuable agricultural land in the province of British Columbia, if not Canada as well. One of my constituents even consults in the United States on how to produce great wine. Under free trade, the B.C. wine industry has grown from a handful of wineries 25 years ago to well over 206 today. Speaking to some of the wine operators, I should also add there are another 40 or so that are going through the permit process. That number, I am hopeful, will soon jump to over 246. I should also note the B.C. wine industry now supports 3,000 jobs. Those are a lot of jobs, and that is what can be achieved with the power of free trade. That is why I am in full support of this deal.

I urge all members of Parliament to support the passage of Bill C-24.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech of the member opposite.

The Republic of Panama has sheltered the police from legal action. Signing treaties like this with the republic would condone this type of thing.

Why does my colleague condone the impunity of the police in Panama?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have before us a free trade agreement that would be in the best interests of both Canada and the people of Panama. I was not elected to represent what goes on in Panama itself, other than to say that my great-grandfather worked on the Panama Canal and I would sincerely hope the Panamanians would reap the benefits as much as Canadians.

If the member has a question specifically about our government's position and the Conservative government's ideas on free trade, I would be more than happy to answer that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have been fairly clear in terms of the principle of freer trade and free trade agreements. Bilateral agreements can be a very positive thing. All in all, they have been that for Canada.

My question is related to an issue that many Canadians are very sensitive to. There are industries that there are concerns about, and Canadians look to the government to protect those industries, especially those that have built-in protections. As a specific example, Air Canada was supposed to be maintaining overhaul bases in the city of Winnipeg and two other jurisdictions, in Quebec and Ontario. Air Canada made a determination through the back door to dispose of its employees, even though there is federal legislation that mandates those jobs have to be protected in those three locations.

Speaking specifically in terms of Winnipeg, why is it that the government does not stand up for those jobs? Those are the types of jobs that are important in certain sectors of the industry. As a result of the government's not doing that, there are a lot of people who are nervous when it brings in free trade agreements, of whatever nature.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's concern. Obviously today we are supposed to be debating a free trade agreement that would bring benefits to both Canada and to the Panamanian people. I would like to limit my comments today to working on that. Ultimately, this free trade agreement is about jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. We sense that the Liberal Party has concerns only about process. The Liberals say they support free trade, and I hope the member will help us to see this bill through so the benefits can start working for both countries.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent remarks. It was very interesting to hear about his family connection to Panama.

Can the member explain why free trade with countries big and small is so important, and why the New Democrats seem to always vote against free trade, in spite of the fact that it creates wealth and jobs in both Canada and whatever country the free trade agreement is with? Can the member spend a few minutes explaining to the members opposite about the benefits of free trade?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, going back to my comments from the speech, we see wood products that would benefit people who may not be currently using wood construction and are in earthquake zones. It is not just toward the improvement of our standard of living by selling these value-added products, but it would also help protect the health and safety of people abroad who would be very happy to receive those products.

The member well knows that the New Democrats have said many times that they support free trade in principle, but when it comes to actually supporting agreements, they say it is never good enough. I will remind members that this is a free trade agreement between two different countries, and just because one particular element of the House in a minority position has ideas on it, if this were to be amended that would take extra time. We would have to take them back to Panama, and by that point the Panamanians may have already said to forget it, that they will not deal with us.

Let us not let perfection become the enemy of the good. Let us see further engagement with Panama. Let us see benefits for Canadians. Free trade is a good way of doing it.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague said that he really likes Panama. However, something is really bothering me. This agreement will reduce tariffs significantly.

That could have serious consequences in a poor country like Panama. For example, Panamanian goods will be competing with Canadian goods. Panamanians will not have more opportunities to export their own goods, unless they are produced in very miserable conditions. This trade agreement does not provide real protection for the workers or for the environment.

I would like my colleague to talk more about this.