Debates of Nov. 6th, 2012

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond as part of my allotted time, because we will be going to the same committee meeting. I cannot let the kind of comments the hon. member just made go without a response—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will stop the member there. I thought that the member had indicated he would not be able to remain for questions and comments, so we have moved on with debate to the member for Malpeque. If the member from London West feels the need to respond to something the member for Malpeque says in his speech, he can certainly do so during questions and comments in regard to the member for Malpeque's speech. Unless there is unanimous consent to revert back to questions and comments for the member for London West, we have already moved on.

I will give the floor back to the member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the member declined the earlier opportunity, because he is such an interesting speaker. As well, I really did enjoy his quite energetic remarks. That he was wrong on some points is beside the fact.

The reason the government should have passed this legislation earlier, during that 38-month period, was made clear to us by government officials. Before going to that point, I want to come back to the 38 months. That is a long time. The Conservatives had the support of the Liberal Party even when they had a minority government; they would not even have had to use closure. However, if the current government could in any way work with opposition parties and the House and allow the latter to work effectively, the legislation could have been in place long ago. Because the government tries to browbeat legislation through this place, it gets a push back. That is clearly what is wrong with the way the government operates.

As far as what the government officials said is concerned, two year ago during a meeting of the international trade committee on November 3, 2010, the officials warned that the U.S. had concluded an agreement with Panama and that as a result Canadian exporters could face very stiff competition if that agreement were acted upon. Thus, there was a degree of urgency to conclude an agreement on behalf of Canada.

When asked by a Conservative MP at the international trade committee on September 25, 2012 if there were any urgency to concluding and ratifying the FTA with Canada, government officials reiterated their warning. They said:

[I]f the U.S. agreement comes into force before the Canadian agreement...there could well be an impact on Canadian exporters who are already in the Panamanian market. They will no longer be on a level playing field with their American competitors, and the U.S. will have in some cases a significant tariff advantage....

Here is the headline from Reuters World News Service on October 31, just a few days ago. It said, “Bush-era trade deal with Panama goes into force”. Hence, six days ago the U.S.–Panama agreement came into effect. In other words, it is active.

The government of Canada virtually wasted 38 months, and now we are already non-competitive in that market and are trying to push the legislation through the House. The losses that Canadian exporters will likely incur are the responsibility of the Conservative government, and no one else. The government is responsible for the position that Canadian exporters now find themselves in within the Panamanian market, with the loss of their competitive edge, because the U.S. has now activated its free trade agreement. If this crowd cannot get a deal with an economy as small as that of Panama, which, according to government officials, represents one-hundredth of one per cent of our total trade right now, why should Canadians have any confidence that something like the Canada–China investment agreement would not turn out to be a disaster?

The government and this minister are good at reciting the talking points the Prime Minister's Office sends them, reiterating the number of trade discussions under way and the signing of a number of trade agreements. However, what really matters is the results at the end of the day.

The Conservatives claim that trade is their most important file. In fact, the Prime Minister was in China and signed an investment agreement, about which there is a lot of controversy and which has never been debated in this House. I understand that when the Prime Minister was leaving China, the chairman of the Chinese government said that they would like an FTA with Canada, and the Prime Minister accepted readily. That is because the Chinese know that with this particular Prime Minister, the Canadian government will sign a deal, regardless of its net benefits to Canada, just to get a deal. That is our concern with every trade agreement the Conservatives are doing.

The proof is in the pudding. When we look at the results on trade, we now see that for the first time in over 30 years, Canada has a merchandise trade deficit. On the government's watch, there has been a merchandise trade deficit in 32 out of those 44 months. That is serious. What it clearly shows is that the government can reach an agreement on trade, but it has failed to develop the strategy around which Canadians can make the best use of them and add the most value for Canadian industries that are exporting into those markets.

I want to now turn specifically to trade with Panama. Although it is three-hundredths of 1% of our global trade, it is substantive for those people who are in that Panamanian market.

I come from a province where frozen french fries are very important to potato producers and processors in terms of getting into Panama and exporting product there. There is no question that Panama is Canada's largest export market in Central America. It gives us a kind of gateway into the Central American and South American markets, so we need to pursue that.

Primary Canadian merchandise exports to Panama include machinery vehicles, electronic equipment, pharmaceutical equipment, pulses, which mainly come from the west, and frozen potato products, which mainly come from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Canadian service exports include financial services, engineering and information and communication technology services. Those are all important.

However, I want to point out something that I pointed out earlier in the debate. The government goes to great lengths to talk about how the Panama Canal is being twinned and how that is a big infrastructure investment, and therefore Canadian engineering, infrastructure and construction companies would benefit from the deal. That is mostly smoke and mirrors because the fact of the matter is that the Americans already have that sewed up.

The other markets and services, the sale of potatoes, pulses and the like, are extremely important to Canada. That is why we need the deal. However, for whatever reason, the government has tried to oversell it, and it does that with nearly everything it does. It has misrepresented the benefits of whatever particular issue it is in fact dealing with.

To point out and put on the record again, as it relates to the Panama Canal, this is a quotation that appeared in the United States Congressional Research Service report to Congress on the proposed U.S.-Panama FTA, dated April 21, 2011. It states:

Another unique feature of the FTA negotiations was the treatment of business issues with respect to the Panama Canal Area. Its status as an autonomous legal entity under the Panamanian Constitution required separate negotiations for government procurement, labor, investment, and other areas. The United States is the only country with which Panama has been willing to negotiate issues related to the canal area in an FTA.

We really need to ask the Conservative government to clarify its assertions on the ability of Canadian firms to participate in the canal infrastructure work, given those congressional research statements. That comes back to my point on overselling the deal with respect to the Panama Canal. Its expansion is well on its way and the U.S. basically has that sewn up.

As the parliamentary secretary said earlier, and I will agree with him on this, there are added opportunities in the future for spin-off industries from the widening of that canal, for engineering, designs and so on. However, let us not allow the government to oversell the trade agreement.

The bottom line specifically on the Canada-Panama agreement is that the government had 38 months to get this legislation through. It failed during that 38-month period to work with this Parliament and allow the legislation to come forward to a legislative debate and final vote, so now the U.S. has a step up on Canada in terms of that marketplace. Our industries that are exporting to that market will now be at a disadvantage.

The government tends to attack the NDP members for their opposition to the Canada-Panama FTA, but they have some legitimate concerns. I think we have to respect them. However, the Liberal Party has said that it will support this deal. There is no need to go to closure in order to get it through. What would we lose? We would lose one more day, when the government already had 1,155 days to deal with this issue and have a proper debate where those issues were outlined on the table.

Of course there are concerns about money laundering in Panama. We raised those concerns at committee, and we were not satisfied with the answers that the Ambassador gave us. We know there are concerns about money laundering in Panama.

We agree with the side agreements on labour and environment, and they will move us a step forward. They are side agreements. They are basically guidelines, a kind of wish list on labour and environment. They do not go as far as we would like to see them go by having them encompassed in legislation itself, where we would have enforcement ability under the law to have people live up to labour standards and environmental standards. They are not as good as we would like, but on balance, the fact that there are side agreements improves the agreement somewhat. Therefore, on balance, we are willing to support this agreement and move it forward.

We do not have a problem with the government pursuing new agreements, but we must negotiate them in the best net interest of Canadians. That is what we are worried about, and why I started my remarks by going after the member for London West a bit when he talked about Canada being open for business. Yes, we are. We always have been.

However, the difficulty with the Prime Minister is that Canada seems to be up for sale. There are many areas we could go to talk about that. We see the CNOOC-Nexen deal in today's press. It looks like it will be reviewed and now accepted for the Prime Minister. What are the implications of that agreement? Does that mean another country where a company is 64% state owned is in control of Canadian resources? These are serious issues. The government, it seems, makes these decisions about trade agreements on the fly, as the Prime Minister is flying around the world.

It is not good enough. There needs to be a trade strategy. One of the government's most important areas is trade it seems. However, where it fails is in developing an industrial strategy that follows the trade strategy that makes it possible for industries, be they agriculture, fisheries, electronics, service or financial, whatever they may be, to build up that industrial strategy so we in Canada can take advantage of these trade agreements and add jobs and value within our own country.

The benefits of trade agreements should be felt in our own country, and that is not happening under the Conservative government. The results prove it. For 32 of the last 44 months the Conservative government has racked up merchandise trade deficits, and that is just not good enough. We are seeing job losses in our manufacturing sector in Canada.

As I raised in question period, the seasonal industries which create a lot of wealth in this country, $78 billion to our economy, are under attack by the government. That makes no sense at all. They contribute a lot to our exporters, our manufacturing base and our primary industries.

We are seeing the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development basically attacking the people who work in those seasonal industries, who require EI in the off-seasons. The industries that work in those sectors require that skilled labour when the season kicks back in. This minister is attacking them, first with the clawback, in which she is clawing back for the government 50¢ on every dollar that a person earns while working on claim, and now the cancellation. She got up in question period and talked about it being a pilot project. We know that. We know that in the Atlantic region of Canada that program is still necessary, and to take five weeks of income from seasonal workers plus the clawback is attacking those who need that income the most. It is going to drive them into poverty. Those seasonal industries and workers, the ones who work in the potato industry and the fisheries industry, are some of the workers who would contribute to Canada's exports under the Canada–Panama agreement. We need to get it through, but think of the—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The time for the hon. member has expired.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Hochelaga.

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

Mr. Speaker, I gather from the Liberal member's speech that he did not think the agreement was perfect. He even talked about tax havens.

This makes me wonder why the Liberals not only did not propose any amendments in committee, but also rejected every one of the NDP's amendments.

He mentioned earlier that conducting another study would not have taken much time, but voting for these amendments would not have taken much time either, and I think some of them would have suited him, so I do not understand his reasoning.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we did agree with one of the amendments that was put forward by the NDP. However, we certainly did not agree with them all because some of them did not make a whole lot of sense to us. The amendments as posed by the NDP would stretch the timeframe in terms of this discussion on the Canada–Panama bill too far into the future. I agree that the bill has some flaws, but on balance it would improve our trading relationship with Panama. The force of that agreement would also give Canadians greater leverage in terms of dealing with Panamanian authorities on labour, environment and money laundering because of that further economic relationship that would be created

I also believe, as I said in my remarks, that Canada now finds itself under the gun. On October 31, the Americans activated their agreement. We now have exporters who, day by day in the Panamanian market, are becoming less competitive. We need those players in that marketplace contributing jobs and investment for Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague. I just want to pick up on a point. We heard about the Atlantic potato industry earlier. In Manitoba, whether it affects potatoes or pork, which are two vitally important industries in our province, this agreement will ultimately have an impact.

In good part, the concern would be why it has taken so long to get the bill passed. I have indicated in the past that the bill had the support of the Liberal Party. I think it is important to recognize that the government has to take a good portion of the blame for the bill not passing. From what I understand, it was on the table before. It was the prorogation of the session by the Prime Minister that ultimately led to where we are today. It could have, in fact, passed years ago. I wonder if my colleague could provide comment on that issue.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague outlined in great part the difficulty we have had with the government. It had 38 months in which to debate, discuss and implement this legislation so that we would have a secure and activated free trade agreement between Canada and Panama. First, the legislation was coming along not too badly, but the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. That created a delay. However, I think the biggest delay has been because of the fact that the only way the Conservative government seems to think it can operate is by invoking closure.

There were minority Parliaments. The government knew full well that the Liberals were in support of this agreement. Yes, other parties were in opposition. As I said earlier, they had some legitimate reasons to put on the table. However, on balance, I think the majority in this House would have passed the bill. It was the government itself that failed to give the bill priority. For the government to blame opposition parties for the fact that legislation did not get through, when it had the opportunity to get it through, is just silly. However, this is the kind of spin the Conservative government always has. It blames the opposition for everything. On this one, it could have had the job done, but it failed, and it failed clearly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments. I think he may have free-trade envy of the Conservatives, because we have brought forward so many free trade agreements that benefit Canadians.

He is saying, all wrapped up in process, that if there were a vote, the bill would probably pass the House. The answer is yes, it would pass the House, because the government has a majority in the House. The question is whether his party supports the bill. Would his party stand up for free trade, or has it decided to go the way of the NDP and the way of its interim leader and be against anything that would expand the pie for everyone in the world? Does the member support free trade? Does his party support free trade? Does his party support this free trade agreement?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I think I made it clear in my remarks that we have supported the Canada-Panama free trade agreement for some time. We felt that there should be a legitimate debate. We even felt that the concerns of the NDP should be addressed. I outlined in my remarks that labour and environment side agreements are all well and nice, but they are not really enforceable by law. They have some good thoughts. The fact that we have an economic agreement with a country gives us some leverage to try to deal with those issues.

Let me be absolutely clear. Do we envy the Conservative government's results on free trade? Absolutely not. The Conservatives go for the numbers. There are nine trade agreements. The U.S. is our biggest trading market. The nine trade agreements they have amount to only 126.5 hours of trade with the United States. That is not very much. They are small countries. They are small agreements. They do not mean a heck of a lot. The government tries to say that nine agreements means a lot. Meanwhile, the government is failing to challenge the Americans on exports of our products to their marketplace, where they are shutting us out. For 32 of the last 44 months, the government has been showing a deficit in trade. For the first time in 30 years, we have a deficit in trade as a result of the Conservatives' actions. Is there envy of the Conservatives? Absolutely not.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque said that the government has a tendency to oversell these trade agreements. In fact, Conservatives talk about how they have signed all these trade agreements, but they do not want to talk about the details of the agreements. They do not want to have them examined in the House. They do not want to subject them to analysis and evaluation after the fact.

Would the member have agreed to support an amendment to subject the agreement to various reviews after it was signed so that we could test the over-promotion by the government?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Malpeque, give a short response, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is yes. If there is anything we need to do with the government, it is put it to review.

I said in my remarks that the Canada-China investment agreement is a very serious issue that was not debated in the House. It may not have been signed by the Governor General as of yet, but it has come into effect. It has serious implications for Canada and Canadians. I firmly believe that if a Chinese investor, under this agreement, invested in Canada, and a province made a decision that affected that investment in a way that, in the future, that investor lost profits, that investor could sue, and the Canadian government would have to respond. I have a number of written questions--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am sorry. We will have to wait perhaps for another time for those.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the House today on the many benefits of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Our Conservative government is committed to protecting and strengthening the long-term financial security of hard-working Canadians. Canada's prosperity is directly linked to reaching beyond our borders for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's trade and investment. Trade has long been a powerful engine of Canada's economy. This is even more so in these globally challenging economic times.

Today I would like to spend a few minutes talking about how this agreement with Panama fits into our government's broader economic plan. This government understands the important benefits of trade. As an export-driven economy, Canada needs to open its borders. With one in five Canadian jobs generated by exports, our government's ambitious pro-trade plan is essential to bringing continued prosperity to Canadians. That is why deepening Canada's trading relationships in dynamic and fast-growing markets around the world, markets such as Panama, is such an important part of this government's pro-trade plan for jobs and growth.

Regional and bilateral trade agreements have taken on increased significance, given the challenges with the WTO Doha Round. Our government also recognizes that 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. In fact, just last month, the United States and Panama brought into force their bilateral free trade agreement. Canada cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while other countries pursue trade deals to secure better market access for their products and services. The NDP's consistent attempts to delay this legislation are putting Canada's exporters at a disadvantage. This agreement has been debated in the House for more than 60 hours. Our government is committed to ensuring open markets for exporters. That is why we are committed to moving forward with this important legislation.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is another step our government is taking to help Canadians compete and succeed in international markets. With 60% of our economy generated through trade, it is clear that Canadian workers and their families depend on the business we do with other countries. Our government's pro-trade plan is a key driver of Canada's prosperity, productivity and economic growth. By securing access to international markets for Canadian exporters, we are supporting economic growth right here at home and are creating new opportunities for hard-working Canadians. Canada's exporters and investors are calling for these opportunities. Business owners and entrepreneurs need access to global markets. Our government is committed to creating an environment in which our exporters can compete and win against the best in the world.

Our track record speaks for itself. Since our government was elected in 2006, Canada has concluded new free trade agreements with nine countries: Colombia, Jordan; Peru; the European Free Trade Association member states of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland; most recently Honduras; and, of course, with the bill we are speaking about today, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. We are negotiating with many more, including the European Union, which is a lucrative market of over 500 million consumers. A deal with the European Union would represent the most significant Canadian trade initiative since the North American Free Trade Agreement. It is expected to boost our bilateral trade by 20%. It would provide a $12 billion annual boost to Canada's economy, which is like a $1,000 increase to the average Canadian family's income, or almost 80,000 new Canadian jobs. A Canada-EU agreement would benefit workers and their families across the country.

Our government is also intensifying our focus on the fast-growing markets of Asia. In fact, the Prime Minister is in India as we speak, working to strengthen our relationship with this important partner. Just this past March, the Prime Minister also announced the launch of negotiations toward a free trade agreement with Japan and the start of exploratory discussions with Thailand. The potential benefits of these initiatives are enormous. In addition, Canada is working to modernize its existing bilateral free trade agreements with Chile, Costa Rica and Israel.

All of these initiatives are critical for the economic future of our country. With the global economic recovery remaining fragile, it is important that Canada continue to deepen its trade and investment ties with its strategic partners. Our government understands, as most Canadians do, that trade is fundamentally a kitchen table issue. Canadians intuitively understand that trade helps families put food on the table and make ends meet. It helps parents pay for their children's education and save for retirement.

In short, trade is a matter of fundamental importance to the financial security of hard-working Canadians and their families. Expanding Canada's trade and investment ties around the world will help protect and create new jobs and prosperity for hard-working Canadians.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is another step in the right direction. This agreement represents an opportunity for Canadian exporters to grow their businesses in a dynamic and fast-growing economy. Upon implementation of the free trade agreement, Panama will immediately lift tariffs on 89% of all non-agricultural imports from Canada with the remaining tariffs to be phased out between five and fifteen years.

Tariffs would also be lifted on 89% of Canada's agricultural exports to Panama. This will benefit a range of sectors across the Canadian economy, including fish and seafood products, paper products, vehicles and parts, machinery and many more. This agreement would also provide service providers with a predictable, transparent environment, which would facilitate access to Panama's over $20 billion services market.

As Panama is a significant financial centre for Central America and South America, the financial services provisions of the agreement would benefit Canadian banks and financial service providers operating in Panama. This represents a significant benefit to Mississauga and the greater Toronto area where I am from. People will know that the banking and financial service industries in the Toronto area employ tens of thousands of people. Earlier today in the debate it was mentioned that Scotiabank, one of our largest banks, is a major supplier of financial services to the entire Central and South American region. That is something Canada should be proud of. It is an industry that can be expanded around the world, and this free trade agreement will assist Canadian banks and financial institutions in doing so.

The agreement will also support Canadian companies in their efforts to participate in large infrastructure projects such as the $5.3 billion expansion of the Panama Canal by providing non-discriminatory access to a range of government procurement opportunities in Panama.

Members do not have to take my word for it. I will share with the House the words of an old friend of mine, Mr. Fred Blaser, co-chair of Republica Media Group of Central America. He and his wife, Rosemary Engels, are Canadian citizens who have lived in Costa Rica for approximately the last 12 years. I would call them both Canadian and Central American success stories. They relocated to Costa Rica in Central America approximately 12 years ago to manage a rather small newspaper called La República in San José, Cost Rica. They have grown that business, which they now own with their partners after having acquired it from Hollinger a few years ago, into a major business media empire throughout Costa Rica. That is cause for celebration both for Canadians and the people of Central America.

Mr. Blaser wrote an op-ed article in the Globe and Mail in March of 2011 about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. I would like to share a few of his quotes with the House.

He stated:

It's been a year and a half since Canada and Panama signed a free-trade agreement that creates important opportunities for Canadian producers. Parliament should ratify it.

Panama may have a small economy, but it thinks big. During the past three years, a bad time for most of the world's economies, Panamanian output grew, on average, by a robust 5 per cent a year. In the previous five-year period, Panama had the fastest growth of any Latin American country, with the real value of national production increasing by an average of more than 9 per cent annually.

Even more important, Panama is a country with a plan. Its goal is to become the world's third great logistics centre, after Hong Kong and Singapore, by focusing on three pillars: advanced logistics, a unique commercial centre, and a strong banking system.

A new, $5.3-billion canal, scheduled for completion in 2014, will allow passage of most of the new generation of container ships. As a result, Panama will continue--for at least several decades--to be part of the main sea route between Asia and North America's east coast.

He also stated:

Infrastructure for ordinary Panamanians is also growing impressively. Last month, Panama City started work on a $1.5-billion subway, Central America's first, and announced plans for three additional lines....

As far as banking is concerned, investors from unstable countries throughout the hemisphere have relied for decades on Panama's financial system, as a secure haven for their savings.

He goes on to say:

—the government of [President] Ricardo Martinelli plans to spend close to half of its proposed $14-billion budget over the 2010-2014 period on services related to education, health, housing and social welfare.

It is my view that this free trade agreement will assist President Martinelli in achieving those goals and objectives. Mr. Blaser continues:

Since Panama has a small agricultural sector and makes few manufactured goods, Canadian producers have excellent opportunities in the Panamanian market, in areas that include wheat, processed and frozen foods, and industrial equipment and machinery. They would have better access to the Panamanian market if the free-trade agreement came into force.

Panama has reinvented itself. It's time for Canada to rethink its approach.

Those are words that the House should take seriously. I know that Fred Blaser would be embarrassed if he knew that I was speaking so highly about him today but he is a recognized expert in business and commercial opportunities in the Central American region. It would be a good idea for Canadians to listen to one of their fellow Canadians on this topic. I hope my friends across the aisle, especially those in the NDP, will look at Mr. Blaser's words and some of the other articles he has written on the subject.

Fundamentally, this is a good deal for Canada. This agreement will support Canadian jobs by creating new opportunities for our exporters. This is why implementing this free trade agreement is a priority for our government. The NDP has held up this agreement for long enough. I ask all members to join me in support of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his very interesting speech. Before deciding to ask him a question, I took the time to look at the timeline of this agreement and how it was discussed in committee.

In the previous Parliament, the government introduced Bill C-46 on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement, which died on the order paper. The government is now introducing Bill C-24 on the same subject. A number of witnesses came to committee to discuss Bill C-46. They said, among other things, that the Republic of Panama was used as a tax haven and that it had a bad record when it comes to workers' rights and environmental protection.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway moved a number of motions and amendments to address the most contentious aspects of this agreement, but they were all defeated by the Conservatives and the Liberals.

I am sure that my colleague across the way is just as concerned about tax havens, environmental protection and workers' rights as most Canadians. So why then did the Conservatives not support the NDP's amendments to flesh out Bill C-24?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago there were concerns about Panama and its status as a tax haven. We know though that the Bank of Nova Scotia, one of Canada's great financial institutions and a very large employer of Canadians that is doing well around the world, has operated in that marketplace for a number of years and has become one of the major financial players. It does not do that sort of thing in tax havens that help people hide their taxes from the governments that need to collect those taxes. The OECD has removed Panama from its grey list. The United States and 12 other countries have entered into tax information sharing agreements and Canada is also negotiating one.

We can take a lot of comfort in the fact that banks such as the Bank of Nova Scotia are operating there, and that agreements are in place with the United States, our largest trading partner, and other key trading partners. In addition, President Martinelli is planning to make Panama one of the great banking centres of Central and South America. That cannot be done if the country is operating simultaneously as a major international tax haven.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada has a long tradition of supporting freer trade with other nations. That is one of the reasons why we have the development and the economic opportunities that we have here today.

In the member's comments, he made reference to Japan, Thailand, Chile, Costa Rica and Israel. He also made reference to the trip that the Prime Minister is currently taking to India.

The Prime Minister is also going to be visiting the Philippines. Given that the Philippines is Canada's number one source of immigrants today, and has been for many years in the province of Manitoba, does the member see a potential opportunity in the Prime Minister and the government aggressively pursue freer trade with the Philippines?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and also for pointing out the many trade agreements that the government has entered into over the last several years. I think he is making a good point.

I do not have anything to announce today, but the very fact that the Prime Minister will be visiting the Philippines and making a significant visit there, on this trip, is an indication of the importance of the Philippines as a trading partner for Canada. I am certain that we will be pursuing trade agreements with the Philippines. The member is right in pointing out that the Philippines is Canada's number one source country for new Canadians right now. That is a great source of pride to Canada. Those people come to Canada, work very hard and make huge contributions to the prosperity, peace and cultural diversity of our country.

I know that if we enter into a trade agreement with the Philippines, it will be a great boost to our economy and to the economy of the Philippines.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest not only to my colleague's speech but to his responses. It is really obvious that he has a great command of this file.

I represent a riding that has both urban and rural components. We have all kinds of primary agriculture. Some of the most productive farmers in Canada are in the Waterloo region. In addition to that, we have all kinds of food processing in the Waterloo region, companies like Schneiders, Piller's and Conestoga Meat Packers. We also have Conestoga College, which is doing great work in implementing a food processing technology course for students.

We often miss the fact that not only are we going to be exporting agricultural products but value-added products as well through the food manufacturing and food processing industries. I am wondering if my colleague could comment on the importance of that, not only for big cities in terms of food processing but for rural communities that are facing some pretty significant challenges economically.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for that very insightful question.

We like to talk about what a great agricultural producer Canada is, and it is truly one of the great agricultural producers of the world. However, we also produce a lot of processed food and that employs people throughout Canada, not just in the rural areas but in ridings like his and ridings like mine in Mississauga.

The fact of the matter is that those are not products that are produced in great quantities in Panama, so entering into this agreement will open up some very significant opportunities for food processing companies and the people who work in them across Canada.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs acknowledged the fact that there were reasons for those of us on this side to be concerned, such as the lack of tax transparency with Panama.

He acknowledged that other countries, including the United States, entered into an agreement with Panama on tax information exchange before they signed off on their trade agreements. The member said that Canada was negotiating such an agreement with Panama and the government has acknowledged there is a need for such an agreement.

If that is in fact the case, why will the member not show some respect to Parliament and bring that signed agreement to the House before he asks us to vote on this final agreement?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier, Panama has entered into a tax information sharing agreement with the United States, our greatest trading partner, a country with which we have reciprocal tax treaties and have for many years. We have a great two-way sharing of tax information between Canada and the United States.

Many of the countries that operate in Canada also operate in the United States. Tax information is available to us through that U.S. treaty. We know that Panama is no longer on the OECD grey list, and many of our other trade partners are entering into and have entered into such agreements. We can take comfort in that.

What we need to do is to get this deal done to create those jobs for Canadian workers who need them now. The NDP should vote with us and get this done for the workers of Canada. We will proceed with those other negotiations.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. parliamentary secretary relates to the claim we have heard a lot today, that Panama is no longer a tax haven. It clearly is still a tax haven. It has merely been moved by the OECD from the list of unco-operative countries that have refused to make commitments. It remains a tax haven and it has created quite a lot of debate in the U.S.

Now that the treaty before us includes investor state provisions, which means Panama could complain should Canada later impose different conditions for more tax transparency in its dealings with Panama, should we not, as the official opposition has been suggesting today, execute those tax transparency measures prior to giving Panama the right to sue us if we bring them in later?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am kind of surprised by the member's question. She knows that all treaties in Canada are subject to Canadian law, so there is no way that Panama, or any other government under any treaty, could make a claim against Canada for doing something that is subject to Canadian law. Therefore, the question really does not make any sense in that context.