Debates of March 29th, 2012

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in reference to the U.S., my colleague made a valid point. Hundreds of thousands of jobs across Canada are very dependent on what is happening in the United States. There is an agreement between Canada and the United States. It is important for the government to put more of a priority on that agreement and try to protect Canadian jobs by ensuring that we have access to the American market. That should be the priority. It is not necessarily to take away from other free trade agreements. Rather, the government should recognize an important priority to all Canadians is to ensure that we have that secure market with our neighbour to the south, the United States.

I would ask my colleague to comment on the importance to Canadians across the country that the Government of Canada advocate for those healthy jobs that are here today because we export so much to the United States.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals always ask the toughest questions. I will try to answer that one.

I did not focus on the U.S. aspect in the sense of the problems we have had in the past. Since the Conservative government has come to power, it has been able to mess up the free trade agreement by giving up on the softwood lumber issue and paying all kinds of money. The lumber and pulp and paper industries in the U.S. have become much stronger by using our money. The Conservative government failed to negotiate with the Americans' on their buy American policy. We could not contribute there.

With any free trade agreement there is good faith and both countries expect to benefit from it. Both countries should benefit from it because there is economic activity that was not there before. The way to benefit is through trade, the exchange of goods and services. The services would include labour, which means that people in both countries would work. If we are unable to have the Americans uphold our free trade agreement with the U.S., I am not sure how successful we would be with respect to other trade opportunities.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama economic growth and prosperity act.

Others in this House might not have been thinking throughout this debate of the famous palindrome: “A man, a plan, a canal--Panama”. As members know, a palindrome is something that reads the same forward and backward. Unfortunately, I cannot read this trade deal as anything but backward. When the “man” is the Prime Minister and the plan is this free trade agreement, we do not get anything very progressive. We do not get “a cana”l; we get a ditch.

We have a very small level of trade with Panama. While we see the Conservatives trying their best to gather up as many small trade agreements as possible, such as the one we passed with Jordan and this one with Panama, it is worth bearing in mind the level of trade that is currently at stake.

In 2010, there was just under $214 million in trade in goods between Canada and Panama. We do not expect this to go up very much even with a free trade agreement. If we look at previous free trade agreements with countries like Costa Rica and other small bilateral free trade agreements, we find that in a number of cases our trade has declined after signing the agreements.

We have a global trading framework already which includes the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and under the Uruguay round the creation of the World Trade Organization. We are not labouring any longer as a global society of nations under high tariffs and protectionist measures. They have been mostly slashed.

What would one want in trading and approving a trade agreement with Panama?

We have heard much in this House of the need to improve labour rights within Panama. We have heard that Panama continues to be a nation that traffics heavily in narcotics and drugs, and the rest of the world would like to stem their flow. We also know that Panama is a country that has extensive money laundering problems. This agreement does nothing to address these issues.

When we look at the ways in which Panama has operated as a tax haven, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Panama is one of 26 jurisdictions in the world that have not yet fulfilled their promise as of 2002 to provide tax sharing information. That would provide a greater understanding of when a country is operating unfairly and illegally to harbour revenue and wealth so that the country of origin cannot tax it properly.

The trade agreement with Panama unfortunately does not deal with any of these issues. It does not deal with narcotics trading. It does not deal with the tax haven problem. It does not deal with money laundering. It does have a side agreement to deal with labour, but we can already measure from previous efforts with such side agreements that they have no real effect on improving labour conditions in a country.

Through the 1990s there was a great increase in trade agreements and a great wave of globalization. Its triumphalism was the creation of the World Trade Organization, but things have slightly stalled since Doha and there is a little less triumphalism. Some people feel that trade, trade liberalization and greater economic activity, particularly greater strength and power to corporations, will raise all boats. Gus Speth, the former head of the United Nations Development Programme, famously said, “This kind of trade raises all yachts”, but it does not do much for the poor. It certainly does nothing to improve labour conditions. If we negotiate a trade agreement while turning a blind eye to the things about our trading partner that worry us, things like drug trafficking, money laundering, human rights abuses, tax havens and places to shelter income that should be taxed under public revenue elsewhere, it is unlikely we would be able to fix them later.

Turning to the text of the agreement, in article 1.06 there are some carve outs so that the agreement would not unfairly target multilateral environmental agreements. I wish the trade negotiators for Canada had listed all the agreements that are important. They certainly have carved out the ones that were listed in NAFTA, such as CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the Montreal protocol on the ozone layer, the Basel convention on the transport of hazardous materials, the Rotterdam convention on trade in hazardous goods, and the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants.

A startling omission, since both Panama and Canada are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is that the framework convention on climate change is not listed as an agreement that would be protected against any incidental accidental implications from this trade agreement to climate policies. As we speak, both Canada and Panama remain parties to the Kyoto protocol, although we know that Canada has signalled its intention, quite shamefully I may add, to withdraw from its legal commitments there. I would not expect to see the Kyoto protocol in this agreement, but I certainly expected to see the framework convention on climate change, to which both countries are currently committed.

More concerning are the sections that appear in chapter 9 of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. Chapter 9 deals with the quite devastating investor-state provisions.

It sounds like the most boring of topics, an investor-state provision. What could it be and why do we care? I want all Canadians to care. This provision is our innovation. We were the first anywhere on the planet to create this provision. It was done in NAFTA. In NAFTA, it is chapter 11. In the Canada-Panama agreement it is chapter 9, but it has the same effect.

There was an effort to make this kind of provision global. Some may remember the efforts were negotiated within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It started within the World Trade Organization, but it stalled there. At the WTO they were called multilateral investor agreements. They regrouped and went to the OECD and called them the multilateral agreement on investment, the MAI instead of the MIA. It stalled and failed there. Thank goodness. It was the result of widespread grassroots opposition.

It is the first truly global campaign I have ever seen where grassroots groups using the Internet reached out to each other. I remember one parliamentarian saying to me at the time, “I can't imagine that any Canadian citizen is really worried about something called the multilateral agreement on investment”. He came back to me a few days later, after he had been on an MPs' study tour and said that while he was paying for gas at a station in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, he saw on a clipboard a petition to stop the MAI. It contained several pages of signatures.

Why do Canadians at the grassroots and people globally not want more investor-state provisions? I should say that once it failed at the OECD, largely thanks to France, but other countries ran to catch up, once it failed there, they abandoned it. By they I am referring to the corporate entities that are pursuing the notion that corporations should have powers superior to those of elected legislatures. The essence of an investor-state provision is that multilateral corporations should be able to trump decisions made by democratically elected parliaments and legislatures around the world and they should be able to sue a country if that country passes legislation that a corporation does not like. That is the essence of it. It is not in any traditional way an expropriation.

They have taken it from global to doing it BIT by BIT, literally the acronym BIT, bilateral investment treaty, such as this one. They are collecting up by BITs to replace what they could not do directly, a global agreement that allows corporations to sue governments when governments take action, even when that action is not in any way designed to inhibit trade. It is as such when Canada banned a toxic gasoline additive, or when Canada took steps to ban the export of PCB contaminated waste pursuant to the Basel convention I mentioned earlier, or in the very sad and tragic case of Metalclad, a U.S. corporation. Metalclad wanted to put a toxic waste site next to a little community in Mexico called San Luis Potosi. The people of San Luis Potosi said no, that it was too close to their water source and they would not let that giant U.S. corporation, Metalclad, put its toxic waste disposal facility there. Under chapter 11 of NAFTA, Metalclad sued the federal state of Mexico.

This agreement means that any corporation with a mailbox in Panama can claim to be an investor and sue Canada at the municipal, provincial or federal levels for any decision it does not like, that it feels impedes its expectation of profits.

In the case of poor little San Luis Potosi, Mexico ended up owing Metalclad just under $17 million.

I fear that my time to speak to this agreement may be coming to a close. I want to conclude by saying firmly and clearly that we must learn from what has gone wrong with chapter 11 of NAFTA and stop including investor-state provisions as an automatic, unthinking addition to every single trade agreement we negotiate.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague.

One of the issues I have is that history has proven that as countries become more prosperous, average family income goes up, life expectancy goes up, as does the amount of freedom in a country. If my colleague went online to a YouTube video called “200 Countries, 200 Years”, she would find those facts recorded there.

Why would the member be against a free trade agreement with Panama that is going to increase not only those people's place in life as far their family income is concerned, but also their life expectancy and freedoms in their country? Would the member not support the agreement just on those grounds?

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

Madam Speaker, I tried to be very specific in my response to this proposed treaty, specifically the investor-state provisions.

It is true that when a country is not prevented from selling its goods by tariff barriers, there is a trend toward improved incomes. I will not deny that for one minute, but the member should to ask the people of San Luis Potosi whether they feel that the NAFTA agreement advantaged them.

There are consequences to these trade deals that we should now be able to examine forensically. We should now be able to ask where our good intentions went wrong and how can we improve on the model. Trade agreements in other regions have not included investor-state provisions, and I mentioned the European Union as one example, and the trade bloc in Latin America is another. Investor-state provisions are not a necessary ingredient to improving one's trade relationships. In fact, they are a poison pill.

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

Madam Speaker, as is often the case, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has done her homework exhaustively and remembers most of it without a note. She has provided us with quite the shopping list of incredible reasons why this is flawed legislation and a bad idea.

My question for the hon. member is whether or not she believes this bill is hopeless given the huge list of flaws she has identified. Is there some hope that with amendments she could actually be in favour of this bill? If so, what are the key elements that would cause her to consider changing her mind?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think any piece of legislation before this House is hopeless. With sufficient amendments, even the worst bill can be remedied. Sometimes that may mean deleting most of it and starting over.

However, in this case, I think there are some very specific areas. As I mentioned, if we included the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in chapter 1 of the trade deal at annex 1.06, it would certainly improve the bill.

I would strip out all of chapter 9. I do not think there is anything that could be saved in chapter 9. The whole notion of investor-state provisions is unworkable.

For the rest of it, if we were to replace chapter 9, we could replace it with firm commitments from Panama to provide full banking information so that its banks could no longer function as tax havens, and further firm commitments to work with Canada and other countries to eliminate its narcotics traffic.

There are other elements to protect labour and environmental rights that could be inserted, but I imagine my time to answer this question has expired.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie for a very quick question.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation.

With respect to this bill, does my colleague have any recommendations concerning the environment?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie for the question.

A completely different approach is needed. The European Union has regulations that compel member countries to use the highest standards to protect the environment in their trade transactions.

If we did the same thing here, we would say that Panama must improve its environmental standards to be at least equal to Canada's, and that Canada will provide trade assistance to make sure it is able to do that.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-24 to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama—and there is something else after that title.

At present, we have time to discuss and debate. I would like to point out that the NDP supports free trade agreements. We agree that Canada must trade with other countries. We realize that the Canadian economy relies on trade. So we have no problem with that. However, in this case, we believe that the government is not showing any leadership. Yes, it negotiated this agreement with another country, but why did it take such a narrow-minded approach? Why not look at more countries, in order to really establish better criteria?

I am not sure if any of my Conservative colleagues have read it, but I highly recommend the book Fair Trade for All by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in economics. The book looks at sustainable development—which we are trying to promote—and global fair trade. It also talks about strengthening ties in order to fight poverty and the problems of inequity. I would like to give my colleagues across the floor a little wake-up call: Canada and many other countries have a huge problem with inequity.

According to the OECD and the Conference Board, there is a huge and ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor. And it is growing faster in Canada than it is in the United States. The OECD can prove it. So we have some problems in that regard.

I would now like to discuss more specifically this bill dealing with the free trade agreement with Panama, which poses two problems. First of all, Panama is a known tax haven. That presents a problem when it comes to doing business and negotiating with a country. Certain clauses must be taken into account, especially regarding tax evasion. The Quebec branch of the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and for Citizens' Action recently prepared a submission on Panama and concluded that such an agreement would be tantamount to legitimizing a tax haven.

I invite my colleagues to read a December 2010 article from Le Devoir that says that “Panama is a tax haven, and not just any tax haven: it is one of the most active, one of the least co-operative and of the most integrated with organized crime”. Those comments were made by people from the outside. If we are going to conclude an agreement with Panama, then there needs to be more leadership with regard to tax evasion.

As the national revenue critic for the official opposition, I find that the government has not done enough. We will see in today's budget, which we are anxiously awaiting. A motion was moved at the Standing Committee on Finance to continue the work done in the previous parliamentary session, but, unfortunately, the motion has been set aside. I hope that the members opposite will accept the motion, which will be debated on Tuesday. The motion proposes that we use all necessary means to address tax evasion and tax havens. I think that my colleagues can agree on that. We are talking about revenue that Canada is losing through fraudulent means. I cannot see why we would not address these problems. I should mention that the Liberals did not do much about this either.

To come back to the agreement, one of the major problems is that Panama has refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement. That is very disturbing considering that Panama is known for its money laundering activities, including money from drug trafficking.

When the committee considered the bill during the 40th Parliament, Todd Tucker, from Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, provided a very interesting testimony.

He made a compelling case that Panama is one of the world's worst tax havens and that the Panamanian government has deliberately allowed the country to become a tax haven.

In his statement, he said:

...Panama is one of the world's worst tax havens. It is home to an estimated 400,000 corporations, including offshore corporations and multinational subsidiaries. This is almost four times the number of corporations registered in Canada. So Panama is not just any developing country.

...for decades, the Panamanian government has pursued an intentional tax haven strategy. It offers foreign banks and firms a special offshore licence to conduct business there. Not only are these businesses not taxed, but they're subject to little to no reporting requirements or regulations.

We believe that signing a free trade agreement that does not include a tax information exchange agreement with a country known for its lack of transparency and for being a tax haven is tantamount to promoting tax evasion. The government has to do something about that problem.

Proposals were made in committee. My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster, the finance critic for the official opposition, worked very hard and proposed amendments that would have made it possible to support this bill. And then there are the component on workers' rights and the problems from an environmental standpoint, which I will come back to if I have time.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster had proposed delaying the application or even the implementation of this agreement until Canada and Panama signed an agreement for the exchange of taxation information. Unfortunately, the Conservatives and Liberals defeated the motion, since both parties claimed to be satisfied with the double taxation component.

As we know, this does not address the issue of transparency or the fact that Panama is still considered a tax haven, nor does it fix the problem of information exchange.

I do not understand why the Conservatives and Liberals do not want to deal with tax havens and go after these funds.

Canadians are currently being asked to tighten their belts. The government is going to table an austerity budget. Yet, it is possible to generate revenue without necessarily cutting spending and jobs. It is possible to generate revenue from criminals—let us call a spade a spade—who exploit tax havens. Some do so legally, others illegally. Why not deal with that?

I was very disappointed that the Standing Committee on Finance refused to conduct this study. I hope that next time, on Tuesday, in the Standing Committee on Finance, the government will agree to undertake a more in-depth study of this.

Moreover, today and tomorrow, there is a conference on tax havens. I would invite my colleagues opposite to attend it.

This issue is very important. It is pathetic that such an incredible amount of money is being lost.

The Canada Revenue Agency has been called upon to address this issue, as has the Minister of National Revenue. We hope that certain problems will be addressed, otherwise we will be faced with a fiscal crisis, especially given the government's decision to cut corporate taxes and allow tax havens to exist unchecked. There are a lot of problems. We are realizing this, and are losing money. Unfortunately, the government is not doing anything about it.

Then there are workers' rights, another very important subject: when free trade agreements are unfair, workers—and, therefore, the public—lose money. It is a violation of their rights, including the right to bargain. It is an attack on the rights of the middle class, which supports the economy and the whole country. It only increases the gap between the rich and the poor.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which was very interesting, particularly his explanation of the flaws in this free trade bill.

He mentioned a writer, Joseph Stiglitz, who said that we can sign free trade agreements that are fairer and more just.

I would like him to elaborate a little on the recommendations made that well-known writer's book.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

The author is indeed Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in economics who wrote a book specifically about how to ensure that trade is fairer and more just.

His analysis was based on the agreements that have been signed. One of the things that has to be considered is fighting poverty. The time to do that is during negotiations, and that is where we are at present.

Earlier, we heard the Liberals saying it was better to sign right away and fix the problem later. I think that would mean missing a good opportunity. When you are negotiating, you really have to think about sustainable development, the environment, and some kind of balance when it comes to social justice. That can be done. We are living in a period of globalization and trade is on the rise. Canada is part of that world, and so trade is important. In negotiations, we must consider not only the interests of the multinationals, as is the problem now, but also sustainable development and making everything fairer.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to have another Speaker here because I can start reading from the agreement. The last Speaker was a little disturbed that I was maybe reading a little too much.

I have read Joseph Stiglitz, and he does promote some interesting ideas.

The bill we are discussing today would implement the free trade agreement, an agreement that is rather lengthy and has quite a number of things set out in it that we would work on together. I refer him to article 20.06 which talks about co-operation to promote increased transparency. Under that, it has a number of definitions and anti-corruption measures.

Could he tell me if he has read those and why does he oppose them?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her questions.

Yes, I have read them and I am aware of them. These amendments clearly propose that we sign a genuine free trade agreement. We are now talking about co-operation. We want action; we want something concrete. Unfortunately, the problem is that the government still has a very narrow vision.

Has an agreement to exchange tax information been signed? No. That is what we are saying.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question I would like to ask my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie relates to the process associated with trade agreements and free trade agreements.

All negotiations with other countries are over before the bills get here. The Prime Minister is making announcements about a free trade agreement with China, and another one with Japan.

What does he think the role of members is when free trade agreements are signed before they can be debated here?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the Green Party for her question.

I agree with her that this government is not entirely transparent and often presents us with a fait accompli. We see this in virtually every regard.

When we want to debate, it gags us, and when we want to talk about something as fundamental as a free trade agreement, it presents us with a fait accompli. And when we propose amendments, it rejects them. There has been no real public debate about this. None of the groups that work to protect the environment or to protect workers’ rights have been heard.

The real role of the government and the House is to discuss and debate all the issues from various angles. Unfortunately, this government is very much lacking in transparency.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill C–24, a bill to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, signed in May 2010, and the related agreements on labour co-operation and the environment.

I remind members that the predecessor to this bill, Bill C–46, died on the order paper when the 40th Parliament was dissolved, because the Conservative minority government was unable to get the bill passed by a parliamentary majority. Today, emboldened by its parliamentary majority, the government is trying to foist this bill on Canadians despite the fact that 60% of Canadians voted against this government.

Allow me to briefly remind members why this agreement is at the root of so much controversy.

To begin with, there is the issue of tax evasion. Panama is known as a tax haven because it offers taxation advantages to non-resident investors. It provides foreign banks and companies with extraterritorial licenses that allow them to conduct business in Panama. Not only are these companies not taxed, they are subject to very few, if any, obligations.

The local authority's soft line on taxation, banking and legal matters has enabled this country of three million inhabitants to become the financial centre of Central America, with the second largest naval fleet in the world due to ships flying flags of convenience. Shipowners choose this flag because of how unrestrictive it is in terms of taxation, safety and crew labour rights.

As everybody knows, the Republic of Panama has refused to sign a tax information exchange agreement with Canada. That is very worrying given the high volume of money laundering activities in Panama, especially money from drug trafficking. There is no fiscal transparency in Panama, which in the past has led to the OECD and G20 labelling Panama a tax haven.

In the opinion of Alain Deneault and Claude Vaillancourt, from Attac-Québec—a group that combats tax havens and fights in favour of taxing financial transactions—Panama is certainly one of the tax havens that is the most active, the least co-operative, and the most closely tied to organized crime. I quote:

Panama's bad reputation is certainly well-deserved. This country's main economic activity is to provide financial services to drug traffickers and multinationals.

Moreover, Patrice Meysonnier of France's judicial police has no hesitation calling Panama a narco-state that is responsible for laundering a large share of the planet's dirty money.

Closer to home, we know that certain Hells Angels leaders in Quebec, who have been on a wanted list since the beginning of Opération SharQc, have taken refuge in Panama. They moved to Panama because they have been able to launder large sums of money there and they hope that the local authorities will not unduly harass them.

On one hand, I find it particularly ironic that this government, which calls itself tough on crime, would enter into a free trade agreement with a country that has become a shelter for criminals and their money without at least first obtaining a fiscal and banking co-operation agreement.

On the other hand, while this government prepares to table an austerity budget this afternoon, and is calling on Canadian families to tighten their belts, how can the government facilitate the erosion of the Canadian tax base by signing such an accommodating treaty?

While members of the G20 have stressed the importance of dealing with the problems caused by tax havens, once again the Conservative government is reneging on its word and doing the exact opposite by opening up a new front to facilitate tax leakage. Honestly, what a farce.

Another problem with this bill is that the Canada–Panama trade agreement has no mechanism to protect the rights of workers that have so often been flouted in the past. Allow me to provide a couple of examples from last year, 2011.

Thirty-three employees of Panama Gaming & Services were laid off for trying to start a union. The Panamanian government did nothing to help them. These layoffs constitute a blatant violation of workers' rights and, more specifically, a violation of the International Labour Organization's Convention 87, which pertains to freedom of association and the protection of the right to organize, a convention that Panama has ratified.

Here is another example.

On July 8, 2011, security forces used violence to end a union demonstration, leaving at least six dead and 700 injured. Several hundred people were also arrested. The freedom to demonstrate was clearly violated.

The government regularly uses intimidation tactics on union leaders. For example, in the summer of 2011, the under secretary general of a large construction union was arbitrarily arrested and detained for a week. And that is not to mention all the anti-union laws passed by the country's current government.

It is important to remember that the right to strike is prohibited in the Canal Zone and that the government recently passed legislation to undermine the rights and freedoms of public servants. In the public sector, the minimum number of workers required to form a union was increased to 50 in order to make it more difficult to do so.

By signing a free trade agreement with Panama without requiring the country to take concrete action to protect the right of association and the right to strike, Canada is condoning the Panamanian government's actions.

I suppose that we cannot expect any better from this Conservative government, which, even here at home, has taken action that violates workers' rights. We need only think about the special bill that the government recently passed to suspend the right to strike of 3,000 pilots and 8,600 mechanics, baggage handlers and cargo agents who work for Air Canada. Bill C-33 was a fundamental attack on the right to freely negotiate a collective agreement.

One of the most worrisome aspects of the agreement is found in the chapter on investment. In fact, chapter 9 is modelled on chapter 11 of NAFTA, which allows a corporation to sue a government for creating barriers to trade by implementing a regulation.

According to Todd Tucker of Public Citizen, who appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade on November 17, 2010.

....hundreds of thousands of U.S., Chinese, Cayman, and even Canadian corporations that can attack Canadian regulations by using aggressive nationality planning through their Panamanian subsidiaries.

I am very concerned that major foreign multinationals will be able to have trade tribunals challenge and perhaps even invalidate a decision made by a democratically elected government or parliament in order to protect public health or the environment, for example.

In the previous Parliament, the NDP presented a series of amendments in an attempt to address these shortcomings. Our colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster suggested adding provisions on sustainable investment, a requirement for fiscal transparency and provisions to incorporate workers' rights, especially the right to collective bargaining, into the bill. All these amendments were voted down by the Conservatives, with the support of the Liberals. This time we hope that the government will look more favourably on our amendments. I would like to recognize the work of my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster in this matter.

Unlike the Conservative government, which has its sights set only on trade and profits, the NDP is proposing a trade policy that is fair and based on social justice and sustainable development. We want everyone, and not just big corporations, to benefit from economic development.

We believe that Canada's trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade, trade that builds partnerships with other countries that support the principles of social justice and human rights without ignoring the need to develop trade opportunities.

I know that I have just one minute remaining and I will close by speaking of the five pillars of the NDP's fair trade strategy.

First, we are proposing that an impact analysis of all international trade agreements be carried out in order to determine whether or not trade agreements negotiated by Canada benefit Canadian families, workers and industries.

Second, we are proposing that there be a guarantee that trade agreements negotiated by Canada strengthen Canada's sovereignty and its freedom to establish its own policy.

Third is the fundamental principle that all trade agreements must protect and promote human rights, which Canadians deem essential.

All trade agreements should also respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems. Last, any time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to proceed with enabling legislation must be voted on in the House of Commons.

I will take questions now.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, the analysis that has been done on every free trade agreement that Canada has signed has made it better for Canadian families. We know it creates jobs and opportunities.

I know people in Newmarket—Aurora who are anxious to see a free trade agreement with Panama because, coming from communities in Panama, they have expertise in the language and culture. They would be very happy if we were to open the doors and allow them to do business with Panama.

I will read chapter 18 of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement with respect to labour. It states:

The Parties affirm their obligations as members of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and their commitments to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (1998) and its follow-up as well as their continuing respect for each other's Constitution and laws.

Given that the free trade agreement states what labour agreements would be in place and given that chapter 17 talks about agreements on the environment, why does the member not see that this would open doors and opportunities for the people of Panama?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly honest, my constituents do not trust the government when it comes to workers' rights. The government violates workers' rights here at home and could not care less about the rights of workers in other countries.

I would like to remind the House that the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster proposed two amendments to protect workers' rights, one giving them the right to collective bargaining and the other requiring the Minister of International Trade, Canada's lead delegate to the Joint Commission on the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement, to consult regularly with Canadian workers and unions.

Why does the government not support these amendments?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is perfect timing for me to address the House on this budget day concerning the Canada-Panama free trade agreement.

Clearly, Canada is becoming a leader in primary resource exports, and it seems to have found its niche: exporting jobs that belong to Canadian workers.

The day before yesterday, I met with the Aveos workers who demonstrated on Parliament Hill to express their indignation at the unilateral closure without warning of the company's three facilities in Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver. The Montreal region lost 1,800 jobs, and the only thing that the Government of Canada is doing about it is asking the Standing Committee on Transport to study the issue. The Conservatives are in no hurry to protect workers and prevent companies from exporting jobs to the United States, Mexico, El Salvador or, in the future, Panama.

One thing is clear: on May 2 of last year, Canadians elected a strong and united NDP opposition to keep Canadian jobs in Canada.

People in the riding of LaSalle—Émard know that the Canada-Panama free trade agreement will lead to the loss of more jobs like the ones hemorrhaging from the aerospace, manufacturing and pharmaceutical research sectors in the greater Montreal area.

In the south east, plant closures have meant the loss of many precious jobs in Montreal. At this time, the people of LaSalle—Émard are once again feeling the threat of impending plant closures and further job losses. I have been assuring them that my NDP colleagues and I will do everything we can to stop that from happening.

As of February, Quebec had lost 70,000 jobs in the previous three months, including 8,000 in the manufacturing sector, according to The Gazette. That sort of hemorrhaging of jobs has not been seen since the 1981 recession. The overwhelming losses in Montreal speak volumes about this government's innovation strategy.

The new year was not a happy one for workers at the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical research centre. On January 10, they learned that the research centre on Notre-Dame Street in Montreal was closing, causing the loss of 36 permanent and 90 contract jobs. The next day, Sanofi announced that about 100 jobs would be lost.

Once again, the Conservatives' failure to act cost us good research jobs in Montreal.

The hemorrhaging continued in February, when 150 jobs were lost at Pfizer.

Next, British pharmaceutical group AstraZeneca announced that it was closing its research and development centre in Montreal after reorganizing its operations. The Montreal region lost 132 full-time jobs when that research centre in Saint-Laurent closed. At the same time, AstraZeneca announced a 23% increase in earnings for the fiscal year.

Next came the closure of appliance manufacturer Mabe, in eastern Montreal. Some 700 workers were laid off. Nonetheless, all the pieces were already in place in 2005, when the Mexican multinational bought Canada's Camco, which was the largest Canadian manufacturer in that sector.

In the final months of the 2010-11 fiscal year, the pharmaceutical company Merck Frosst announced its restructuring plans. It closed its centre for therapeutic research in Kirkland, on Montreal's West Island. Almost all of the employees were laid off. The media reported worries of a brain drain in Montreal.

Let us not forget the 1,300 Electrolux jobs that will be lost in L'Assomption, in the Lanaudière region, when the Swedish appliance manufacturer moves its operations to Memphis in 2013. Another 600 jobs were lost when White Birch Paper in Quebec City closed.

My fellow citizens in the rest of Canada have not been spared by the hollowing out of our economy. The Electro-Motive plant in London is a well-known case where 450 workers were laid off, which affected their families. They will not forget and neither will the NDP.

I also want to remind the House that Caterpillar recorded $4.9 billion profits the previous year and profits were up by a whopping 83%.

In Hamilton, 1,500 workers at Nanticoke were no luckier than their Ontario and Quebec counterparts in 2009 when Stelco closed its shops in 2009.

I would like to share a thought with the members of the House on this day when we are debating the bill on the Canada-Panama free trade agreement and when the government is bringing down its first budget as a majority government.

In a very lucid article titled “The myth of Tory economic performance” in February, the Globe and Mail commentator rightly hammered home what all Canadians know: the Conservatives have, time and time again, painted a rosy picture of their management of the economy. The article states:

To talk of the Tory economic record, we might first address the reddened state of our treasury that’s occasioning the cuts in the coming budget. A pertinent question is whether our deficit is the result of natural economic factors or whether it owes itself to vote-getting political expediency.

In this context, let’s recall a few things. Let’s recall the two-point GST cut that tore a giant hole in the revenue base, accounting for a good deal of the deficit. Let’s recall the prerecession spending – having inherited a $13-billion surplus, the [Conservative] team spent so excessively that we were close to a deficit by the time the recession began. Let’s recall the slashing of corporate tax rates and the government’s easing of mortgage rules and backing of risky loans that further bled the treasury.

Put it all together and what it shows is that, with more prudent fiscal management from the same guy who lectured other countries on debt in Davos, we could have coped with the recession without driving our treasury into a large deficit hole.

As the commentator says, the reality of the Conservatives' economic management is that jobs are being lost and factories are moving abroad. What the Canada-Panama free trade agreement and the Conservative majority government's budget have in store are painful cuts to our research and manufacturing sectors, which is why I am opposed to Bill C-24.

The NDP strongly believes in an alternative and a better form of trading relationship that can be established with Panama and any other country.

We have to have a fair trade policy that puts the pursuit of social justice, strong private-sector social programs and the elimination of poverty at the heart of an effective trade strategy.

Canada’s trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade, which builds trading partnerships with other countries that support the principles of social justice and human rights while also expanding business opportunity.

We must ensure that the trade agreements Canada negotiates support Canada’s sovereignty and freedom to chart its own policy.

We must adopt a fundamental principle whereby all trade agreements must respect fundamental international labour standards and human rights, and whereby policies are drafted to respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems.

Moreover, any time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to proceed with enabling legislation should be subject to a binding vote on whether or not to accept the terms of the agreement.

In closing, I would like to express my gratitude, on behalf of the people of LaSalle—Émard, for this opportunity to speak in the House.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, there was a great deal in my colleague's speech that had nothing to do with the Canada-Panama free trade agreement but she did talk about being fair to the people of Panama.

We know that Canada faced a global recession that was not of our making. It came from outside our borders. Canada weathered the storm far better than any other country in the world. We have created over 610,000 net new jobs in this country and we are seeing growth and prosperity. There is much more to do and we know, from other research that has been done, that free trade agreements raise all boats. Here is an opportunity for a free trade agreement that would give the people of Panama opportunity.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on why it is the NDP wants to disallow the Panamanian people from having jobs and opportunities.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question. I would like to mention that we are in favour of increasing our potential number of trading partners. However, we are in the process of negotiating piecemeal agreements that have no global vision and do not contain the necessary parameters to help Panamanians and Canadians. That is why I am opposed to this bill.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate her on her excellent speech. This bill deals with a free trade agreement with Panama. Rather than simply oppose everything, we have proposed changes with respect to workers' rights. We believe that these rights need to be taken into account if we are to help the people of Panama and of Canada.

Why, in my colleague’s opinion, should we protect the rights of workers in a free trade agreement with Panama?