Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to enter the debate on Bill C-24. I thank my colleague for Western Arctic for very capably articulating many of the positions of the NDP and the reservations we have with this bill. I will do my best not to repeat the many legitimate points my colleague made.
However, I will say with some frustration that I have been tracking and following this debate since August 11, 2009. when the government, unilaterally and without consultation from Parliament, concluded its negotiations. I cannot criticize this, as governments do have the right to enter into free trade agreements. However, they then need to ratify them with the Parliament of Canada where the legitimate concerns that the parties may have on behalf of our representatives can be made known. In any serious consultation, there should be some accommodation of the legitimate concerns the other parties brought forward in the context of the free trade agreements entered into.
I raise this only because it has been a constant source of frustration to us that the consultation has not been meaningful or robust and it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, even meet the definition of true consultation if the government side has not accommodated at least some of the legitimate concerns brought forward. I would refer members to recent Supreme Court decisions that dealt with the issue of what constitutes meaningful consultation.
I do not think, by any stretch of the imagination, we can conclude that meaningful consultation took place, because not one of the amendments brought forward by the official opposition were entertained or allowed by the ruling party, even though some of the concerns brought forward would meet the nod test from the general public. A lot of Canadians would be upset to learn that we are entering into this trade agreement with a country like Panama without taking steps and measures to ensure that Panama is worthy of a free trade agreement with Canada.
I do not use that word lightly. Trade with Canada is a privilege, not a right. I am the first one to admit that free trade can help elevate the standards of both parties to a trade agreement. We do not look for mirror image countries. This is not some kind of vanity exercise where we will only trade with countries that are just like us, but surely they must meet some minimum ethical, labour and environmental standards. For Heaven's sake, they should not be the tax haven of choice and the money laundering country of choice for the international drug cartel. Why would we reward bad behaviour?
It comes to mind that Panama is probably dining out on the fact that it has achieved a good housekeeping seal of approval by Canada which has seen fit to enter into a trade agreement with it. It says that maybe all the accusations of being the drug laundering capital of Central America and South America cannot be true because otherwise a nice country like Canada would not sign the agreement with it.
I am here to say that the world is not satisfied that Panama has taken corrective action. It is not a responsible actor in the international financial community. The president of France said so as recently as November 5, 2011. He cited a number of countries that should be shunned by the international community. Guess what countries are on that list? They include Antigua, Barbuda, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Botswana, Brunei, Panama, Uruguay and Venuatu. President Sarkozy threatened that the countries that remain tax havens will be shunned by the international community. How does that jibe with us having this debate today and about to enter into a process that legitimizes and validates the behaviour and past practices of that country.
International tax havens are a scourge on the international financial world and they should be stamped out. They should not be allowed. I go to chartered accountants' websites sometimes to track what is being pushed around here. They call it “tax motivated expatriation”. That is the nice sanitary term for what I call “sleazy tax cheating loopholes” that are ubiquitous among a certain financial class of people.
The OECD has a grey list. Panama was removed from the grey list. It reads:
Panama today moved to the OECD’s list of jurisdictions considered to have substantially implemented the standard for exchange of information when it signed a tax information exchange agreement with France. This brings Panama’s total agreements to the critical 12 that meet the international standard.
Since then, it was when Mr. Sarkozy, in a speech made at the G20 conference in Cannes, named the Caribbean countries and eight others, including Panama, as countries that remain tax havens and should be shunned by the international community.
What is this almost obsession to sign as many of these trade agreements with as many countries as humanly possible without even doing the due diligence, the scrutiny and the oversight that one would expect? These are binding agreements.
The amendments that my colleague brought forward, the terms and conditions under which the government could garner NDP support for these, were reasonable ones that I think would meet the nod test from almost all ordinary Canadians. One was that we address the status of labour rights in Panama. If it is our goal to use our trade relationships as an objective to elevate the standard of living conditions for the trading partners with which we sign these agreements, why do we need to have a side agreement on labour rights that is virtually unenforceable? Why is that not part of the substance of the text of the actual agreement?
Environmental concerns are something that the NDP always wants to see addressed. We should be setting the industry standard, not tacitly endorsing the bad practices of other countries by entering into these legitimizing trade agreements.
There has not been a business case made on how this is categorically in the best interests of a majority of Canadians. Of course we want trade. We are a trading nation and we do rely on trade. We are blessed with natural resources. We export, we extract and export. However, some of us would say that current and recent past practices would indicate a lack of commitment and perhaps a disturbing trend of not putting enough emphasis on value adding our resources before they are exported from this country.
I will give one example as it relates to my own riding of Winnipeg Centre. I used to have 43 garment manufacturers in my riding, the largest of which had 1,800 employees at its peak. Many of them had 300, 400 and 500 employees. Some were small boutique custom made shops. We are now down to nine. I am talking about the period of time that I have been a member of Parliament, from 1997 to today. It went from 43 to 9, 10,000 to 12,000 employees, just in my riding, and that does not include Winnipeg North where my colleague used to have garment manufacturers.
We decided to cut that sector loose. Somebody made a conscious decision to stop the duty remissions and all the efforts we made to keep manufacturing in Canada. Somebody turned a blind eye to the trade provisions. When China was invited into the WTO, the partners to the WTO could have signed phase-in agreements but Canada chose not to.
Therefore, we got the 200% and 300% impact all in one year. Countries like the United States had a 10-year phase-in at 5% to 10% a year. For Canada, it was all or nothing and, believe me, that was the death knell of the garment industry in my city. To whose benefit was that? Those were great entry level gateway jobs, often for new Canadians. They were not big paying jobs but they were good unionized jobs with a day care centre, a pension plan and a dental plan, and they are all gone. The government in its wisdom watched them fly out the window and did not lift a finger to save them. That is the same attitude that we see toward these trade agreements. The government is being irresponsible.
