Peter Van Loan

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP have voted against free trade agreements with Colombia, with Chile, with Peru, with Israel, with the United States and with Mexico. They have taken positions with Panama. They have taken positions in this House, often in question period and elsewhere, opposing free trade agreements with the 26 countries of the European Union. Those, obviously, are motivated by human rights concerns, too, I guess. Is that the case? No. The fact is that they are against free trade as a principle. That is where the NDP stands. It has always opposed free trade as a principle.

We have an opposite view because we recognize that Canada benefits from free trade. After the free trade agreement with the United States and the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada has seen tremendous success and literally hundreds of thousands of jobs created.

We, and, I think, most Canadians, recognize that the tales of doom and gloom that were told by NDP before that have not come to pass but rather are entirely wrong. It said that we would lose our culture, but, guess what--it is still here. We even have Celine Dion and Shania Twain. It said that we would lose our water, but guess what--others remain hungry for it, but it is still here. It said that we would lose our wine. Sadly, they were right. Baby Duck has gone, but now Canada has a heck of a lot of first-rate, world-class wines.

Those were all the things that the NDP said would happen, but they did not come to pass. What did come to pass was literally hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians and prosperity for us. We need to extend that into other markets around the world, including the European Union, including India and, of course, including the free trade agreement that we already have in place with Panama and have had for two years but which we need to actually get through this House of Commons.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in the previous Parliament, the NDP opposed the free trade agreement with Panama, the free trade agreement with Colombia, a free trade agreement with Israel, a free trade agreement with the United States and NAFTA. In fact, they have opposed every free trade agreement proposed in this House

The NDP still has the same position. They are against the principle of free trade because they have a different vision. According to them, Canada is a small island and we can have an isolated economy here. That plan will create poverty across Canada. It is impossible. We need trade and we need to conclude agreements with other countries. That is the purpose of this bill and the other free trade bills that we introduce.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, with 65 speeches in this Parliament so far, 66 in the previous Parliament and 35 witnesses at the parliamentary committee, we have been getting an awful lot of content.

I know the hon. member is keen. He could, hopefully, prevail upon his whip to allow him to speak in the balance of this debate. If not, maybe he could speak during report stage debate. Maybe he could ask to appear on the committee and participate there. Maybe he could ask to have a chance to speak during third reading.

My point is that there has been ample debate already and there is ample debate yet to come. The difficulty is that the hon. member from the NDP does not want to ever have to make a decision, and that reveals his real motive.

The fact is that the NDP members oppose free trade agreements reflexively in every circumstance. That is their position. They are opposed to free trade. It is simply ideologically rejected. They do not want us to take a vote on this matter because they wish to obstruct it for another two or three years if they have the opportunity to repeat what they have done in the past.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Minister of Labour not only for her question but for her involvement in this file. She has taken a great interest in the issues and the parallel agreements to cover labour issues and has seen to their advancement.

With regard to Panama, one of the hopes when this agreement was signed, which can be seen in the statements made by me and others at the time, was that we would be able to take advantage of the massive opportunities created by the expansion of the Panama Canal, for which Canadian companies were ideally suited to win contracts. Unfortunately, because of the delays and obstruction by the NDP in the House of Commons, we are sitting here more than two years later without this agreement being in place.

I bet there are not too many contracts left. Most of that work is completed. There may be a few dollars left here and there, but the reality is that those opportunities have been lost and jobs have been missed because the NDP has obstructed this bill for over two years.

Let us get on with it. Let us at least send this bill to committee so we can make decisions on it and so we do not face more lost opportunities for Canadian workers and for Canadian businesses to create jobs for workers.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there are many who have accused the NDP of being excessively academic in its approach. I understand that in common rooms at universities it is fashionable to talk about things for a long time and maybe never take decisions, or maybe debate issues for years and years but never actually do anything. However, once people graduate from university, go into the real world, try to create jobs and try to secure futures for their families, they actually have to do things and, in the process, make decisions. They are in the real world and the real economy.

That is what we are doing here for Canadians, and that is what Canadians asked us to do when they sent us to Parliament, not to be just a talk shop. We are not here just to philosophize and have ideas, all of which is important, but at the end of those debates constituents want us to make decisions. That is all we are asking.

With regard to the Canada-Panama free trade agreement that has been around for more than two years since we completed negotiations, that has had literally weeks of debate in Parliament and that has already been passed at second reading in a previous Parliament, all we are asking is that we have that vote again, send it to committee, allow it to be studied in detail and then we can have the debates in committee, at report stage and third reading and, guess what, do the same thing over again in the Senate. A lot of debate is still ahead, but it is about time we made a decision in principle on the bill.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, occasionally we even have demonstrations on the streets here in Canada, so I will take from that what it is worth.

The focus for us in this government is job creation and economic growth. An important part of that is finding new markets for Canadian manufacturers, workers and farmers so we can, by having those new markets, create jobs and prosperity here. Canada is a relatively small country in terms of population and market. We depend to a magnificent extent on exports abroad to other countries for our jobs and economic growth. That is the nature of Canada. We are integrated into the world economy. That is why we are so aware of the challenges of the global economy that other parties seem to ignore. That is why we are so focused on ensuring we take every step possible to secure the long-term prosperity of Canadians. Being able to trade in those marketplaces is part of securing that long-term prosperity.

This bill is part of that important agenda of securing markets abroad to ensure our long-term prosperity and ensure jobs for Canadians, not just today but for years and generations to come.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, a report that says perhaps one should perhaps improve one's processes for consultation with one's communities is hardly evidence of human rights violations. We are always trying to find better ways to consult with elements of our population.

However, we can proud if we implement an agreement like this and create more opportunities for Canadian mining and resources companies to participate in the Panamanian economy and create jobs there and prosperity in Canada. However, they will be doing so abiding by principles of good corporate citizenship that Canadian companies have demonstrated all around the world, and we are very proud of that. The key thing is that they have the opportunity to do that.

Canadian foreign investment in Panama has been significant and so have the exports of financial and other services to Panama from Canada. Those have all created jobs in Canada. Economic growth, job creation and prosperity here; that is the focus. That is why we are moving forward on this. Our approach is one of allowing ample debate. This bill has seen that in the House of Commons, but it is time also, from time to time, to do what we were sent here by Canadians to do and actually make decisions. That is what we want to ask this House of Commons to do on this particular bill, in principle.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that insightful question.

Obviously the hon. member for Edmonton Centre has been spending a far bit of time in this House, observing the practices of the various parties and their approach to legislation.

Our approach as a government has been to ensure a productive, hard-working and orderly Parliament. Part of being a productive, hard-working and orderly Parliament is to allow ample debate. We have had that. We have had that in the case of this legislation. By the time we are finished, we will have had close to two weeks of debate in this House.

That is a lot of debate before making a decision. It is more than most people do in their homes. It is more than most people do in their workplaces when they take an issue and decide whether to come to a decision.

After that, it is not finished. It still has to go to committee, report stage, third reading and then over to the Senate. There still will be days and days, weeks, months, and if the opposition has it way, years more debate.

We do have an obligation at some point to actually make decisions here in this House. Nowhere is that more important than on legislation that touches on questions of economic growth and job creation in a time of a fragile world economy.

That is why we need to vote on this bill at second reading and get it on to committee to be studied there in detail.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I heard the hon. member correctly. I do believe that Panama is a democracy with a solid human rights record. No one has raised issues of that in the past that I am aware of. Certainly it is the kind of country with which we are proud to be a trading partner. In fact, we already are. Many Quebec companies, businesses, enterprises and farmers are already trading with Panama.

I am sure they would be disappointed to hear that this hon. member and many of his colleagues from Quebec are trying to shut down trade with Panama and do not want to see this free trade agreement implemented, which was entered into over two years ago.

The aerospace sector in Montreal is very significant. It exports to Panama. It would like to be able to export more. If the NDP has its way, it will not be able to. The engineering and construction sectors in Quebec are proud organizations that have done a great deal, particularly some of the engineering companies on the world stage. They would like to do more. The NDP wants to stop them from doing more.

This will only lead to more challenging times in the Quebec economy and the Canadian economy at a time when we are seeking to grow those economies for the benefit of all Canadians and to create jobs.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that the member did mishear me. I said that the priority for Canadians is not, as his colleague from Winnipeg suggests, parliamentary procedure. That is not their priority. Their priority is the economy, job creation and economic growth, and that is our priority, a priority we share in mind.

That is what we believe Canadians sent us here to do: to make decisions on legislative proposals that will advance job creation and economic growth. That is what we are doing with our economic action plan 2012. It is also what we are doing with our free trade agreements, including the one that we are talking about here, the one that was signed over two years ago, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement, and our legislative efforts to implement it.

This agreement would have enormous benefits for Canadian sectors, including the economy of Quebec. As this hon. member comes from Quebec, he would be interested in knowing that his pork producers in that province will benefit from this agreement. Industrial and construction machinery manufacturers from Quebec will benefit. Pharmaceutical exports to Panama from Quebec are common; they will also benefit. There are many more sectors of the Quebec economy that stand to benefit from this agreement.