It used to be that when I travelled abroad, people would tell me that Canada was a great country that had a coherent international policy and did a lot for foreign aid. Now, I am still told that Canada is a great country, but people tell me that it takes one week to travel by car from Montreal Island to Vancouver. That is not exactly the kind of grandeur to which we aspire. That is all about geography. Canada is fading as a great economic and diplomatic power. We must stop tarnishing our image. The members opposite need to think and listen when we ask intelligent questions.

In the long term, we are gambling with the future of our country. I remember that, when I was young, we built locomotives and cargo ships. We manufactured and exported every kind of product. Naturally, things have changed, but soon we may not even be manufacturing hockey sticks or curling brooms anymore. It is time we had an intelligent long-term strategy for international trade.

For example, two English phrases from article 14 of the North American Free Trade Agreement—“in comparison with” and “in relation to”—were challenged. In the end, after debating the meaning of these phrases, the United States levied a preposterous tax that almost destroyed Canada's softwood lumber industry and cost tens of thousands of jobs.

When a dispute arises after a treaty is signed, the problem is often not solved by lawyers but by discussions about semantics. Two words can easily cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs.

We now realize just how important intellectual property is. All major conflicts and serious disputes in relation to international trade end up in lawsuits over intellectual property. And that is merely one aspect.

I myself am by no means an expert in international trade. However, because of what I do know, I am worried about what this government is doing. One negotiator has said that only the intellectual property issue remains to be settled and that it will not take long, because it is a formality. In my opinion, he does not really understand what is happening.

Free trade agreements do not come out of a Cracker Jack box. They must be taken more seriously. The future of the country is at stake, and we are keenly aware of that.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is accusing us of being ideologically stubborn and against free trade. However, our position is very pragmatic: we oppose the kind of free trade proposed by the members opposite. We oppose free trade when it is negotiated without any economic, industrial or energy strategies.

[English]

It is important that we pass this particular agreement, and it will get passed now, but the question is, to what degree does my colleague believe we could be doing more with our trading partner just south of our border?

Mr. Speaker, we do see the value of this particular agreement. As my colleague from the Atlantic region indicated earlier, the Liberal Party is quite supportive of the agreement. However, we also want to recognize that we have other trading partners, in particular the United States, which represents well over 70% of our economic trade and is responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Speaker, we do not live on a Pacific island. We have important neighbours on whom we already depend too much. We must not become a sort of Kazakhstan by taking care of border security for the Americans. Nor should we become a bottomless pit of natural resources and export our jobs south of the border. We must have a comprehensive trade strategy.

One very important aspect to consider involves Panama's labour laws. President Ricardo Martinelli announced unilateral changes to labour law in the summer of 2010. These changes prohibited the collection of mandatory union dues, allowed employers to dismiss workers who were on strike and replace them with strikebreakers, allowed roadblocks and criminal acts, and even sheltered the police from legal action. This labour relations regime is completely unbalanced and harms workers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for for his very enlightening speech about the possible negative effects of these agreements.

If the members opposite were sincere and truly wanted this free trade agreement to benefit all the parties, they would have ensured that there were some legitimate rules. For example, they would have required that the tax information issue be resolved before ratification, as the Americans did. They are showing the same negligence with respect to labour and environment bills. There is all kinds of lip service and plenty of fine promises, but there are no sanctions or oversight mechanisms. It was the same thing with Colombia, and if we allow it to happen, it will be the same thing with China and other countries.

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues we discussed in parliamentary committee was protecting human rights and the environment. I think that this aspect was left out of this agreement. There are agreements in principle and a bunch of good intentions, but if someone violates these rules, there are no sanctions, or if there are, they are ridiculous.

[English]

When we look down the road to the future and where we are going to leave this country for our kids and how we are moving forward, this trade agreement and others are something that we can do for them. We can give them opportunity, give them market access and let them know that the businesses they work for can export not only to the U.S. or Mexico but also to Panama, Chile, Colombia and, hopefully, Honduras in the future. These are the things we can do for our kids by giving them the opportunities. We cannot give them everything but we can give them chances and opportunities. By promoting a good bill like this, that is what we are doing. We should move this forward and pass it.

That is what we are doing here. We are just laying out the proper rules for doing this as we move forward and making it easier for our business community and investors to go into different parts of the world, in this case to Panama, and do business. That is nothing but positive, not only for Canada but also for the Panamanians.

That has been one of the advantages of being with ParlAmericas and something that I promote when I talk to my colleagues in the House. It offers a chance for parliamentarians to travel to different countries within the region in a non-partisan manner. A good example is my travel with a colleague from the Liberal Party to Panama this summer for the AGM of ParlAmericas. We had a chance to talk to parliamentarians from all parties and to build some bridges. This is also what trade agreements do: they allow businesses to get together and build bridges, to seek out opportunities of mutual benefit for companies and partners.

We will learn a lot from them because they have a lot to teach us about how to handle business in the region. They know a lot of things that we could learn from their business sector also.

Canada does not go around the world preaching; that is not who we are. What we can do is to help people, assist them, give them an economic opportunity, the ability to help themselves, and give them the tools so they can make their own lives better. How do we do that? One of the best ways is to trade with them, to do business with them and help them learn from us.

During one of my trips to Panama, I had the opportunity to spend some time with one of the diputados in Panama and to visit his riding. I toured some of the needier areas, the poor slum areas, and experienced what he faces in his job as a parliamentarian. It was heartwarming and heartbreaking at the same time. It was heartwarming because what he was doing was making a difference in the individual lives of those people. It was heartbreaking to see the situations the kids were growing up in and the implications of not having a strong economy.

I know the former ambassador fairly well. He was anxious, as he wanted to see this thing go through the House. Unfortunately, he was recalled, but in the same breath he would always wonder why it took so long, because the people in Panama really want this trade agreement.

The Canada-Panama free trade agreement is a key component to advance the goals of the Americas strategies. When we look at what is going on in the Americas, we see the growth and the growth potential. When we look at the issues they are facing, here is a country that is really reaching out to Canada. This is a country that has been patiently waiting for this agreement.

With regard to another example, if we look at the wheat industry, we are actually going to have preferential access into Panama over the U.S. The U.S. does not yet have its trade agreement done with Panama, so we are going to have access for Canadian companies long before our competition. We can get in there and build those strong relationships before they do.

Every day we are seeing more and more opportunities for Canadian businesses and exporters. A good example is that just three weeks ago I had a phone call from a colleague in Panama, whom I had met in one of groups, asking about Canadian beef. He asked me how he could get a hold of Canadian beef, and about the process. That is how to build relationships. We can put him in touch with the appropriate people in the Canadian beef federation, and they can go there to make connections and use those new connections to actually sell more Canadian beef. That is just one example of how farmers are going to benefit from this trade agreement.

All countries in the Americas have a vested interest in prosperity, security and stability. That is why our government is committed to building sustainable relationships with our like-minded neighbours. Through our strong bilateral relationships, increasing people-to-people ties generated through educational exchanges and increased tourism and business links, our links with Panama are growing stronger every day.

In fact, a country like Brazil is spending a large amount of cash to send students abroad. A lot of our Canadian universities are taking advantage of that situation and are attracting them to be educated here in Canada. When we build relationships like that, we are fostering growth between the two countries. If we look at Brazil and how it is growing, that is not a bad country to be aligned with.

Looking back over the last two years, I have had the privilege of travelling in the region with the , reaching out to our trading partners and helping Canadian businesses secure access to opportunities in those countries. We have also had the Governor General, in countries like Brazil, promoting the educational systems we have here in Canada.

International relationships are fundamental. Competition for market share is on the rise. Canada must demonstrate that it is a serious and committed trading partner. Our government has continued to deliver on an ambitious pro-trade plan that is creating new opportunities, not only in the Americans but in dynamic high-growth markets around the world. Furthermore, while sustaining high engagements is essential, Canada will continue to benefit by building relationships more broadly across the private sector, government and academia.

Panama has recognized its security challenges and has significantly increased spending on security. It has also committed to continued reforms to security institutions. Panama continues to build a strong security co-operation with the United States and with its Central American neighbours, under the Central American Integration System, SICA, regional security strategy.

When we look at Panama's situation in the Americas, with airlines such as Copa, it is becoming the hub for transportation going in and out of Central and South America. That is why I think it is very important to this trade deal to make sure we have the ability to travel in and out of Panama, so we can do more business, not only with Panama, but throughout the region. Panama is a key component in that effort.

I have had the pleasure of travelling in Panama on numerous occasions, through the ParlAmericas and on personal trips by myself and with my family. Panama is a dynamic country. This country has the Panama Canal going through it, and three-quarters of the world's trade that goes on oceans goes through that canal.

In order to promote economic opportunity, our government's renewed Americas strategy will focus on intensifying trade promotion and trade relationship building efforts to ensure Canadian businesses and exporters are taking full advantage of these new trade regions. As part of increasing economic opportunity with Panama, Canada is growing economic partnerships that will contribute to the long-term prosperity of both countries.

Canada's efforts to liberalize trade with the Americas is working. We are removing barriers to trade and facilitating two-way commerce. The Americas offer great potential. Total trade growth between the countries in the Americas and Canada has increased by nearly 40% in the 2005 to the 2010 period.

Promoting freer trade in the Americas opens new doors and creates new opportunities for Canadian companies, increasing economic benefit for Canadians, including new jobs for hard-working Canadians right across this country, from coast to coast to coast.

However, it is not enough simply to sign a trade agreement. In our government's Americas strategy is the need to make Canadian companies aware of the advantages and opportunities of these trade agreements. Our government understands that through engagement, development, trade and commercial ties, that Canada can be in support of change and growth in the Americas.

Canada's efforts to increase economic opportunity depend on deepening trade and investment ties by advancing our trade agreement. The Americas is a key region for Canadian bilateral trade initiatives. In fact, seven of Canada's ten concluded free trade agreements have been with countries in the Americas.

I would like to share with the House a bit more about how our free trade agreement with Panama fits in with our Americas strategy. The renewed strategy has three goals. One, is to increase Canadian and hemispheric economic opportunity. Two, is to address security issues and advance freedoms, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, through capacity-building. Three, is to build a stable foundation for Canadian engagement and increased influence in the hemisphere. This agreement definitely helps us do that.

Actually, a lot of members were at a function of ParlAmericas last night, meeting with different ambassadors from the Americas. I had many ambassadors say to me that it is nice to see Canada on their radar, to see that Canadians are travelling into their regions to do business and that the government recognizes the potential in both Central and South America and the Caribbean. They appreciate the work we have been doing in foreign trade, and this Panama trade deal will reinforce that.

The Americas are a priority market for our government. In fact, just this past year our government announced plans to strengthen our engagement in the region to ensure our efforts are focused where the impact will be the greatest.

The results have been very impressive. Under the global commerce strategy, Canada has concluded a free trade agreement with nine countries, representing combined markets of $1.5 trillion. We have begun to deepen trade and investment ties with the largest, most dynamic and fastest-growing countries in the world, including Brazil, India, Japan and the European Union. There are also new foreign investment promotions and protection agreements with 14 additional countries.

Our government's global commerce strategy, developed in close consultations with the Canadian business community, was our strategy to respond to the changes in the global economy and to position Canada for long-term prosperity. The global commerce strategy identifies 13 priority markets around the world where Canadian opportunities and interests have the greatest potential for growth. The strategy also sparked the most ambitious pro-trade plan in Canadian history. It has driven Canadian leadership on the world stage in support of trade, job creation, economic growth and prosperity for hard-working Canadians and their families.

First, I would like to speak about how our government's ambitious pro-trade plan and our global commerce strategy are creating new opportunities around the world for Canadian exporters.

[Translation]

I do not think they are taking this very seriously, because if Panama is important, Japan is probably 25 to 30 times more important to Canada. It is the best partner we could sign an agreement with. If the government starts fooling around, we will lose our opportunity to do business with this country and that would be much more serious than losing opportunities with Panama.

I was part of a delegation that went to Japan last June. We have never looked more foolish in our lives. During a meeting on the last day of our visit, a former Japanese diplomat told us that the Canadian embassy in Tokyo no longer offers consular services. We learned that from a Japanese colleague.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite just spoke about the agreement with Japan and how important it is for Canada to show that it is serious about its international commitment.

[English]

I cannot understand why the New Democrats, the anti-trade group sitting over there, just cannot get it. Can they not understand that Canada is an exporting nation? If we want to seek growth and to give prosperity to our kids, this is what we have to do. We could never consume the resources the gods have enriched us with here in Canada. We have to be willing to trade, to exchange resources for other good of value throughout the world. That is what we would do through a trade agreement like this.

This agreement would eliminate tariffs on 89% of non-agricultural imports from Canada. The majority of Panama's remaining non-agricultural tariffs would be eliminate within five and ten years, including certain forest and paper products, certain iron and steel products, paints, soaps and various manufactured goods. I come from a riding with a pulp mill and forestry goods. These can now end up in Panama. That would be great for my riding and all Canadians.

Not only that, but when we provide that growth and see it happen, some of the other things disappear, for example, the drug and human trafficking or smuggling. We would take away the need for people to try to make money by any means. When they can make a dollar fairly and squarely, that is what they will do, thus reducing the amount of crime and violent crime in those regions. That is of benefit to us here in Canada because we are the consumers of some of those drugs coming this way.

However, the trade agreement before us today is with Panama. There are some key things that we need to remind ourselves of as to why this agreement is important. First of all, Panama is a strategic hub for the Americas and an important logistical platform. It has the canal. It has airports. It is central in the region as far as transportation or branching out to other countries within the region is concerned. The agreement would generate export and investment opportunities for Canadians by creating preferential and more predictable trade and investments. These are things that Canadian businesses want. Panama is a good environment for investment as an emerging economy. People there are buying their first TV and first microwave. It is a growth economy that we can participate in.

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a good point and I am glad to hear him talking about the New Democrats supporting a trade agreement with Japan, because that is something we should be considering and doing in the future. As we go across the globe, we should be looking for opportunities like those with Japan.

The issue here is simple. Right now, with regard to one commodity alone, the Christmas tree industry in Nova Scotia, there is a tariff in Panama of 18%. That may not sound like a lot of money, but it is. Nova Scotia Christmas tree growers are paying an 18% tariff on their trees going into Panama. They have been shipping Christmas trees to Panama from before the 1960s. There has been over 50 years of business between Nova Scotia and Panama in that industry alone, albeit with a punitive tariff of 18% that will now be wiped out overnight. That is an opportunity for a niche market for a small industry in Nova Scotia, but that small industry is worth about $30 million to the province.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things my colleague talked about is the increased opportunity for trade with Panama in forestry products, plants and trees. Here, I want to break this down to the lowest common denominator, because some of my colleagues in the opposition who are talking about voting against this agreement still have a chance at third reading to change their minds and support this agreement.

That is what the Canada-Panama free trade agreement would resolve. It would take away that 18% tariff and give companies stable market access into Panama. It would allow them to fill that niche market and maybe expand it, and not only in Panama. Maybe they could use Panama as a bridge to go to other countries within the region. We do not know what the potential is. That is up to individual investors. All we can do in government is to take away the barriers and allow investors to conduct the business they want to do. That is what this trade agreement would do.

He gives a good example of Christmas trees and the 18% tariff. An 18% tariff for what? It is just a trade restriction. That is all it is. Why the NDP would want a tariff on Canadian companies is beyond me. Why would the NDP say it is okay for farmers to sell their Christmas trees to Panama, but let Panama collect that 18% tariff? That is what New Democrats are doing when they vote against this trade agreement. That is a classic example of the NDP. There is not a tax it does not like, even a tax being collected by another country. That is what is happening in this case.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his hard work and determination in getting this bill through. I think it has been before the committee three times, if I remember correctly. I know he has been doing a lot of the hard work with all committee members in getting this bill to where it is today.

[Translation]

However, the Canadian government has started entering into bilateral agreements with countries, agreements that are similar to the FTAA and therefore do not include the human dimension that the people asked for in the petition.

A few years ago, I signed a petition concerning the free trade area of the Americas (FTAA), which was also signed by people from all across the Americas. Every single country signed the petition. It asked that we put a human face on trade and that human beings be just as important as economics in our trade relations. The petition was effective because we no longer hear about the FTAA today.

[English]

Again, the focus has to be on families, and that is what we are doing by providing Canadian business with access to markets around the globe so that if one country like the U.S. decides not to trade with us, we have 10 more lining up to buy our products. That is what we are doing with our trade policy.

We should strive toward multilateral agreements like the TPP and, in a certain way, CETA, but in the same breath we cannot wait for multilateral agreements to come forward like the WTO. We need to be out there, like Chile is. It has something like 60 trade agreements with different partners around the world. Canada needs to be doing the same thing. If we cannot do it through multilateral venues, then we need to be vigilant and do it through the bilateral agreements we are reaching today.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that CAFTA is the trade agreement the member was referring to. There are really good reasons for my answer to her question. Bilateral agreements are very easy to do; we can reach bilateral agreements with countries that want to do business with us. When we get to a multilateral stage or venue, it is very difficult to get all the people to agree on the same topic, suggestions or issues. It is very tough to put together.

The is currently in India and I believe he is going to Hong Kong and stopping in the Philippines. Could the member provide his perspective on the Philippines, a country with whom I have always argued it would be great to see more freer trade with. Does he believe that the Government of Canada is prepared to make it a higher priority at this time?

Mr. Speaker, one could always pose the question in terms of the time it has taken to get this bill through the legislature. The government has had the support of the Liberal Party throughout the process. Would the member comment on why he believes it has taken so long to get the legislation through?

In regard to the 's trips, it is nice to see a Prime Minister proud of going out on the global stage and actually attracting markets and increasing investment. We can be proud of the fact he is over there right now opening up markets for Canadian families and Canadian businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know the answer to that same question, why that has not happened before. I think the NDP is solely responsible for that being delayed at committee and being brought forward the way it has.

What the New Democrat opposition wants is a strategic trade policy where we restart the multilateral negotiations, where we sign trade deals with developed countries that have high standards and developing countries that are on progressive trajectories. These are countries like Japan, India, Brazil, South Africa and the BRIC countries. These are the countries that we should be signing trade agreements with, not countries like Panama that are drug laundering centres, tax havens and have low standards that will hurt Canadian business.

Panama accounts for less than 1% of our trade. It is actually 0.03% of Canada's trade. The government always brags about the number of agreements that it has signed. It has signed nine agreements. Who were those agreements with? They were with Panama, Jordan, Colombia, Honduras, Liechtenstein. With great respect to these countries, they are not major economic powers.

In terms of the environment, there is a Mesoamerican corridor in Panama that is one of the most important biological and biologically diverse areas of the world. Currently there is a worldwide attempt by mining companies to mine in that area. This is something that is very concerning to many environmentalists. Hundreds of different types of species are at risk through unrestricted mining activities. We heard testimony at committee that this is also of major concern.

These investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms are very dangerous. We have seen in the FIPA that they could subject Canadian taxpayers to millions, perhaps billions, of dollars of liabilities simply for the government taking measures to protect Canadian businesses or the environment or social programs. That is wrong.

The agreement has an investor-state dispute settlement, something that we have heard a lot about in the House over the last two weeks because one is contained in the foreign investment protection agreement with Canada and China. This deal would further entrench the ability of companies to sue governments for policies that are seen to hurt investments. They are administered through tribunals that do not live up to Canadian values of justice, where the judges do not have security of tenure and there is no effective appeal mechanism. In fact, there are about 60 international lawyers around the world who sit on these tribunals. One recently said that he could not believe that any country in the world would give over to an unaccountable panel of three lawyers the power to strike down its domestic democratic legislation. That is exactly what was said.

Although [this agreement] includes an environmental side chapter, this is a non-binding declaration that relies on political will for its implementation, of which sort we have not seen in Panama. On the contrary, we've seen the undermining of environmental protections at the behest of Canadian companies.

The agreement on the environment is a replication of environmental agreements we have signed before and does not provide for a single penny of penalty. What kind of agreement obligates another country to certain environmental standards, but if it violates them we send it a letter and admonish it? That is irresponsible.

We heard a lot of testimony that what Canadian business wants is a level playing field. I questioned experts and witnesses at committee and asked what the minimum wage was in Panama. The answer I got was between $1 and $2 per hour. How is that a level playing field for Canadian employers who have to pay minimum wages in Canada of at least $9 or $10 an hour, as well as workers' compensation, health benefits and Canada pension plan benefits? As well, they have to comply with a whole bunch of regulations that are part and parcel of a modern industrial economy. How are they supposed to compete on a so-called level playing field with Panamanian employers who are paying their workers $1 to $2 an hour? That is not a level playing field. It is not fair to Canadian business to sign and enact a trade agreement with a country that has such low standards.

I want to talk a bit about the labour co-operation agreement. It is not as strong as it could be. It has weak enforcement mechanisms. It invokes international labour organizations' core labour standards. However, according to testimony we received at committee, the agreement does not include specific protection for the right to organize and the right to strike. It provides instead for so-called “effective” recognition of the right to collective bargaining, making this deal weaker than others Canada has signed. Enforcement is weak. Fines are small. There are no countervailing duties and there is no provision for abrogation or any other such remedy.

In other words, we are dealing with a noted tax haven, one of the most notorious drug laundering centres in the world. The U.S. Congress said it would not be safe or prudent to sign a free trade agreement with such a country until it first had a tax exchange information agreement in place. However, in this House, the government is asking parliamentarians to go ahead and give a most favourable nation status free trade agreement that would allow money and investment to flow with very little barrier between our two countries, when we do not have a tax exchange information agreement in place, but one might happen in the future. That is imprudent. That is irresponsible.

My motion was defeated by the Conservatives and the Liberals who argued that progress was being made on this matter with regard to negotiations underway to sign an agreement. However, we do not have a tax exchange information agreement between Canada and Panama today as we sit and vote on this free trade agreement.

Prior to the clause-by-clause review of Bill , the NDP official opposition proposed to the committee a motion that would stop the implementation of the Canada-Panama trade agreement until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement, as the U.S. Congress did.

Furthermore, these tax exchange information agreements generally do not require a partner country to provide information necessary for determining tax compliance in the other nation if it has not been previously created. In particular, it is typically necessary to know the name of the individual suspected of tax evasion to request the overseas tax information. Governments rarely have this information without a whistleblower.

Analyses of these tax exchange information agreements indicate they are highly ineffective in preventing legal tax avoidance or legal tax evasion unless they are carefully drafted. These agreements typically do not have an automatic information-sharing provision, but rather individual requests must be made.

The U.S. Congress refused to ratify a free trade agreement with Panama before signing a tax information exchange agreement. According to witnesses, this agreement has “a large loophole...that...allows Panama to sidestep tax transparency provisions if they are 'contrary to the public policy' of Panama”.

...we don't have figures in that regard, and to my knowledge the Canadian government hasn't done particular studies. But we are well aware, of course, that Central America is a region now that's suffering very seriously from the narco-trafficking trade. It's a serious issue across the region, including in Panama.

At committee, I questioned the government officials who testified about what due diligence Canada had done in determining the role of drug money in Panamanian banks and businesses. Astonishingly, they had done no study.

I should point out that the so-called “greyness” is lifted from a country when it signs tax exchange information agreements with 12 countries. Notably, former president Sarkozy of France said that, notwithstanding that Panama had signed more than 12—in other words 14—such agreements, he still did not consider Panama to have entered the legitimate world of open transparent banking systems in the globe.

This is very troubling, considering the large amount of money laundering in Panama, which I believe no one in this House disputes, including money from drug trafficking. Panama's lack of taxation transparency has led the OECD to continue to label the nation as a tax haven.

In March 2012, Canada and Panama entered into negotiations for a tax information exchange agreement. However, importantly, and critically for the opposition, this agreement has not yet been concluded or signed.

There was some testimony at committee that this situation was so-called “improving”. Recently, Panama was removed from the so-called OECD “grey list” after implementing the standard for exchange of information when it signed a tax information exchange agreement with France. Panama now has 14 such agreements.

A recent Cornell University study analyzed all prosecutions of the Internal Revenue Service in the United States over a 10-year period, and it found that Panama was tied as the number one country in the world as a source of drug-laundered money and as a tax haven.

Panama's financial secrecy practices also make it a major site for money laundering from places throughout the world. According to the U.S. State Department, major Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, as well as Colombian illegal armed groups, use Panama for drug trafficking and money laundering purposes. The funds generated from illegal activity are susceptible to being laundered through Panamanian banks, real estate developments and more.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, the Panamanian government has little to no legal authority to ascertain key information about these offshore corporations, such as their ownership.

Panama, as I said, has a long history of serving as a tax haven. Here is some of the testimony we heard at committee in 2010 by Todd Tucker, who is the research director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He testified that Panama offers foreign banks and firms a special offshore licence to conduct business there. Not only are those businesses not taxed; they are subject to little or no reporting requirements or regulations.

The CRA's 2010 audit of its own enforcement branch confirms the agency's inability to pursue complex offshore cases worth millions of dollars. Instead, it prefers to chase down the so-called “low-hanging fruit”, such as small business and the self-employed.

In 2011, there were more than 9,000 CRA employees working on taxpayer compliance. As of May 2012, 510 were assigned to the international audit program. That number has not changed since 2008, even though the use of offshore accounts has skyrocketed.

According to a Tax Justice Network report from 2011, Canada loses an estimated $80 billion per year to all forms of tax evasion. The government does not have a system for estimating and publishing the amount of lost revenues due to offshore non-compliance.

I will first deal with the tax haven situation. The amount of money invested in tax havens in the world globally at the moment is at an all-time high. In 2011, almost 25% of Canada's investment was invested in the world's top 12 tax havens.

There are no penalties for environmental violation of this agreement whatsoever. If there was any single violation or multiple violations of the environmental side agreement, not one penny is provided for in this agreement to be levied in terms of fines or penalties; in other words, the environmental side agreement is only suggested.

Third, we are also concerned that the agreement provides greater rights and powers to foreign investors. This is worrisome given controversies on the environment and human rights records of some Canadian mining firms in Panama.

Second, Panama has a history of military dictatorship. It has a poor record of labour and human rights. As well, the deal's side agreements for both labour and the environment are very weak, as I will delineate.

Disputes between the countries would be resolved through consultations and exchanges of information only. If those consultations and exchanges were unable to resolve the dispute, the offended party could request that an individual review panel be established to investigate the dispute.

There is also a side agreement on the environment in this trade deal. Both Canada and Panama would be required not to weaken their environmental regulations, such as they are, in order to attract investment. Both countries would be required to enforce their existing environmental regulations, again such as they are. To this end, mechanisms would be established to ensure that environmental impact assessments occur for proposed projects. In both countries, interested persons could request that the government investigate alleged violations of environmental rules.

This independent review panel could impose monetary penalties, which would be collected pursuant to a domestic court order. Those penalties would be limited to $15 million per year for each country and would be spent on programs in the country that violated the labour co-operation agreement.

Moreover, either country could request a consultation with respect to the other country's obligations under the proposed agreement. If the countries could not reach an agreement with respect to a complaint, a review panel would or could be established if a country persistently abrogated its obligations under the proposed agreement and if the matter is so-called “trade related”.

There is a labour co-operation agreement appended to this agreement that is referred to as a side deal on labour. It would require both parties to respect commitments under the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. It would protect the right to collective bargaining, obligate the parties to work toward abolishing child labour, eliminate compulsory labour and prohibit employment discrimination. Canada and Panama would also agree to minimum employment standards, occupational health and safety standards and compensation for sick and injured workers.

This deal also has a chapter on government procurement. It allows contractors to bid on government contracts in both Panama and Canada. Moreover, contractors from Canada would be eligible to bid on Panama Canal Authority contracts. This agreement would prohibit government contracts with domestic content requirement rules that may impede potential suppliers or subcontractors from the partner country. Panama and Canada would both be required to post contract opportunities in a transparent manner for contractors from the partner country. In other words, this deal would open up procurement in Canada to Panamanian businesses and vice versa.

This agreement deals with services as well. It extends liberalization of trade and services beyond that established by the World Trade Organization's general agreement on trade in services in finance, information and communication technology, environmental services and energy services.

Currently, Panama's average most favoured nation tariff rate, which is the lowest tariff rate Panama offers to countries with which it does not have a free trade agreement, for non-agricultural products is 6.4%. Its average most favoured nation tariff rate for agricultural products is 13.6%. However, some agricultural imports into Panama face tariff rates as high as 70%.

This agreement would see Panama immediately eliminate all non-agricultural tariffs for imports from Canada, and upon ratification 90% of Canada's exports to Panama would enter the country duty-free, including many agricultural products. Other agricultural tariffs would be phased out within five to ten years. A limited number of Panamanian tariff lines would be unaffected by the implementation of the proposed free trade agreement.

I would like to briefly describe to the House what Bill is about. By this legislation, Canada would eliminate all non-agricultural tariffs as well as most agricultural tariffs upon ratification of this agreement. Overall the bill, if passed, would eliminate 99% of tariffs for imports from Panama, and a limited number of tariffs would be phased out over the next 15 years. Canada would not, by this agreement, eliminate over-quota tariffs on supply managed goods such as dairy, poultry and eggs. Additionally, Canada would not eliminate its tariffs on certain sugar products. Therefore this deal is not comprehensive and it does not deal with certain sensitive agricultural issues that are often so delicately handled in trade agreements.

It is always nice to add some factual basis to the House, as opposed to the government's general approach of relying on spin and accusation and oversimplification, as opposed to solid evidence-based approaches to government.

Before I go too much farther, I will answer the question just raised by my hon. colleague from . The reason this agreement has taken so long to get through the House is that the Conservative Party and the of this country prorogued Parliament twice and this bill that was before the House was killed and parliamentarians were deprived of their opportunity to deal with it. That is why the bill has been delayed, not because of anything New Democrats have done.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today in the House and speak to Bill , the Canada-Panama trade agreement. The full name is an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the agreement on the environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the agreement on labour co-operation between Canada and the Republic of Panama.

One of the things I liked about the free trade agreements were the imperatives and standards being set for labour and other issues. However, if every country isolated Panama because of its low wages and other things, how would it better itself?

Mr. Speaker, I like some of the sentiment in what the member is saying and his concern about the domestic situation in Panama right now. I will make my question very simple because I want to explore how we go about improving the situation.

In the case of Panama it has made some progress toward eliminating its longstanding reputation as a tax haven, but it is not there yet. The U.S. Congress said it would not let investment flow from Panama to the United States, when it knows there is drug laundered money there and Panama is a tax haven, until it has an effective tax information exchange in place to ensure drug money is not going into the United States.

When Canada is determining whether or not we should give most favoured nation status to a country, we should have some strategic policy framework with which to do so. We should be signing agreements with countries that are showing positive movement and development toward modern civilized standards. Obviously we would not want to sign a trade agreement with a country that had a terrible human rights record or that refused to conform to the norms of civilized society. We would not want to do that.

Mr. Speaker, that is a thoughtful question. I would turn it around and argue that if one were to make the argument that the only way to raise standards in another country were to engage in trade with it, then we should sign free trade agreements with every single country in the world regardless of their domestic situation. That is clearly absurd.

The whole point of free trade agreements is to boost the economy in a region, to boost the standard of living of people, to boost their access to education, to boost their access to health care, to improve the overall general climate and ability of those individuals to find work in a modern society. How can we on one hand level the playing field in some areas and not in others?

Mr. Speaker, I listened fairly closely to my hon. colleague's speech and he raises more questions than he actually answers. One of the issues he talked about at length was levelling the playing field. On the one hand, he wants to level the playing field with Panama bringing what many would say is a third world country into the league of manufacturing nations and into more modern society. On the other hand, he says we cannot do that because Panamanians are working for $1 or $2 an hour and we are working for much more than that here. Therefore we cannot somehow compete against them.

On this side of the House we do not think that signing a free trade deal with a drug laundering tax haven is a good idea. The Conservatives say they are tough on crime and a law and order party. I do not know why they are making it easy for drug laundered profits to come into our country. They should explain to Canadians why they are not listening to the official opposition's wise amendment to hold off on this treaty until we have an effective tax information exchange agreement. That is what we have suggested. Conservatives have said no.

In the case of Panama, all we can do is deal with the situation that we have before us. Again, most favoured nation status is a very special status that Canada accords to certain countries. We do not just give it to any country in the world. We give it to certain countries and we hopefully have some policy rationale for doing so.

Mr. Speaker, I agree in general that trade policy has a number of aims including, hopefully, to boost the standard of living in each country. It is a fair question as to whether or not that actually happens with certain agreements. It depends on the countries involved and it depends on the terms of the agreement. Unlike the Conservatives who take it as an ideological article of faith that simply signing a trade agreement has some magical power to boost the standard of living in both countries, we in the official opposition prefer to deal in the realm of evidence, where that is not necessarily the case.

[Translation]

Furthermore, my Liberal colleague said earlier that the situation could improve if we treated workers better. Why should we trust this vague political will? Why not first deal with these injustices and then sign a free trade agreement?

He said that, at present, negotiations are under way to conclude a tax information exchange agreement in order to fight tax havens, which we often hear about in Panama. Although there have been improvements, as my colleague pointed out, the U.S. Congress has adopted this same philosophy and waited for taxpayers to be treated fairly before ratifying the free trade agreement. It is important to point that out. Could my colleague comment on that?

[English]

Until Canadians can be sure that we are not signing an agreement that sees drug laundered profits come into our country, I do not think we should be according most favoured nation status to that country. I think most Canadians would agree with that.

I understand Panama has recently emerged from dictatorship and is making some progress towards becoming a fully functioning democracy, but the testimony we heard in committee is that they are not there yet. Panama does not yet have a fully independent judiciary. It does not have a fully democratic system.

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I have not even heard any attempt by the government to answer the question of why it would not agree with the official opposition and wait to make sure we have the kind of tax transparency legislation in place that we know is necessary. We are not dealing in a vacuum here. We are dealing with a country that is one of the top two tax havens in the world. I think all Canadians remember the Panamanian dictator, Manuel Noriega. They remember that Panama was used as a base for running drugs with the Contras. This was not terribly long ago.

The change that has happened is that on October 31 the Panama FTA with the United States kicked into effect. This is the second trade area now where we find ourselves at a disadvantage as Canadians. South Korea being the other one.

What would the cost of waiting be, in terms of those export industries affected? I am thinking of potato exports from my own province. The government did have 38 months in which to deal with the legislation and could have negotiated some of the concerns that the member for has, but it failed to do that. It blames it on the opposition, but the government had our support and it could have passed the legislation.

I am not sure why the Liberal Party did not agree with the New Democrats that it would be prudent to do the same thing in Canada. For our part, we are not saying that we are necessarily opposed to a free trade agreement with Panama, but we are opposed to a free trade agreement before we have the necessary checks and balances in place to make sure that we are not extending tax haven status from Panama to Canada. Right now, that cannot be said.

Again, the difference between the Americans and Canada in this is that the Americans were prudent and made sure that they had the tax haven issue dealt with prior to according most favoured nation status. I think that was a wise move on the Americans' part.

My hon. colleague was sitting in committee with me when we were questioning DFAIT officials to get an idea of the economics involved. He, as well as I, heard that total trade between Panama and Canada amounts to 0.03% of our trade. We are not talking about anything significant at all in terms of trade. I think Panama ranks in the high 80s in terms of countries with which we trade around the world.

Intuitively, look at the folks we are trading with around the world, especially the United States and the European Union. They are trading with Panama now. They will have their foot in the door ahead of us. We need to be there on equal footing with our foot in the door at the same time.

In summary, the time has come to move forward. I certainly still hold out hope for my NDP colleagues. I certainly believe that they do want to move to the centre of the political spectrum. I think in their heart of hearts they understand that trade is good. They have some challenges maybe with some members, but we all have challenges. We do not all agree on every single item. I understand that.

Canadian companies clearly have the expertise to meet Canada's development plans. The Canada-Panama free trade agreement would guarantee access for Canadian suppliers to these types of procurement opportunities, reducing the risk of doing business in the region. The agreement, moreover, would ensure that Canadian suppliers can compete on the same basis as their main competitors in the United States.

Our companies need this agreement so they can take advantage of these commercial opportunities. It is important that Canadian firms establish an early presence to build solid relationships to capitalize on the future opportunities that will arise in this emerging market.

Even more importantly, the Panama-U.S. free trade agreement came into force just last week. Another democratically based government with high respect for the environment and for labour, our closest neighbour and largest trading partner, is trading with Panama. That is okay to the NDP members: they will let the Americans and the European Union trade with Panama, but somehow it is wrong for Canada to do the same thing and let our companies compete on equal footing.

The EU has done a tremendous job in putting 27 member states together, and soon to be 28 with Croatia joining. We also need to look at the EU for a moment. It did all of that for its member countries to trade with one another. It broke down the trade barriers. The EU has challenges, and in fact the entire world has challenges, with the economy. However, the EU moved forward because it tore down trade barriers. I ask the NDP members to think about this for a moment, that these nations some 60 years ago were shooting at one another. Where are these nations today? They have the most powerful and richest consumer economy on the planet, with 500 million people. It is amazing, and it is because they dared to tear down trade barriers.

Now, because of these delays, our competitors are catching up. Panama's free trade agreement with the European Union could enter into force as early as the end of this year. Let us consider that for a moment. Most members in this House would look at the European Union and say it is a market-based economy with very high standards for labour relations and the environment and, certainly, that it has democratically based governments.

Protectionism is not logical. There is nothing in protectionism that is logical. We should not be surprised that this is yet another trade agreement that the NDP has failed to support. In fact, the NDP members have stood in the way of our attempts to open up new markets for our exporters at every opportunity.

It is not only the NAFTA that the NDP opposes. The NDP member for , when he was the leader of the Nova Scotian NDP, called trade agreements jobs destroying and vowed to fight all trade agreements. The member for and former NDP trade critic went so far as to work against Canadian exporters when he argued that Buy American was a perfectly logical policy.

We have seen time and time again that the NDP will use any excuse to oppose a trade agreement. It has been that way ever since NAFTA. Twenty-five years ago, the opposition claimed that the Canada-U.S. and North American free trade agreements would wipe out millions of jobs, compromise Canada's sovereignty over freshwater and cause us to lose our Canadian culture. None of those claims came true. In fact, precisely the opposite happened. Since those agreements were signed, the Canadian economy has boomed. Hard-working Canadians have benefited, and we still have full control over our water. Canadian culture is more alive and well, and I dare say, profitable, than it has ever been in the history of our country.

These projects present many opportunities for Canadian companies and Canadian workers. However, we need this agreement in force, because Canadians can benefit from it. The fact is that despite having signed nearly two and a half years ago and having debated it in this place for nearly 60 hours, the opposition continues to accuse our government of rushing this deal. Two and a half years and 60 hours somehow means that we are rushing the deal. I really beg to differ.

As I said, opportunities exist beyond the canal. In 2010, the Panamanian government announced an infrastructure plan valued at $13.6 billion over five years. Numerous infrastructure projects are either under consideration or are already in progress to build and improve roads, hospitals, bridges and airports. Among these projects is the Panamanian government's plan to construct a metro system valued at $1.5 billion.

Panama's government market, particularly in the areas of infrastructure, transportation and services, represents a significant opportunity for Canadian suppliers. The ambitious $5.3 billion expansion of the Panama Canal, which I mentioned earlier, is at the top of the list. The Panama Canal serves as a key hub between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and is a significant driver of Panama's economy. Its expansion would bring about increased container traffic, some of which will access Canadian ports to supply the North American market. This is yet another example of why Canada must act quickly to implement this agreement. Canadian businesses can compete and win against the best in the world, but we must ensure that they have a fair opportunity to do so.

Panama is also an ideal location for Canadian businesses seeking to expand and build long-term business ventures in the Americas. As a gateway to the region, our trade agreement with Panama will make it easier for Canadians to establish that foothold in the Americas.

It has been said many times in the House that Panama has a dynamic and rapidly growing economy. Canada's businesses have long been interested in gaining or expanding access to this emerging market. Despite the global economic downturn since 2008, Panama's economy continues to show strong signs of growth. In fact, its political stability and progressive business environment have helped Panama achieve impressive average growth of 6% to 7% over the past several years.

Earlier this year, our government welcomed the successful conclusion of negotiations to modernize the WTO agreement on government procurement. However, our efforts to secure and expand opportunities for Canadian suppliers go beyond the World Trade Organization. Most of Canada's free trade agreements, from the North American Free Trade Agreement to those with Peru and Colombia, have obligations on government purchasing. These obligations are based on core principles, including a commitment to non-discrimination between domestic and foreign suppliers as well as an assurance of transparency and clear procedures.

What is wrong with the idea of the taxpayer getting the best possible value for his or her hard-earned tax dollars? There is nothing wrong with that principle. These obligations would also support the interests of Canadian taxpayers, ensuring access, competition and fairness in government procurement. I have said that twice, because it is worth repeating. It is worth understanding the basic fairness that can be brought to the procurement market. Ultimately, suppliers, governments and their taxpayers all benefit from these efforts. Our government seeks to accomplish these goals by negotiating agreements such as the World Trade Organization agreement on government procurement and specific chapters in Canada's free trade agreements, such as the one with Panama.

However, it is not just about the canal. I will broaden the discussion further to many of the tremendous opportunities this agreement would offer Canadians when it comes to government purchasing. Our government has been at the forefront of efforts to expand and secure access to foreign government procurement markets. According to OECD statistics, government purchasing plays a significant role in the economies of most countries, including Canada. It accounts for approximately 10% to 15% of a country's GDP, amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars annually around the world. These markets present significant opportunities for Canadian suppliers, and our government is working hard to ensure that Canadians have the tools available to take advantage of these opportunities. These obligations would also support the interests of Canadian taxpayers, ensuring increased access, competition and fairness in government procurement in Canada.

The Panama Canal project is one of the largest and most ambitious projects in the region. It is expected to cost an estimated $5.3 billion. This agreement would better enable Canadian suppliers and investors from across the country to participate in this megaproject by ensuring that Canadian goods and services would have access to procurement by the Panama Canal Authority, without discrimination.

The same agreement on the environment would also include provisions on encouraging the use of voluntary best practices, corporate social responsibility and a commitment to promote public awareness of the parties' environmental laws.

I will speak for a moment on that, because it is absolutely key to protecting the environment. Not every country in the world has the same standard of environmental protection. That is the reality of the world we live in. Many of the G8 countries and more advanced economies can afford to protect the environment. For growing economies, those dollars are taken from somewhere else to protect the environment. The great thing about this chapter of the investment treaty would be that they could not allow their environmental protection rules to become slacker. They could not be less for a Panamanian company than for a Canadian company. At the end of the day, it would mean that both countries would have to ensure that they did not relax their environmental laws to encourage trade or investment. That would be a step in the right direction, and it is those types of basic rules that would make a difference for the future of Panama.

For Canadian service providers, the free trade agreement would help expand market access opportunities in areas such as information and communications technology, energy and financial services. For Canadians looking to invest in Panama, the free trade agreement would include a chapter of comprehensive rules governing investment. These rules would provide greater protection and predictability for Canadian investors and their investments in Panama. At the same time, the labour co-operation agreement would ensure that these economic advances would not be made at the expense of workers' rights. Furthermore, the agreement on the environment would commit both countries to pursuing high levels of environmental protection, to improving and enforcing their environmental laws effectively, to maintaining appropriate environmental assessment procedures and to ensuring that they do not relax their environmental laws to encourage trade and investment.

When the free trade agreement comes into force, Panamanian tariffs on over 90% of Canadian goods exported to that country will be eliminated immediately. That is good news for Canadian exporters. With $111 million of merchandise traded between Canada and Panama, that is fantastic news.

I am pleased to be here today to talk about the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. The free trade agreement would generate increased export and investment opportunities for Canadians by creating a preferential and more predictable trade and investment environment, something I talked about in my opening comments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for putting up with that. It was important that I get it off my chest. I would like to get into the main part of my speech now.

I shake my head. I had great hopes for the New Democratic Party in this Parliament. It said that it was going to support trade and look at the trade deals for what they were. New Democrats found a way not to support trade. Whether they like it, whether they do not like it, there are some good things and some bad things. At the end of the day, when the rubber hits the road, the final verdict is what counts. If New Democrats do not support this trade agreement, they do not support trade. They should not try to have it both ways. They should not try to equivocate. Either they support trade or they do not support trade.

What has that done for the Panamanian psyche and Panamanian society? It has put hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue into Panama. That hundreds of millions of dollars builds capacity, the very capacity the NDP wants to thwart in Panama. That is the capacity that builds roads and hospitals and sends kids to school. More importantly, when we sign this free trade agreement with Panama, which will enable it to acquire cheaper food because it will be tariff free, kids will be sent to school with food in their bellies. That is a terrible thought, apparently, for the NDP anti-trade group.

When we look at the idea of rules-based trading, having a system in which we understand what the tariffs are, going in, and that they will be eliminated to zero, it is all about building capacity in Panama. We cannot do that overnight. Panama has moved light years in the last 20 years, and it has moved in the right direction on every single thing. When the Panamanians took over the Panama Canal, the naysayers, a group the NDP apparently belongs to, said that they would never be able to operate the Panama Canal. They said that the Americans could operate it, because they can do anything. Do you know what? The Panamanians took over the Panama Canal, and not only did they operate it, they did it well.

The hon. member does a total disservice to Canadian companies that are trading with Panama now. There is $111 million worth of trade between Canada and Panama, and he shrugs that off as if that is nothing. A good deal of that trade is coming out of Quebec, Atlantic Canada, Ontario, western Canada and British Columbia. It is shared equally among the provinces, and everyone gains. It is an absolute disservice to say that $111 million worth of trade is not important. I frankly disagree.

The reality is that Panama is off the OECD grey list. It is on the so-called white list, because it has improved its tax information sharing with other nations. Therefore, that is no longer an issue for OECD countries. Meanwhile, we are trading with Panama today.

A number of comments were made that simply do not wash. The comment was made that we can hold off on the treaty until we get a tax information exchange agreement. Yes, we can hold off on the treaty forever. We do not ever have to sign it, but we can also negotiate two different areas at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, before I start the main part of my speech, I would like to take a bit of time to continue my rebuttal of some of the comments made by my hon. colleague from the NDP. I want to lay it out in pretty general terms.

I guess that would explain why the government would leave Canadian dairy farmers out to dry when supply management disappears in this country because of trade deals, such as with the EU, which this government calls protectionism.

Mr. Speaker, in listening intently to my hon. friend's comments, one of the things that jumped out at me was his statement that he does not believe in protectionism because it is a bad thing for the government and Canada.

Every government reserves the right to protect certain items like social services, health care, water, and some that are trade-restrictive such as supply management. In every single trade agreement that Canada has signed, we protected those areas.

Furthermore, supply management has not prevented our signing any other trade agreements, including NAFTA, our agreement with Colombia, and our ongoing negotiations with Japan and the TPP and others. Our position on protection of supply management has not affected any of them.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like to take a moment, I would be happy to provide a briefing on the comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union. Certainly, as he well knows and surely agrees with, our position is that supply management is not on the table in those agreements. There is nothing in that agreement that changes the long-held Canadian position on supply management.

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.

The parliamentary secretary may want to answer that, but I have a different question for him. The government has gone to great lengths to talk about the advantages to us from an FTA and the expansion of the Panama Canal. The following quotation appeared in the United States Congressional Research Service's report to Congress on the proposed U.S.-Panama FTA dated April 21, 2011. It states:

However, I have to ask the parliamentary secretary where the government has been for the last 38 months. It had the ability to get the bill through Parliament and at this late hour, after the fact, it is now introducing closure to try to get it through, but we are already at a disadvantage at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I do not always agree with the parliamentary secretary, but I would agree with him that we are now in a bind because the United States has reactivated its FTA effective October 31, and we have rapidly come to a disadvantage in that market as a result.

More importantly, if we think of all the global commerce out there on the oceans, the great advantage to Canada with the advent of the twinning of the Panama Canal is that upon that date over 5% of that commerce will go through the Panama Canal at one point or another. When we put that global commerce up the east and west coasts of Canada, our coastal communities and cities stand to gain, especially our ports, such as the Port of Vancouver; the Port of Prince Rupert; the Port of Saint John, New Brunswick; the Port of Halifax; and the Port of St. John's, Newfoundland. Those gateway ports will bring more trade to both coasts of Canada.

The hon. member is well aware that we are getting to the final days of the expansion of the Panama Canal. I think we are about two years from the opening date and a lot of those contracts have been let. However, there are certainly procurement contracts and subcontracts available to Canadian companies.

I am wondering if my colleague could comment on the importance not only to the primary producers of our grain and oil seeds, poultry, pork and beef, but also in terms of our food processing technology, which is certainly envied around the world. We could certainly benefit the producers and processors as well.

I come from a riding with a lot of agricultural sectors. We have beef production, pork production, poultry production and horticulture. In my riding we have Conestoga College, which just recently instituted a food processing centre. We have all kinds of food processing in our riding, including Piller's Meats, Schneider Foods and Conestoga Meat Packers. There are all kinds of opportunities for increased exports.

I take great exception to any hon. member who would stand in this place and say that that $111 million in merchandise trade we do with Panama today is somehow not important. For the companies doing that trade today, it is extremely important. Not only that, but they will be the first people able to take advantage of a future expansion of trade.

There are number of areas where we stand to gain, including merchandise exports, agricultural exports and financial services. There is nothing but opportunity with this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question much better than the member posed it. The reality is absolutely there, and not just for agricultural exports but also for food processing equipment and machinery. There are ample opportunities to export that type of technology to Panama or through Panama as a gateway into the rest of Central and South America.

[Translation]

Similarly, CCP Inc. says on its website that it can set up any type of offshore company in five tax havens, including Panama. Panama is part of these tax havens. The company's slogan is “Security and Privacy are Your Rights!” The site is available in English, French and Russian, which gives a very good idea of how serious the company's business is and how much money it is raking in.

I will focus on the issue of tax havens. I took the time to do some research, and I found some very important reference sites—sites that promote tax havens to the public. For example, a European site recommends tax havens in fewer than a dozen countries, including Panama, for European business creators or SME managers.

Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade for almost a year, and I am always amazed at the answers that the parliamentary secretary gives to justify certain actions.

[English]

The reality is that Panamanians are moving in the right direction. This is not a matter of condoning tax havens; this is a question of whether we are going to trade with a country with a formula that establishes rules-based trading. We are trading with them now. We are not suddenly going to start trading with Panama tomorrow, because we are already doing it. The difference will be that we will have a clearly established set of rules to do so.

Let us take a look at where the Panamanian government has moved on tax havens. They have signed tax information exchange agreements with 14 countries around the world. That fact alone has taken them off the OECD grey list. They are now not on the grey list but the so-called white list, with most favoured nation status.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would agree with me that no parliamentarians are condoning tax havens. At the same time, I think we need to realize that all countries are moving forward at different rates and not all have the same capacity.

New Democrats have very serious concerns. We are opposed to this agreement because the Conservatives refuse to accept the very intelligent amendments put forward by our critic.

The Conservative government talks about security and a halt to drugs. If someone has five marijuana plants, it would give them a six-month minimum sentence. However, it is willing to sign an agreement with a country that even the OECD has recognized as being a tax haven, where money laundering takes place and there is no transparency over those issues.

Although [the agreement] includes an environmental side chapter, this is a non-binding declaration that relies on political will for its implementation, of which sort we have not seen in Panama.

Of course, our mining company interests in Panama would be protected and we are happy about that, but there needs to be a balance here. However, it is imbalanced, which makes us not support this particular free trade agreement.

Members all know that we do not live in isolated cells. Environmental factors and global warming do not recognize borders. They do not stop to show a passport. When pollution occurs in Panama, it impacts us in British Columbia, across Canada and around the globe. We have to be cognizant of that.

The other issue I have to touch on is the environment. One of the key areas for us to address is the environment, and free trade agreements are one of the ways we can do that. However, the Conservative government seems determined to undermine and dismantle environmental protection. Through these free trade agreements, it would also be supporting environmental degradation in other countries as well. I think that is unacceptable. We really have to take a look at where we are going with this.

Let me say that if one mentioned NAFTA in many towns in B.C., one would not get a pleasant reaction. My colleague from British Columbia sitting on the other side knows what a heated topic exporting raw logs from British Columbia is and how it has impacted our communities in a huge way.

I heard my esteemed colleague from across the way talk about NAFTA and how wonderful it has been. I would remind him of the reality in British Columbia, the beautiful province that I reside in and which is a pleasure to call home. In B.C., we have seen truckload after truckload of raw logs going over the border. Many of our towns in northern B.C. and in the interior have become ghost towns, as they watch those raw logs disappear over the border. Gone with them are the jobs in manufacturing, and, of course, we then buy the manufactured products back.

We also hear the Conservatives talk about opening the borders, free enterprise, and all of that. I am reminded that we hear a lot of that when it comes to big tax breaks for international and national corporations. We hear about it when it comes to free trade agreements. However, when it comes to labour market adjustments, of course, all of that disappears. Then we pass legislation so that employers can pay 15% less to temporary foreign workers who we bring in to ensure the free marketplace analogy is not allowed to work when it comes to Canadians looking for decent paying jobs.

If I were an economist or an accountant, I would be looking at these figures and asking the government to go back to the drawing board to do some homework. That is the teacher part of me.

Raw materials are not only Canadians' raw materials, but they are also the inheritance of our children and grandchildren. Once again, the export of raw materials without value-added jobs adds up to $30 billion, but value-added exports are down to $35 billion.

As I was saying, we have gone from a $26 billion trade surplus to a $50 billion trade deficit. For our manufacturing, which is a value-added job, the trade deficit has gone up six times, to over $90 billion. Those are decent paying jobs that Canadians no longer hold because they have been given away.

I was so keen to speak on this that I forgot to say that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from .

We also heard from the government that this is all about improving trade and improvements for Canadians. Neither the former government, led by a Liberal, nor my friends across the aisle, can be trusted to negotiate free trade agreements. They did not do and they do not do the necessary oversight that is required. My colleagues across the aisle love to quote dollars and figures, so let me quote some numbers from them. These are the Conservatives' figures.

If any blame is to end up anywhere, it is on the government side. Once again, Conservatives have failed to allow parliamentarians to do their job. They not only use their parliamentary majority at the committee stage to shut down all the amendments, but today as we saw earlier, they used their majority to shut down debate. What do they have to hide? They just want to read out the same old mantra over and over again.

One of the key things about being a parliamentarian, and the whole purpose of the committee stage, is for people from all political parties to try to improve the legislation. However, there is arrogance from the other side, and because Conservatives have a majority, they are not open to any amendments. The government has a bizarre idea that anything they propose is so superior that it could not possibly be corrected or amended by anyone else. The Conservatives totally ignored the serious work done by parliamentarians to try to fix their legislation so we could then support it.

We are so serious about free trade that our critic, and it was only the NDP critic, my esteemed friend from , took 13 substantive amendments to committee. If we were not serious, all we would be interested in saying is that we are opposed to this. We are not. We wanted to make this free trade agreement work. In order to make it work, our critic and our whole team put in a lot of time and took 13 amendments to committee. How many amendments did the other opposition parties make? Zero. However, despite all the hard work, my colleagues across the aisle once again refused to accept any amendment.

We have heard a lot about the NDP being against free trade. The NDP has shown that it is for free trade, when those free trade agreements are negotiated in a manner that protects human rights, labour rights, the environment, and that is transparent and sustainable.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise and make comments on the bill before us, the free trade agreement with Panama. Before I get to the substantive part of my argument, I want to touch on a couple of things.

I want to give her a lot of time to answer this question. I would like her to list all of the free trade agreements in the past 20 years that the NDP has supported.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague, who implied that a free trade agreement can somehow be unilaterally amended in Parliament once all of the negotiations have occurred. More troubling than that was her comment that her party supports free trade.

New Democrats would like to be able to support free trade agreements. We supported the free trade agreement with Jordan. I was in the House when we voted for it, and I was very proud to do so. I was looking forward to supporting this one. I looked at the 13 amendments that the NDP critic put forward after a great deal of thoughtful deliberation, and if major amendments had been accepted, the NDP would have been rising in a wave. We would have been on our feet voting for this.

Mr. Speaker, I share a lot of the members' concerns. However, she said at one point that if she were an economist, she would instruct the government to go back to the drawing board. I was wondering if she could cite an economist who actually said that.

Mr. Speaker, I have not had too many conversations with economists recently, and I will be very honest about that. However, I have discussed free trade with many working people in British Columbia. I have discussed free trade with some of the logging companies. I have discussed free trade with some of the trucking companies. I have discussed free trade and its impact, especially as we have seen it in B.C., with very diverse communities. All of them can see one thing very clearly: we should not sign a free trade agreement that does not benefit Canadian workers.

Conservatives come before the House today and talk about good jobs and job creation. Let us see a job-creation plan from the government. We have been asking for this since we got here in 2011 and we have not seen a single one. Conservatives want to talk about good jobs. Let us put a plan on the table and not play around with the facts about jobs. I would like my colleague to respond to that.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of Canadian workers, after listening to this debate, I have to think that the Conservatives' response to a flood would be to provide a thimble and say it is going to help. We have seen a gush of well-paid manufacturing jobs leave the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, presided over by the government.

What about growing decent jobs for our young people who are graduating from universities, colleges and high school, and what about decent paying jobs right across this country? Instead, the government is trying to shut the door on EI.

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we have been waiting with bated breath for the government to table a plan that would actually grow decent paying jobs in Canada. Instead, we have seen a huge increase in the number of temporary foreign workers. Last year alone, we brought in 191,000-plus temporary foreign workers because employers can pay them less. However, we do not give them any rights of residency or a pathway to residency, and at the same time we have very high unemployment. We have the highest unemployment among our youth, and yet the minister says the government is going to encourage even more people to come to Canada.

I want to conclude by saying the same thing I started with. The Conservatives' trade record is very poor. When they took over government it was $25 billion in surplus. Now we are $50 billion in deficit. We should look this deal over before passing it.

There are many amendments. In total 13 were introduced, yet the Conservatives voted them down. They were reasonable amendments that would have made reasonable corrections to some of the things the Conservatives have overlooked in this free trade agreement. The NDP prefers the multilateral approach to trade and supports trade agreements that expand Canadian exports by reducing harmful barriers to trade and encourage the development of value-added industries.

At the committee level, we proposed several reasonable amendments that would have made progressive changes to the bill. These included the addition of the crucial concepts of sustainable development and sustainable investment, a requirement for tax transparency and provisions to incorporate the protection of labour rights in the bill, including the right to collective bargaining. Other amendments would have required the to consult with labour and trade unions, as well as work with human rights experts and organizations in order to create impact assessments for the trade agreement.

Considering Panama's history and reputation on such matters, it should be clear why such an agreement is necessary before signing a trade deal and why we need to examine its terms and adequacies. The U.S. Congress would not ratify a free trade agreement with Panama before a tax information exchange agreement was signed. Why should we not have the same basic requirement in Canada? It does not make sense to me and I do not understand why or how it makes sense to the members of the House who intend to vote to pass the bill.

Unfortunately, the motion was defeated by the Conservatives, along with the Liberals. They argued that progress was being made and negotiations were under way to sign an agreement. I strongly disagree with this line of reasoning. This is putting the cart before the horse. There is no reason to rush the agreement through Parliament. If we in fact are on our way to signing a tax information exchange agreement, why not wait? What is the rush? Why not get that agreement in place before we sign a free trade agreement with a nation that has been known to have money laundering and tax evasion schemes in place? That question has still not been answered by the government.

At committee, prior to the clause-by-clause review of Bill , my colleague, the member for , proposed a motion to the international trade committee that would stop the implementation of the Canada-Panama trade agreement until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement. I voted in favour of the motion, as did the other New Democrat members of the committee. I supported it because it does not make sense to sign a free trade agreement without a tax information exchange agreement in place.

Recently, Panama was removed from the so-called OECD “grey list” after substantially implementing the standard for exchange of information when it signed a tax information exchange agreement with France. I believe it has about 14 agreements in place.

As I said before, the U.S. Congress refused to ratify a free trade agreement with Panama before it signed a tax information exchange agreement. Canadian Parliament should be equally cautious. However, analysis of these agreements indicates that they are highly ineffective in preventing legal avoidance or illegal tax evasion. These agreements typically do not have an automatic information sharing provision, rather an individual request must be made. Furthermore, they generally do not require a partner country to provide the information necessary for determining tax compliance in other nation if it has not been previously created.

I will speak in more depth about the tax information exchange agreement because it is very concerning and should cause us to pause before we enter into this agreement with Panama. In March 2012, Canada and Panama entered into the negotiation of a tax information exchange agreement. However, this agreement has not yet been signed. This is very troubling, considering the large amount of money laundering in Panama, including money from drug trafficking, that we heard about at the committee level. Panama's lack of taxation transparency has led the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to label the nation a “tax haven”.

There are very compelling reasons not to sign the agreement with Panama in the interest of Canadian taxpayers. In 2011, Canada's bilateral trade with Panama represented 0.03%, which is less than 1%, of our overall global trade. The agreement would represent the Conservatives' quantity over quality approach to trade deals. There is no need to rush into an agreement before meaningfully addressing the concerns about Panama being a tax haven.

After studying the situation in Panama more closely, one of my greatest concerns is that while Canada and Panama are in the process of negotiating a tax information exchange agreement, tax disclosure issues have yet to be meaningfully addressed despite protestations to the contrary from the Panamanian government, and undoubtedly the Conservative government, when we raise these issues. It is a major issue that the U.S. Congress refused to ratify a free trade agreement with Panama before signing a tax information exchange agreement.

Bill was studied very briefly at the international trade committee of which I am a member. The testimony we heard confirmed that these issues continue to be of concern today. Motions and amendments that would address these glaring issues in the agreement were introduced by the member for , our NDP international trade critic, but were opposed and defeated by both the Liberals and the Conservatives.

I am very supportive of an open and progressive approach to trade. That includes building a stronger economy and promoting Canada's interests. Unfortunately this agreement would not fit the bill. I will not be supporting the bill for a number of reasons. Chief among those reasons is that when the bill's previous incarnation, Bill , was studied at the committee stage, we heard very compelling testimony from many witnesses regarding the use of Panama as a tax haven for tax evasion and tax avoidance. Furthermore, Panama has a poor record on labour rights, and the deal's side agreements for labour and the environment are very weak. We are also very concerned that the agreement would provide greater rights and powers to foreign investors. This is worrisome, given controversies regarding the environmental and human rights records of some Canadian mining firms in Panama.

As the Asia-Pacific Gateway critic and someone who is very concerned with Canada's trade deficit, I know my colleagues on the opposite side do not like facts and figures but I am going to give them some. When the Conservatives came into power in 2006, our trade surplus was $25 billion. That is a fact. The Conservatives like to talk about trade and how they want to expand our markets. However, under the Conservative government that $25 billion surplus has turned into a $50 billion deficit. That is the Conservatives' record and they like to talk about numbers. I have gotten that off my chest so I will carry on with my speech.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the citizens of Surrey North to speak to Bill , the proposed free trade agreement between Canada and Panama.

Does my colleague believe that the government is neglecting trade relations with other partners around the world at a fairly significant cost and that is one of the reasons why we have a huge trade deficit today?

One of the ways to deal with that trade deficit is to look at opportunities south of the border where we have lost a great deal of trade. It seems to me that the government is placing a high priority on Panama. It has been working on this for the last few years. It even had the support of the Liberal Party to get it through. It could have passed through the House two years ago, but the government continues to bring in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the things the member said. When the Conservatives became the Government of Canada there was a significant trading surplus. The government policies of Mr. Chrétien and Paul Martin had a lot to do with that surplus. It is unfortunate that we have a huge trade deficit now. Many Canadians are equally concerned about that trade deficit.

The member is absolutely right. We have to encourage the government to be more progressive in negotiating trade agreements with other countries, such as Japan. We have to look at India, Brazil and South Africa. These countries have a growing market for our goods. We should be doing that at all times.

Mr. Speaker, our trade has gone from a surplus of $25 billion to a deficit of over $50 billion. That is absolutely correct. Not only that, but the manufacturing trade deficit has ballooned six times and is up to $90 billion. Manufactured goods that we sell to other countries are the value-added products that produce good paying jobs.

I am wondering if the member opposite would agree that the oil industry is an important industry and one that we need to continue to hold up as a commodity that could benefit from additional trade agreements.

Canada has a commodity that the opposition NDP seems to oppose everywhere it goes and that is the oil industry. This industry is well represented within my constituency, contributes largely to the Canadian economy and benefits us all. Obviously the opposition wants to bring forward a costly carbon tax for Canadian consumers, which is unfortunate. Those members have stood in the way of seeing this product move to other jurisdictions. There is a need for it in Asia and the United States. There is a need for it in a whole host of places. There is a demand for the product we are producing, which does lead to high paying jobs here in Canada. Unfortunately the NDP continues to oppose that specific industry.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like my colleague across the way is one of the few in the NDP caucus who truly believe that trade is important for Canada, especially as Canada is an exporting nation.

I have looked at the Conservative record on this over the last six years. They will beat drums and talk about how they want to expand our markets. However, Canada had a surplus of $25 billion and that surplus is now a deficit of $50 billion. That is the Conservative Party's trade record. The Conservatives ideological approach is not working. We need to rethink and go strategically into countries that we can trade with, where we can send our manufactured goods, so we can create jobs here in Canada.

: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be standing here in this House to speak about the issue of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. I have had the opportunity to listen to members opposite and to some of the questions that have gone through to our colleagues. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be standing here in this House to speak about the issue of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement. I have had the opportunity to listen to members opposite and to some of the questions that have gone through to our colleagues.

Let me start by establishing, if I might, that part of my bona fide is that I have been on the trade committee since I was first elected, and I am now in my fifth year. It has been a privilege to be on that committee, because it has been a very active committee. I will touch on that in a moment.

It is rather interesting to hear members from the other side talk about the issue of free trade as if they were the primary proponents of it, when in fact in my experience over the last four years and some, they just do not support free trade. I will grant that members opposite, without a voice vote, chose to support the Jordan free trade agreement, and I salute them for that.

However, that is a modest deal. It is an important deal for what we are going to establish in the Middle East, but it is only a piece of a much larger spectrum of what Canada is trying to do.

As I address my comments, I am not sure whether I want to address members opposite in terms of some of the things they have said or whether I want to stay specifically to the point of the text and the message I want to deliver. Perhaps I can share a bit of both for the benefit of the House.

Yesterday I was in the 10th largest city in Canada: London, Ontario. Our hon. was with me, as well as the members for and . Mr. Butters, the president and CEO of Purifics, a water treatment facility success story, when asked by a person who was not in support of free trade how he could justify it, said he would not be here were it not for free trade. He said he deals with free trade in Europe and in the United States, and it is critical to his success, his survival. It is the reason he is in business today.

I can echo those comments right across the spectrum of businesses across our great country. Why do we think the job creators of this country are the ones who support free trade? It is because they know Canada's survival is as a trading nation.

Mr. Speaker, you would know, because you seem wise, that one out of every five positions in this country is predicated on trade, and that is growing.

I find it baffling that members opposite would stand up in this House and pretend to support free trade when in fact they do not vote in favour of it. I struggle with that very deeply. I need them to search their souls.

Mr. Speaker, you might advise them accordingly to consider that, to actually think about what it means to be without free trade in this country. It is that critical.

I have a couple more things I wanted to share because I really think it is important. The member opposite, in his comments, said it is only a small deal. I suppose in some respects it is only a small deal. However, could anyone tell me how small that is to the humble potato farmer of Prince Edward Island when he has to pay a huge tariff when he delivers his potatoes, whole, and his frozen fries to Panama?

Tell me, what would my friends from P.E.I. say? If they had any respect for the humble potato, if for no other reason than that, they would want to stand up and support this free trade deal.

There is much more. In every province and every territory in this country, there are those industries that significantly benefit from free trade. I would like to touch on those a little.

Can members opposite tell me how they justify tariffs of up to 15% in Nova Scotia on fish and seafood? I cannot understand why they would want to do that. Right now paper and paper board products in Newfoundland are suffering tariffs as much as 15%, which kills jobs. The party opposite talks about creating jobs, but I am not sure about that. If it were, it would look to Alberta.

I know members opposite are challenged for some seats in Alberta. Forest products have 15% tariffs; milling products have as much as 40% tariffs. Would members opposite say this agreement is not good enough for Albertans? I would say, if they want to grow some seats in that section of the country, they might just want to say it is good for Alberta, and if it is good for Alberta, it might even be good for them, if they would get behind this and endorse it.

If members opposite were from Saskatchewan, they would say that pulses and cereals have tariff rates that range anywhere from 15% up to 40%. That is killing jobs and prevents additional job creation in the province of Saskatchewan. In Manitoba, the oil seeds and pulses, again, have tariffs of up to 15%.

When we sign this free trade agreement with Panama, almost every tariff will be eliminated. Those that are not eliminated are going to have a range of some three to five years and then they will be eliminated.

What would our friends opposite say to the pork industry?