I wonder if the member wants to share any reflections on the irony that our Prime Minister is currently in India, where the Indian Parliament has refused to ratify the investor-state agreement with Canada because of the very concerns that members of the opposition benches in this House have. India is apparently allowing their parliamentarians to vote; whereas in Canada we are not to see Parliament have a chance to speak to this issue before ratification. I am speaking of the Canada-China investment treaty.

Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised this issue earlier about the concerns around the investor-state provision, which I followed up on in my intervention.

The irony of the way the government deals with issues like foreign investment is truly incredible. We expect the government to get an agreement on tax information exchange transparency when it will not even be transparent on an important deal with China that is going to lock us in for 31 years.

As has been suggested in the question that was just asked, India has refused to sign on to the investor-state provision with Canada without having this matter come before their Parliament. I bet Canadians who are listening to this debate, and I am sure there are five or six, as well as the ones who will be reviewing Hansard later, will also recognize the huge irony in the position of the government.

The post Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

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

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

The post Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Green Party is the only truly global party, with Greens in 70 countries and elected Members of Parliament in Europe, Latin America, Australia, and New Zealand. Together we work to press the nuclear super-powers to meet their obligations for disarmament, to reduce and eliminate the nuclear threat. We work to shift military budgets to peacekeeping and peace-building. We work to ensure the education, health protection and economic autonomy of women and girls around the world to address poverty and over-population.

Greens see the world as a planetary whole. We believe the essence of a strong security policy starts with addressing the single largest security threat to modern civilizations the climate crisis. As Gwynne Dyer pointed out in his book, Climate Wars, military establishments around the world are aware that the threat of increased political destabilization due to increased severity and frequency of severe climatic events warrants treating climate as a security threat. The spectre of millions of environmental refugees is a real and near-term reality, if we do not move aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Honouring binding multilateral treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol, is a measure of a nation’s reliability and integrity in the world. As the only nation to have ratified and then repudiated Kyoto, we have blotted our copy book in the community of nations. Our domestic fossil-fuel expansionist policies put us at odds with the International Energy Agency, the European Union, and more.

Meanwhile, addressing global disparities, working together as nation-states to improve the standard of living for all, is more than a free market issue. It requires equity, the rule of law, and enhanced global governance.

Defence policy needs to be nested in the context of how we see our role in the world. Increasingly, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to defining our role in two ways trade and military hardware.

We are entering into cookie-cutter trade agreements with small (and in some cases corrupt) economies. Jordan, Panama, Colombia, with China yet to come. Our international posture is one of unquestioning support for Israel (I support the existence of the state of Israel, but think unquestioning cheer-leading is a disservice to peace in the region), and joining NATO missions with zeal.

Meanwhile, we are sending the signal that diplomacy is a dwindling concern. For some time, the Harper Conservatives have been shrinking our embassy presence so that a Canadian in trouble in Nicaragua, for example, is told the closest Canadian presence is in Guatemala and in any event, your phone call is directed to a 1-800 emergency line in Ottawa. With the 2012 budget, we are selling off diplomatic residences a decision surely to be rated penny wise and pound foolish by successor governments.

The most high-profile domestic defence question is clearly the botched procurement process for the F-35s. In many ways the F-35 fighter jet is the perfect object lesson from former U.S. President and former General Dwight Eisenhower’s warning to beware of the “military-industrial complex.” Canada’s rationale for joining in the process in 1997 had little, if anything, to do with domestic security and everything to do with hoped-for aerospace contracts.

Under Liberal prime ministers Chrétien and Martin, Canada put up initial funds to participate (first $10-million in 1997 and then a further $150-million in 2001). Up until this point, the auditor general found no fault with the process and accountability of decision-making. It was beyond the scope of the auditor general’s report to investigate whether Canada needed the F35s. Just as it was beyond the auditor general’s responsibility to find out which of the political masters were aware of the various and repeated acts of incompetence and failures of due diligence he went on to report.

The auditor general recounted such a trail of violations in the fundamentals of normal procurement process that even seasoned Ottawa-watchers are stunned. The decisions were generally taken in reverse order. First came the decision, followed by inventing criteria to justify the decisions, and then, lastly the rationale. Not one, but two, departments were found to have failed in the exercise of basic due diligence. Both the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada (Public Works) were found to have fallen below the standard of due diligence. 

The essence of the AG report is not, as Defence Minister Peter MacKay now claims, that the AG found a novel way to add up the costs of the jets. The essence of the report is that Canadians were lied tofor years. Parliament was misled for years. And the whole F-35 project, from 2006 onwards, was typified by a litany of rogue decision-making. What we need to know is how it happened that two departments suspended judgment, cut corners, and violated process. One theory is that Public Works and DND were independently willing to abandon normal procurement rules. More likely, the orders came from the one in control of all departments the Prime Minister who wants to remake us as a warrior nation.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May represents Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.
Originally printed in the Hill Times.

The post Single Largest Threat to Modern Civilizations is Climate Crisis appeared first on Elizabeth May.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act (Bill C-24) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

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

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

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

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

The post Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act (Bill C-24) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act (Bill C-24) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

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

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

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

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

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

The post Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act (Bill C-24) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[-kcYnEa79LE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turning to the text of the agreement, in article 106 there are some carve outs so that the agreement would not unfairly target multilateral environmental agreements. I wish the trade negotiators for Canada had listed all the agreements that are important. They certainly have carved out the ones that were listed in NAFTA, such as, CITES, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the Montreal protocol on the ozone layer, the Basel convention on the transport of hazardous materials, the Rotterdam convention on trade in hazardous goods, and the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act (Bill C-24) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

As always, the models for free trade are based on the NAFTA principles and not on the principles of other agreements that would, in my opinion, produce more benefits for the environment and for all societies.

[z6lprOzBWnI]

There are specific issues relating to Jordan with this trade agreement. I would like to preface that with a review of how we came to where we are in terms of where Canada’s interests lie as a society, not merely our trade in goods. All of these debates usually rest on the notion that if members have questions about new trade agreements, they are against trade with another nation. I remember a venerable senator who had been minister of agriculture for many years commented that trade is not new, what was Marco Polo doing. We certainly have had trade for a very long time. No one is against trade.

In the context of global trade, we have seen a remarkable transition. We used to live in a world of tariff barriers that allowed the Canadian economy to grow to be as strong as it is now. After the Second World War tariff barriers were targeted and we began to see them coming down. The efforts to say that one country must not discriminate against another began to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction to what we had seen before the Second World War.

These efforts led to the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In the first instance, the GATT was quite restrictive in terms of focusing on trade in goods, which is what most Canadians understand we mean when we talk about trade agreements: trade in goods, our ability to buy and sell, the ability of our neighbours to buy and sell to us. This trade in goods is something that has been handled by the GATT for a very long time.

Things changed substantially in the 1990s. It took nine years of negotiations, the Uruguay round, to bring forward an updated version of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and within that new agreement to do some things that had not been done before. It was the advent of looking beyond goods to look at trade in services, to look beyond those things that were completely commercial and make changes that had implications for culture, for society overall, for the environment and for labour. In other words, the approach of the trade world began to impinge on other aspects of society. They became not just trade agreements, but agreements that actually changed the very fundamental relationship between citizens and their government versus the relationship of corporations and those governments.

If there was a time when we had too many tariff barriers, if there was a time when we were too protectionist, that time is long past. We have now seen the pendulum swing so far that the so-called liberalization of trade is not just advancing the flow of goods but to advance the interests of a dogma of globalization, which allows more and more multinational corporations to dictate policies, to have a greater role and arguably a greater role than the citizens.

I will back up and look at the model to which I referred earlier, the NAFTA model. It has dictated a great deal since we entered into that agreement. Probably the most egregious part of the NAFTA model is the investor state provisions which allow a corporation based in a country that is part of the trade agreement, in the case of NAFTA corporations based in the U.S. or Mexico, to have the ability to sue the Canadian government if it passes a law that they do not like.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA, the investor state provisions, allows a foreign corporation from the U.S. or Mexico to sue the Canadian government at the federal level. It allows a foreign corporation to have rights which are superior to those of a domestic corporation. A domestic corporation does not have the right to sue our government. This provision actually gives preferential treatment to foreign corporations to sue Canada if there is a regulation passed by the House of Commons. In a democratic house of assembly we can pass a law which is untouchable by a Canadian corporation, but a foreign corporation can sue us for damages.

Not only under the investor-state provisions within NAFTA can a U.S. or Mexican corporation sue us, it can sue the federal level, a province and a municipal government. We have seen the examples under chapter 11 of NAFTA for quite some time. Laws passed by this House had to be repealed because of a chapter 11 challenge. I refer specifically to Ethyl Corporation of Richmond, Virginia, which sued the Canadian government for costs and damages when this House chose to restrict access to a manganese-based gasoline additive that the health community warned was neurotoxic and the environment community warned was a danger to the environment. The car manufacturers said that they did want it in their cars because it compromised the catalytic converters, hurt their warranties and they needed action on it.

Even when the factual basis for governmental action is not in question and there is no notion that the action taken was in any way motivated by trade discrimination, in other words, we were not trying to give preferential treatment to a Canadian industry or product, the agreement is sufficient. The lawyer who represented Ethyl Corporation at the time, Barry Appleton from Toronto, said, “it would not matter if one added liquid plutonium to children’s breakfast cereal, if the government banned it and the people who made it said that they lost profit through that action, they could sue”.

I may have taken too long on that specific example but I wanted to make the point that trade agreements have gone too far. We are no longer talking about access to goods and services. We are talking about changing the fundamentals of the relationship. The primary relationship between a government should be to the citizens who elect the members of Parliament to serve in that government. There should be no superior rights of redress to a foreign corporation but we have seen that happen time and time again.

The most recent and egregious example was when the Prime Minister chose to pre-empt a complaint by a forest company against actions taken by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. In that case, AbitibiBowater was the holder of what had been a 99 year lease that allowed it, at bargain basement prices, to have access to a large area of forest on the condition that it ran a pulp mill. Into the bargain, believe it or not, in this 99 year lease, had been thrown water rights and other ancillary benefits.

When the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador said that it would not let AbitibiBowater close its mill and sell off everything it had under the lease, which would include water rights and the forest itself, as Newfoundland and Labrador said that it did not have access to those, the foreign corporation sued. In that instance, the Prime Minister chose to castigate the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to pay out tens of millions of dollars to AbitibiBowater and said that it did not want something like that to ever happen again.

These investor-state provisions are creeping into all of these so-called bilateral investment agreements, or BITs. The Prime Minister just returned from Beijing and was very thrilled to have a new proposed trade agreement with China that would include these very provisions that would allow a foreign government to sue us.

In this instance, we are looking at a proposed agreement with Jordan. There are many good and substantial reasons to improve relationships with Jordan. Jordan has a reputation and a long-standing role as one of the most stable and least xenophobic Arab states and is certainly the most supportive of the existence of the state of Israel compared to most of the nations in that region.

Jordan has many things to recommend it but democracy is not among them. It is a monarchy. However, the late King Hussein of Jordan was always seen as someone of enormous wisdom. I must say that I was always impressed by his sense of wisdom and by his wife, Queen Noor, who was a strong advocate for the environment.

I had the great honour of serving on the earth charter commission, which was co-chaired by Mikhail Gorbachev and Maurice Strong. I had the good fortune to get to know Princess Basma of Jordan, who was King Hussein’s sister. As I approach this, I have a sense of Jordan’s place in the world and a sense of, albeit small, personal connection.

However, when we look at the implications of this trade agreement with Jordan, I do not think we should rush into it without having much better and more substantial answers for a couple of key points. We have heard numerous commentators point out that the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement could create free licence to greater human smuggling, that there would be an increased flow of foreign workers into Jordanian factories and that this could undermine labour rights in Jordan.

When we enter into a negotiation such as this, I would suggest a couple of steps that we tend to miss. The first step would be how to build a stronger relationship with a country. We can fill in the blank for the country, although in this case it would be Jordan. Yesterday we were talking about Panama. How do we build good links? Canada, traditionally, has been able to build good links through a robust Department of Foreign Affairs. There were skilled and qualified diplomats working in these countries. There were people who spoke local languages, spent time getting to know the local NGO community and were able to provide a context with which we dealt with nations. The importance of our foreign affairs outreach in recent years has been quite diminished. We have closed embassies and consulates around the world, which means that our reach is reduced.

When we have a relationship with a country, whether it is Panama, Jordan or China, it is important that the relationship be built on many pillars. One is, of course, the diplomatic one to which I referred. Another is greater social interaction and cultural exchanges. The government has shut down all the programs that dealt with allowing Canadian artists to perform overseas, which was building stronger relationships through our culture.

We also need relationships to be built on, not on the model of the NAFTA but more like the model from the European Union. In that model, all nations within the EU, when they undertook to become part of that shared common market, had to accept the toughest levels of environmental and labour standards of any one of the member countries. This is a key principle that is completely lacking in NAFTA. Under NAFTA, there are no requirements to meet higher standards. The most we got out of the language of NAFTA was that it would be unacceptable for a country to lower its environmental standards in order to advance trade.

There is a very large difference between NAFTA saying that countries are not allowed to lower their environmental standards to attract more trade and the completely different approach of the EU, which is that countries must raise their standards. Generally speaking, Germany has the highest environmental standards and therefore other countries had to raise themselves up to equal the German standards. Some of those countries were poor and so there was a transfer of resources to help them do that.

If one were looking at models around the world to find ways to use the trade pillar to advance other issues, then one would never follow the NAFTA model. It would be the worst possible way to go. One would look at the best examples around the world and follow those. If we have relationships on the basis of trade, those relationships should include raising the bar and telling foreign corporations that they need to look at a code of conduct enshrined in law internationally in the same way that we protect intellectual property rights. We know how to design regimes, such as the TRIPS Agreement, which requires that all nations proactively pass legislation to protect intellectual property rights and give all countries the ability to search and seize goods crossing a border if they do not meet the qualifications for intellectual property rights. We know how to do these things.

What if we were to say, for instance, that no goods at a border are allowed to pass if they have involved child labour? We could say that we will not allow goods to cross a border if they involve the destruction of precious ecosystems. Instead, our trade mantra is that we do not interfere with PPMs, process and production methods. What is an intellectual property infringement other than a process and production method? It means the product was produced by stealing someone else’s intellectual property. Why is it a greater offence under the trade regime to steal intellectual property than to exploit children, destroy forests or increase greenhouse gas emissions?

If we look at the global governance of trade, there is tremendous potential there for good. There is tremendous potential to harness the ability that has been used to protect intellectual property rights and use those kinds of agreements to protect labour standards, to protect children, to protect ecosystems and to advance a low carbon economy. All of these things could be done but they are not being done.

To ensure that Canadian corporations, U.S. corporations, Dutch, Chinese or whatever corporations participate in the GATT, we should have a global agreement on corporate behaviour stating that all corporations operating within this trade zone, which is basically every country except Cuba, need to meet minimum standards, such as proper labour standards and environmental standards. In that way, no corporation would be disadvantaged by having to take these standards on because all corporations would have a level playing field. It would be quite progressive coming from the lessons learned through the development of the GATT, the WTO, the TRIPS Agreement, the General Agreement on Trade in Services and so on. We have not done that here.

We have before us an agreement that follows the traditional typical model. It would give investment rights. It has a few nice words. There would be more of an environmental assessment review. We have had a review of what the Canada-Jordan free trade negotiations would mean. There is some agreement to work together on environmental issues. However, we still have the looming problems of reduced labour standards within Jordan, the risk of human trafficking and the fact that we have skewed the relationship that we have with other nations to the effect that it appears that nothing matters other than trade.

I suppose the House can now sense that there is a theme to what I am saying. We are not against trade and we are not against new trade agreements but a balance must be achieved so that our relationship with other countries in the world is based on multilateralism and internationalism. It must always recognizes the priority of citizens in a country to make decisions and have them binding. It must not give superior rights to corporations over citizens. It must rebalance the importance of diplomacy, of exchange and of fair trade in goods. It must insist that the rules that govern our trade agreements constantly reinforce and elevate the nature of our relationships, not put us in a situation where the populace of various countries push back.

We will see come before the House before too long the comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union. As I have been talking about EU trade agreements, how ironic is it that we are not seeing in the draft of that agreement a replication of the EU model but one that looks more like the NAFTA model with the benefits that will largely accrue to European pharmaceutical companies and so on? However, that agreement is not before us yet.

I do not oppose the bill going to committee where it can be improved. Our relationship with Jordan is important but it must be much richer, more complex and more nuanced than advancing agreements and relationships with Jordan through a trade agreement that fails to live up to its potential. We must revisit this. We must protect the rights of workers and protect the environment.

The post Canada-Jordan Economic Growth and Prosperity Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The NAFTA model, as the hon. member for Halifax West said, is a race to the bottom.

I wonder if the hon. member has any comments on the investor state provisions within the Panama-Canada trade deal.

Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, I am getting some very technical questions today. There is nothing wrong with that. I welcome them. That is great. I like being on my feet.

My colleague raised the EU issue. All nations were called upon to reach an agreement together and to develop some sort of consensus around how to move forward with the EU. In stark contrast here, this trade deal was negotiated in record time. There was no consultation with trade unions, with environmental groups, with civil society organizations, nor with citizens.

That is not what we should expect, a fast, quick trade deal where people are not consulted. However, we do see time and time again here in Canada that is exactly what the Conservatives are doing on pretty much every subject, especially when we consider things like the pipeline with the minister saying there are too many people who want to testify. I guess it is in keeping with the Conservatives’ general theme.

The post Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.