Bill C-23 (Historical)

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements on the environment and labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and signed at Lima, Peru on November 21, 2008.
The general provisions of the enactment specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of the provisions of Part 1 of the enactment or any order made under that Part, or the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement or the related agreements themselves, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 of the enactment approves the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional aspects of the Free Trade Agreement and the power of the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out the provisions of the enactment.
Part 2 of the enactment amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreement on labour cooperation.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member brought this question up again, because I listened to his question to my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George and I heard what he gave as background for his question.

The expert he referred to was a drug lord himself who indicated that he had given money to Uribe. If I were balancing the testimony of the president against the testimony of a drug lord, I would tend to come down on the side of the president. The member can choose to weigh his evidence in any way he sees fit, but I think he is wrong on this.

In terms of the issue he brought up about how I would deal with drug dealers, I would deal very toughly with them.

This will help move Colombia further along the path that it has started down. It has a long way to go, but it has made a lot of progress. It will help move it further down the path, where it relies less on the drug trade and more on trade in legitimate goods. That can only be good for the people of Colombia, and it can only be good for people right around the world.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that certainly begs a response, because we have not just the testimony of one drug lord but evidence from a variety of sources, evidence that has been provided to members of the trade committee and information that is available to members of this House.

Therefore the question really is why the Conservatives did not bother to do their due diligence on this and see the many citations and evidence of the background of President Uribe, his rise in Medellin, his ties to Pablo Escobar as confirmed by the American government, and his more recent ties to drug lord money and paramilitary gangs.

The evidence is all there. It is just that no Conservative or Liberal member actually chose to do their due diligence and do their homework.

My question for the member, whom I like personally but with whom I disagree strongly on this issue, is why he did not do his due diligence. Why did he not actually look at the evidence? Why did he not go beyond the speaking notes that come from the Minister of International Trade which are clearly inadequate for what Canadians are calling for?

As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to go beyond the rhetoric of a president who says “I am not guilty” and find out the truth. Why did the Conservatives not do that?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this government has been very careful and really diligent in looking at the exact information the member is talking about, and we have come to the conclusion, as have most people who have looked at this agreement, that this agreement will help move Colombia down the road to becoming more productive, with more law-abiding citizens within the country. It will be a positive thing for the people of Colombia, and it will be a positive thing for the people of Canada.

I think the member is wrong on this, quite frankly.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Colbert has a word for Republicans in the United States basically making up facts. The word he uses is “truthiness”. What Colbert has said in The Colbert Report is, “Truthiness is just feeling something in the gut, rather than doing your do diligence and looking at your facts”. That is what the NDP has actually done. It has looked at the facts and done its due diligence and not relied on truthiness, which is what we have seen from the Conservatives in this debate so far on Canada-Colombia.

I know many Canadians have written to the leader of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister. Thousands of letters have gone to the Leader of the Opposition's office because so many Canadians deplore how the Liberals have sold out human rights on the issue of Canada-Colombia. Those thousands of Canadians have been watching the debate and what they have seen is one side simply presenting whatever emotional poll it has and another side presenting the facts.

Because the NDP effort is fact based, what I will do is talk about the facts of Colombia and this trade agreement. Hopefully I will have enough time, though not a lot of time, to talk a bit about the NDP approach on fair trade. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the NDP is the only party that actually does public consultations on trade policy.

We believe Canadians need to be engaged on trade issues. We believe Canadians actually need to discuss trade, that trade has implications and that bad trade policy can have as negative implications as good trade policy can have positive. Unfortunately, under the Liberals and Conservatives, we have seen very little good trade policy.

The first fact to talk about is what is actually happening in Colombia. The most important thing to look at is what has happened since these negotiations started with Canada-Colombia. What has happened over the last three years?

The Centre for Popular Education and Research, and that is citing a study rather than just saying things are better in Colombia, has shown that over the last three years there has been a marked increase in paramilitary killings, extrajudicial executions and the so-called false positives by the Colombian military. That has been cited. As we well know, the false positives are why the United Kingdom pulled out of its military arrangement with Colombia.

While the Canadian government is trying to push forward, other governments, like Norway and the United Kingdom, and even the U.S. Congress have pulled back. Obviously there is a problem.

The facts are the following. The number of trade unionists killed increased 18% from 2007 to 2008. It is up even higher this year. The number of disappearances has increased. The number of false positives, which is an innocent word that describes a horrible reality, has increased.

I will cite another source because it is important to get real facts out on the table, not just the emotions or the truthiness the Conservatives feel. I know they love President Uribe, but they cannot let their wild, whacky emotions, because he is an ideological soul brother, get in the way of the facts. The reality is that most people I know who even vote Conservative would be absolutely outraged with these ties with paramilitaries and the drug trade that has been fully documented.

Another fact is the comptroller general of Colombia mentioned recently that drug traffickers and paramilitaries now “own” almost half the agricultural land in Colombia. The concentration of land has intensified. Sixty-one per cent of agricultural land is now in the hands of 0.6% of the population.

We are trying to put in place a trade deal that enhances ownership rights of a very small proportion of the population. Changes in land tenure law as well would mean that those who have been forced off the land by the paramilitaries and forced into communities like Soacha, which I visited along with the trade committee a year and a half ago, once they stay away from that land because of fear of death, they lose their ownership rights. There are four million displaced citizens, the largest forced migration on the planet, and our trade agreement would enhance the strategy of paramilitaries and drug lords to run these innocent, hard-working people off their land.

The other thing I want to address is the whole issue of what human rights organizations are actually saying. Organization after organization has denounced this agreement.

Making a Bad Situation Worse: An Analysis of the Text of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement states:

Colombian civil society and human rights organizations have been clear: they do not want this agreement. President Barack Obama has indicated the United States will not proceed with their FTA with Colombia given continued and escalating violence against workers and the impunity with which these crimes are committed. What is Canada doing?

That was asked by an organization which is a coalition of national organizations.

Forever Solidarity: A Public Sector Trade Union Report on Colombia says: “Free trade will hurt, not help Colombians”.

All of this is available to members of Parliament if they choose to do their due diligence, if they choose to do their homework.

One might say the situation has not improved in Colombia and is getting worse, statistically, by every measure. That is very clear. However, that individual might like President Uribe. I understand the Conservatives' love for President Uribe but let us look at the facts.

We have heard testimony about what President Uribe's career has been like. Again, all of this stuff is available to the public domain. The Colombia Journal mentions that young Uribe rose in Medellin, supported by Pablo Escobar. He was removed from office after only three months by a central government embarrassed by his public ties to the drug mafia. When he became governor later on security forces and paramilitary groups enjoyed immunity from prosecution under governor Uribe.

A document that was obtained through Access to Information put out by the Defense Intelligence Agency, and again available to members of Parliament, mentions in terms of the top 100 narco-traffickers Alvaro Uribe Velez, a Colombian politician. It states:

--senator dedicated to collaboration with the Medellin cartel at high government levels. Uribe was linked to a business involved in narcotics activities in the U.S. His father was murdered in Colombia...Uribe has worked for the Medellin cartel and is a close personal friend of Pablo Escobar Gaviria. He has participated in Escobar's political campaign to win the position of assistant parliamentarian.

That information was corroborated by other agencies in the U.S. When the information came out, the Bush administration tried to move into high damage control mode, but that information is publicly accessible.

Now we move to the current day. Since the last time we debated this issue, we heard the BBC's breaking news about Diego Murillo, talking about his substantial contributions to the campaign of Mr. Uribe in 2002. Diego Murillo was the successor of drug lord Pablo Escobar in the city of Medellin.

As the Washington Post reported, “Scandals surround Colombian Leader--Top Aides Suspected in Secret Police Case”. I am quoting now from the story on May 16:

For weeks after the news broke, Colombians knew only that the secret police had spied on Supreme Court judges, opposition politicians, activists and journalists. Suspicions swirled that the orders for the wiretapping, as well as general surveillance, had come from the presidential palace.

This is the situation that Colombia is in. The Conservatives want to give a privileged trading relationship to this president and his administration. This is someone whose political career was tied to drug lords and later on tied to murderous paramilitary thugs who are responsible for the deaths of up to 100,000 people.

Any voters, whether they voted NDP, Bloc, Liberal or Conservative, who have the ability to look at both sides of this issue, would say in the case of that extreme violence, in the case of the impunity with which these crimes have been committed, that we should not give a privileged relationship to an administration that has very clearly fallen short of the fundamental norms and values that Canadians hold. I do not think any Conservative could go back to his or her riding and defend ties to an administration that was elected with drug lord money and has ties with paramilitary thugs. That is why the NDP is opposing this trade agreement.

What are we putting forward? We are saying quite simply that fair trade, something we favour, has to be built on a series of values. We have to respect democracy, respect the environment. We have to look at a fair trade approach that builds social, environmental and labour standards. This is what we put forward.

We also believe in doing our homework on every trade deal, whether it is the softwood sellout, the shipbuilding sellout or this sellout of human rights. We have analyzed and actually looked at the impacts, and that is why we have been able to speak up with such authority. Most Canadians agree and want to see this deal stopped.

The House resumed from September 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster embarked on questions and comments following his remarks. There are five minutes remaining in the time allotted for questions and comments for the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. I therefore call on questions and comments.

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that we start this correctly. Could my colleague outline some of the sidebar agreements this deal has that are very unusual and create some concern? The environment and labour practices in particular, which have been dominant in this agreement, will allow for greater exploitation.

Why would the Government of Canada go into a privileged trading relationship? It is very important that we define that. We currently have trade with Colombia and we will continue to have trade with Colombia, but by agreeing to this type of a deal in the way that it is struck right now, we will be moving to a privileged trading relationship with a government that has had labour and civil society problems that have not been rectified.

Why the government would continue down that road with sidebar agreements is very disturbing, and I would like the member to describe some of those elements.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is inconceivable to me that Conservatives would vote for a privileged trade relationship, as the member for Windsor West mentions, with a government that has such an appalling human rights records.

It has the highest rate of killings of labour activists on the entire planet and a president who was named by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency as 82nd on the list of Colombian narcotraffickers. In the Defense Intelligence Agency's internal memos, he was defined as a Colombian politician dedicated to collaboration with the Medellin cocaine cartel at the highest government levels. Conservative MPs want this privileged trading relationship with somebody who is defined by the U.S. as a narcotrafficker. He was 82nd on the list.

The Conservative government tries to defend this by saying it has put in protection side deals. The member for Edmonton—Strathcona spoke very eloquently yesterday about the fact that the environmental side deal offers no environmental protection.

However, the most egregious aspect of the deal is the provision that one can kill a trade unionist and pay a fine. As the killing of labour activists continues, the Colombian government will essentially have to pay a fine to itself. That is the great provision the Conservative government and the Minister of International Trade have provided as a protection for human rights.

Imagine if Conservative MPs were trying to defend the same thing in their ridings, saying that one can kill people but they will have to pay a fine afterwards. That is absolutely appalling. I am glad the member for Windsor West asked that question.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the answer to the question by the member who has been driving the effort to stop this free trade agreement and who has so far been successful in stopping it from getting through the House.

I am surprised that any member in the House would support a free trade agreement with a country that has seen 27 trade unionists killed as well as 60 to 70 extrajudicial murders in 2009 so far. I got these statistics from my local steelworkers. As a country that respects and lives according to democratic principles, why would we want to enter into any agreement of this nature with a country?

Yessika Hoyos Morales, the daughter of one of the trade unionists who was killed, was in my office last year pleading on behalf of the families of trade unionists who are simply exercising a right that we take for granted in this country and so many other jurisdictions around the world. She visited some other members as well. She pleaded that we stop this nonsense and not give credence in any way to a regime that is doing this kind of killing.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, the number of killings has actually escalated. In 2008 there were nearly 600 killings in Colombia by paramilitary groups and the Colombian military, as defined by the Center for Popular Research, Education and Policy.

To those Conservatives who say he had links with the drug lords in the past but he has reformed, I will just mention that recently another drug lord, the successor to Pablo Escobar, said that he financed President Uribe's 2002 presidential campaign.

Shame on Conservatives. Shame on--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Madam Speaker, many of my constituents have sent me letters and emails urging me to vote against the Colombia free trade bill before us today.

I have studied the bill and the current situation in Colombia, so I will have no problem doing as they ask because I feel the same way. I also had the opportunity to meet several Colombians, including refugees and unionists, who told me about the violence that prevails in their country and their complete opposition to Canada signing a trade agreement with the existing regime in Bogota. I would therefore invite my colleagues from all parties to oppose this bill for two main reasons.

First, the agreement will have a minimal effect on trade relations between Canada and Colombia. Colombia is just not one of Canada's more significant trading partners. As many members of the House have already said, the main reason that the Canadian government wants to sign this free trade agreement has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with investments. The chapter on investment protection is the real impetus behind this agreement. Canada-Colombia trade is a minor consideration, but current and projected Canadian investments are consequential, particularly in the mining sector.

I have no doubt that this draft agreement came about because special interests in that sector put pressure on the Canadian government. Judging by all of the investment protection agreements that Canada has signed over the years, this one with Colombia seems neo-liberal to the core. In fact, every previous agreement contains provisions allowing Canadian investors to sue the government of the signatory country in which they invest if that government passes measures that reduce their investment returns. Such provisions are particularly dangerous in a country where labour and environmental protection laws are arbitrary at best.

By protecting Canadian investors from requirements meant to improve standards of living in Colombia, this agreement could halt social and environmental progress in a country that desperately needs it. Any attempt the Colombian government might make to improve things would subject it to legal action by Canadian investors.

Second, Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in the world, and certainly in Latin America. To improve the human rights situation in the world, western governments, at least those that advocate for justice, generally use the carrot and stick approach. They support efforts to improve human rights and reserve the right to cut rewards if the situation worsens.

If this free trade agreement were signed, Canada would lose any chance of putting pressure on Colombia. In fact, not only would it give up the possibility of using the carrot and stick, but it would essentially hand them over to the Colombian government.

The government keeps telling us that the free trade agreement comes with side agreements on labour and the environment. But these agreements are notoriously ineffective and are not part of the free trade agreement, which means that some investors could destroy the Colombian environment, relocate populations to establish their mines, or continue to have anyone who opposes their project, in particular union members, killed, all with impunity. Since 1986, 2,690 union members have been killed in Colombia.

And we can unfortunately not count on the Colombian authorities to improve the situation.

The Colombian branch of the international organization Transparency International published a report last summer on corruption in Colombia. According to the report, which was the result of a project funded by the British and Dutch governments, only 4 of the 138 state entities in Colombia have a low level of corruption. It is a very detailed report that offers further explanation.

One of the organizations that the study found to have a very high level of corruption was the Colombian Congress itself. According to the report, the Ministry of the Interior and Justice has a high level of corruption.

Anyone who can read Spanish can view the detailed report on the Internet.

The Bloc Québécois is against trading away the Canadian government's ability to press for human rights to provide Canadian corporations with foreign investment opportunities.

Colombian civil society also opposes this agreement. However, because of the repression that exists there, it is harder for Colombian civil society to really get organized and have its say. But on February 11, 2009, four of my colleagues, the hon. members for Sherbrooke, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, and Joliette, as well as Paul Crête, met with the Coalition of Social Movements and Organizations of Colombia, or COMOSOC. That meeting was organized by the CCIC. I would remind the House that COMOSOC is made up of the National Organization of Indigenous People in Colombia, the Popular Women’s Organization, the National Agrarian Coordinator, Christians for Peace with Justice and Dignity, the National Movement for Health and Social Security, the Afro-Colombian National Movement, and so on.

The COMOSOC delegation wanted to refute the claims made by the Colombian government and the Canadian government: the human rights situation in Colombia has not improved. Many organizations in Quebec and in Canada have spoken out against this agreement, including the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, Amnesty International, the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, the Catholic organization Development and Peace, KAIROS, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Lawyers Without Borders, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the National Union of Public and General Employees.

As we can see, many people oppose this plan. Once again, I invite all members of the House to vote against this bill.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a member of the international trade committee, I had an opportunity to be in Colombia and meet with the president, as well as some of his other cabinet colleagues. I must say that I am very impressed by the number of witnesses who we were able to hear from and the challenges that country has had to undergo in the last number of years.

Our friends across the aisle talk about the violence and what goes on there. There is no question that country has had its share of challenges, but it is my profound belief that if we do not give it an opportunity to trade with this free trade agreement, we are going to limit the kinds of opportunities that country has moving forward.

I know my friends across the aisle like to comment on all the violence and crimes, and they refer to numbers in 2008-09. What they fail to recognize and acknowledge is that under this president, since 2002 more than 30,000 paramilitary fighters have returned to civilian life. Since 2002, homicides have declined by 40%, kidnappings by 82% and terrorist attacks by 77%.

I would say to my friends across the way that if they are going to quote numbers, let us talk about the historical context. Let us talk about the time since President Uribe has been in government. Let us talk about the time that he has had since 2002.

Does Colombia have challenges? There is no question it does, but I believe that free trade is one of the ways to help Colombia emerge as a stronger country. I also believe that Canada and the leadership that it is playing, because of its rich and diverse connections to that country and to the hemisphere, have made this possible. I realize that Canada has both the opportunity and the responsibility to be active in this hemisphere, and there are critical and important issues to all countries in this region.

I would like to highlight today the key features of our Americas engagement, which reinforces Canada's commitment to deepening its participation in the region. Clearly, as the region addresses the worldwide economic downturn, it is timely to assess how we are all acting and co-operating in bringing solutions.

We have evolved together in this region in the past to address a range of problems, from endemic poverty and inequalities to bolster common security and economic development. Canada has longstanding, rich and diverse connections to countries of the Americas. We have been forging privileged partnerships and commercial ties with the region as a whole for over 100 years, producing results that have been mutually beneficial.

The UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean reported last year that Canada has become the third largest investor in the region. Foreign direct investment from Canada into the Americas, excluding Mexico and Bermuda, now stands at approximately $95 billion. To put that number into perspective, that is about three times the size of Canadian investment in Asia.

While this covers a multitude of sectors, investments in financial services and extractive sectors have been notable. Canadian banks, with a long presence in the Caribbean, now bring stability and much needed credit throughout the Americas. Canadian mining and exploration companies are also on the leading edge of the application of the best practices of corporate social responsibility.

At a time when investment from outside the region is not always as scrupulous in attending to questions such as labour standards or community services and engagement, we are proud that Canadian companies serve as standard bearers to this region.

Up until the recent economic downturn, our commercial relations had been on a steep growth curve. Our trade with the region in 2008 grew by almost 30%. This is due to a combination of factors, including strong demand for Canadian offerings and our competitive price points, but I believe that the strong message that our government has been sending on the importance of bolstering free trade and open markets has played a key role.

Certainly, we have been among the most active free trader in the region. We are building our successful free trade agreements with the United States, Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica and a recent free trade agreement with Peru, which entered into force on August 1, 2009.

In 2008, Canada signed a free trade agreement with Colombia and it is now before us for ratification. Canada and Panama also concluded negotiations on August 11, 2009. We have ongoing negotiations with the Dominican Republic, CARICOM and Central American countries.

As for the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and its parallel agreements on labour co-operation and the environment, it is part of a suite of instruments Canada uses in its engagement with Colombia. These instruments include bilateral and development co-operation, and the Department of Foreign Affairs global peace and security fund. All of these support Colombia's ongoing efforts toward greater peace, security, prosperity and full respect for human rights.

In the past five years, the Canadian International Development Agency has disbursed over $64 million alone in Colombia. CIDA's programming in that country is focused on children's rights and their protection while supporting initiatives that protect internally displaced people and other vulnerable populations.

I will say that while we were in Colombia, we had a chance to see first-hand some of the great work that CIDA is doing with those projects.

As a country of the Americas, Canada has a vested interest in the progress of countries in the Americas. Our economic success, our profound belief in democracy and the rule of law, and the national and personal security of our citizens, both within and beyond our borders, are all intricately linked with the welfare of our hemispheric neighbours. This recognition is at the core of Canada's engagement in the Americas.

As a committed member of the inter-American system, Canada has both the opportunity and the responsibility to be active on hemispheric issues of critical importance to all countries in the region. Our engagement in the Americas is focusing Canada's efforts on three interrelated and mutually reinforcing objectives: enhancing the prosperity of the citizens in the region; strengthening and reinforcing support for democratic governance throughout the Americas; and building a safe and secure hemisphere.

I will briefly summarize each of these points, beginning with prosperity.

To say the least, prosperity has become more elusive of late for all countries in all hemispheres. Canada is faring better than most countries but Canadians have not been spared from the wretched impacts of the worldwide recession. Despite continued economic uncertainty, most countries in the Americas are arguably better prepared than in the past to weather the global downturn. Since the 1990s, many have worked hard to improve their debt situations. They now have lower total debt ratios, reduced interest rates and increased debt service requirements. In fact, many of these countries enjoy fiscal surpluses.

Thanks to these efforts, many countries will be in a better position to rebound when better days return, and they will if the lure of short-term measures, whether populous or protectionist, can be resisted. In this regard, there does exist a risk that the blame for current market failure will be unfairly attributed to capitalism rather than to the specific capitalists who, in the absence of adequate supervision, contributed to this outcome.

In the region, one can detect the return of antiquated views, favouring import substitution and rejecting globalization. This must be resisted. Realistic solutions need to be identified and addressed.

Finally, we need to resist protectionism in every sense, and here I refer not only to tariff protectionism but also the impact of spending measures and rescue bailouts. Evidently, these must be managed in a way that does not damage market participation in the region.

On security, these effects on the economic crisis cannot be viewed in isolation. They have a clear and identifiable impact on security and governance in the region.

The medium-term implications on reduced remittances, returning migrants, rising unemployment and falling government revenues. Some might call that a perfect storm. What we see is a clear reason to increase our engagement in addressing security problems in the Americas.

As a result, Canada is assisting countries in the region in their efforts to strengthen their law enforcement, judicial system, disaster relief for preparedness and health issues. Working together, we are confident we can reduce the impact of crime, drugs, terrorism, disasters and pandemics on Canadians and citizens of the Americas.

In this vein, DFAIT's global peace and security program has developed over $14.5 million in conflict prevention and peace-building programs in Colombia between 2006 and 2009. This program focuses on truth, justice and confidence-building initiatives, supports political dialogue and enhances security and stability.

I believe there is every reason for optimism, the current economic climate notwithstanding. By pursuing this model of partnership, I have no doubt that together we can strengthen hemispheric co-operation in support of peace, security and development, and produce long-term results that will benefit us all.

For those reasons, I ask all hon. members for their support of this agreement.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member mentioned that the international trade committee visited Colombia. Obviously, it is best to have first-hand knowledge. I am very interested in what happened there because I have not heard about that visit or about what the member heard during that visit. If the member could give us more details, it would be helpful to all members in the House.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things we, as a trade committee, found interesting when we went to Colombia was that we heard from a wide range of groups.

One of the things I found particularly interesting was who the president had surrounded himself with. As some may know, President Uribe's father was killed in a kidnapping attempt by the FARC in 1982. Some of the people the president had around him, in terms of cabinet ministers, had also been affected by the violence in Colombia. One of the things that is telling is when Venezuela showed up on the border of Colombia and the U.S. asked Colombia what it required, was it guns or ammunition, the president's response was, “We need a free trade deal.”

What I find impressive about the Colombian government and what I find interesting in talking to people on the ground is that they realize they have had a history of violence, civil war and a problem with a lot of issues. What I find surprising and interesting is that they do not want to continue on that path. They would like to use free trade as a means of trying to improve the quality of life of their citizens, to have more value in their country and to depend less on the drug trade.

One of the things I believe would be helpful is our support for this agreement that would help enable Colombia in that respect.