Bill C-2 (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

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Minister of International Trade]

moved that Bill C-2, 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.

Mr. Speaker, our government has indicated the priority that we place on implementing free trade agreements to help Canadian businesses compete in international markets. Today's debate on approval of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement reflects this objective of creating jobs and opportunities for Canadian workers through trade.

It is more important than ever to ensure economic cooperation with key partners. The government is therefore determined to establish and strengthen bilateral and multilateral trade relations to ensure the continuing prosperity of Canadians.

The global economic crisis emphasized the importance and urgency of expanding trade and investment relationships through improved market access.

Our government is committed to pursuing bilateral and multilateral trade relationships that bring continued prosperity to Canadians right here at home. The global economic crisis emphasizes the importance and urgency of expanding trade and investment relations to improve market access.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is one of many efforts by our government to expand opportunities for Canadian business. As members know, we have entered an age of fierce global competition.

Emerging economies continue climbing the value chain and establishing themselves in an ever-widening range of sectors.

Canadian businesses and Canadian workers are up to the challenge of competing internationally.

We must seek out more trade and investment opportunities for our businesses. Our government recognizes these challenges.

We are standing up for Canadian business to ensure that they can compete and succeed worldwide, and n particular, Canadian workers.

The government launched negotiations with Colombia and other Andean partners in June 2007. I am proud to say that we continue working hard to create new opportunities abroad to benefit Canadian workers at home.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, along with the related agreements on the environment and labour are an important part of this broader trade agenda.

Canada currently has long-standing free trade agreements in force with the United States and Mexico under the North America Free Trade Agreement, and agreements with Israel, Chile and Costa Rica.

Under this government, we recently implemented new free trade agreements with the European Free Trade Association and Peru.

In 2009, we also signed a free trade agreement with Jordan, which I had the pleasure of tabling in the House today.

On August 11, 2009, the government successfully concluded free trade negotiations with Panama. At the announcement of the conclusion of the Panama negotiations, the Prime Minister himself emphasized that Canada's commitment was to stronger trade partnerships.

We are on the right track and are also looking ahead to other important partners in the world. At the Canada-European Union Summit last May, the government launched negotiations toward a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union. We also remain dedicated to advancing our ongoing free trade negotiations with other partners, including Central American countries, the Caribbean community and the Dominican Republic.

Those are all examples of how hard the government is working to pursue, develop and expand trade opportunities and relationships that work for Canadians. Our trade agenda is ambitious and Canadians deserve the opportunities our government is continuing to deliver.

We are currently working to launch negotiations with new partners, such as Morocco and the Ukraine, and exploring deeper trade ties with India and Japan.

The government is also working to send a clear message to the world: Canada is open for business. And we are getting the job done.

Our recent economic action plan is making significant investments in our national innovation strategy. We have also cut corporate taxes to make Canada more attractive to business. We have the lowest taxes on new business entrants who are creating jobs, lower taxes on new business than anywhere in the G7. In 2012 we will have the lowest business taxes across the board in the G7.

We have made Canada the first country in the G20 to have a tariff-free zone for a broad range of machinery and equipment for Canadian manufacturers. Eliminating tariffs on new equipment, parts and machinery will help make our manufacturers more innovative, more productive and more cost-competitive. We are helping Canadian companies at home and we will continue to ensure they can compete abroad.

By bringing down barriers to trade and investment, this government is helping Canada's businesses compete in an ever-more competitive world and stimulate the Canadian economy.

By passing this free trade agreement with Colombia we are listening to Canadian businesses and providing what they need to stay competitive.

A closer economic partnership with Colombia will reduce tariffs for Canadian exporters.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement will also expand opportunities for Canadian investors and service providers.

Colombia is already a significant trade partner for Canada.

In 2009, our two-way merchandise trade totalled $1.335 billion and Colombia is an established and growing market for Canadian exports. Over the past five years, Canadian merchandise exports have grown by over 55%.

Colombia is also a strategic destination for Canadian investment. The stock of Canadian investment in Colombia reached approximately $1.1 billion in 2008.

However, that is not all. The Colombian market is an exciting one. With 48 million people. Colombia's macroeconomic policy and improved security under its current leadership have generated favourable economic conditions. Colombia's government is committed to reversing years of underinvestment and public infrastructure. Investment in infrastructure has grown from 4% of the country's gross domestic product in 2005 to more than 8% in 2009.

A country like ours, with so much expertise in this area, can offer a lot. These are areas where Canadian companies can compete. In fact, the potential goes far beyond infrastructure and includes other key sectors like agriculture and industrial goods, and services like engineering, mining, energy and financial services. These are all areas where Canada and Canadians excel.

Moreover, those sectors are linchpins of our economy in communities large and small across this great nation, but this agreement is not just about creating opportunities for Canadian business. It is also about strengthening our partnership with Colombia.

This will help solidify ongoing efforts by the Government of Colombia to create a more prosperous, equitable and secure democracy. The Government of Colombia has taken positive steps toward this goal.

Colombia has demonstrated its continued efforts to curb violence, fight impugnity and promote peace and security. This government recognizes that challenges remain in Colombia and is committed to working with Colombia to address those issues.

This government believes that economic growth through free trade, rules-based trade and investment can contribute to alleviating poverty and create new wealth and opportunities for Colombians. We want the business of both nations to grow and expand together. Colombians are looking for and need these kinds of opportunities and they are seeking new partnerships abroad.

The Government of Colombia, like ours, is working hard to acquire new markets for its citizens. In fact, Colombia is moving forward on an ambitious economic agenda that includes free trade agreements with a range of partners. Canada's main competitor in the Colombian market, the United States, has already completed a free trade agreement with Colombia.

Our firms and Canadian workers expect that their government will work for them and put in place trade agreements that address the situation and allow them to compete in international markets on a level playing field. Canadians deserve this. Our government is ensuring that they get the opportunity to compete and succeed in Colombia and around the world.

We cannot put our exporters at a relative disadvantage. The time for Canada to act is now. The time for members opposite to stand up for Canadian workers is now.

Not only will we be competitive with European nations, but Canadian business will also have an important opportunity to gain advantage over our main competitors in the United States.

With this FTA, Canadians will be able to expand into this important market. This is exactly the kind of opportunity Canadian businesses across the country have been asking for.

I believe it is important for the members of the House to clearly understand the importance of the Colombian market for the business in their regions, for their constituents and, in fact, for all Canadians.

Starting on the east coast, the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador exported about $52.8 million worth of products to Colombia directly benefiting core industries such as oil, paper, paper board and fertilizers. These industries will clearly benefit from freer trade with Colombia.

What about machinery and industrial goods?

It is no secret that Canadian manufacturers, especially in Canada's industrial heartland in Ontario and Quebec, are facing tough times these days.

Our economic recovery is fragile and they need all the opportunities they can get to grow stronger and more competitive.

This means opening doors in new markets like Colombia. With this agreement, Colombian tariffs on all machinery and industrial goods will be eliminated over time.

This is especially significant for Canadian manufacturers of mining equipment, centred in Ontario and Quebec, which all benefit from the immediate elimination of Colombia's 5-15%+ tariffs on products in this sector.

I must say this agreement is also very important for the province of Quebec. After all, 21.6% of Canada's exports to Colombia were from Quebec. That is over a fifth. Quebeckers employed in industries such as paper and paperboard, copper and machinery will clearly benefit from free trade with Colombia.

The Bloc members' opposition to this baffles me. They do not stand for Canadian business. They do not stand for Canadian workers. They do not even stand for Quebec workers. We will stand up for Quebec workers and give them the opportunities they need.

The Prairie provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba will also benefit from the agreement. The immediate removal of Colombian tariffs from such cornerstone crops as wheat, barley and pulses will make these products from the Canadian Prairies even more competitive in the Colombian market. Prairie producers are a cornerstone of our economy. They will see clear benefits from free trade with Colombia.

I should also point out that Canada enjoys significant investment presence in the Colombian market thanks to oil and gas projects. We fully expect this presence to deepen as projects continue to develop.

Our free trade agreement with Colombia would help secure Canadian investments in the region by providing greater predictability and protection for investors. These investment provisions will directly benefit those Alberta firms that are investing in Colombia. British Columbia also stands to benefit, especially B.C.'s mechanical, machinery and paper industries. In fact, many British Columbia companies have told us that they are looking to expand trade with Colombia.

With those kinds of benefits across Canada, it is no wonder that Canadian businesses, investors and producers alike have been calling for closer commercial ties with Colombia for some time now. The time to act is now. Members opposite should listen to Canadians who have been loud and clear.

Colombia has an ambitious and aggressive free trade agenda that includes some key competitors for Canada, competitors like the U.S. and the EU. We need to take steps sooner rather than later to ensure that Canadian exporters, investors and producers in regions and provinces across the country are not put at a disadvantage relative to our competitors.

Our Canadian exporters, investors and producers welcome the opportunity to establish themselves in this market ahead of the competition. They can compete with the best in the world. Let us give them the opportunity to do so. We have negotiated a good deal for Canadians and Colombians alike.

This agreement would give Colombians greater access and opportunities in the North American market. Colombians would also benefit from a greater range of Canadian products. This agreement would also promote economic development in the region.

I cannot stress enough how important that is. Building and maintaining important trade partnerships is the only way to grow and create opportunities for people.

That is why we are here today. The government wants to create opportunities for our citizens and the citizens of Colombia. This agreement is the way to do exactly that.

We have heard the reasons why we should support this agreement before. We have debated it for over 30 hours and the standing committee has already studied it twice. It is now time to move ahead with the legislation. Unlike the NDP approach to trade, this government's priority is to aggressively pursue a free trade agenda. Now is the time to resist protectionism and open our markets. Our free trade agenda has proven to create jobs for all Canadians, in fact, trade is the key to our prosperity.

At a time of economic uncertainty, this should be the priority of all hon. members. For this reason, I ask for the support of all members for the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and ask them to stand up for jobs for all Canadians. Now is not the time to play political games, move dilatory motions and tie up the House while we delay the economic opportunities for Canadian workers and businessmen. Let us get on with this legislation. We must move expeditiously forward for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, to help ensure and measure progress in the area of human rights, the Liberal official opposition asked for and received agreement from the Colombian government to the following.

First, there must be a prior written agreement between the governments of Canada and Colombia, where each country provides annual reports to their respective parliaments on the impact of this FTA on human rights in both Canada and Colombia.

Second, Bill C-2 must be amended at committee by adding, “The Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament by March 31 of each year or, if that House is not then sitting, on any of the thirty days next thereafter that it is sitting, a report of operations for the previous calendar year, containing a general summary of all actions taken under the authority of this Act, and an analysis of the impact of these actions on human rights in Canada and Colombia.”

Will the minister now confirm his government's unequivocal agreement to this course of action?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has never been reluctant to talk about human rights and advance human rights, even as we advance the trade agenda. The agreement has beside it parallel agreements dealing with labour and securing individual human rights with regard to collective bargaining in an assortment of labour areas. It also has a parallel agreement on environment to protect the rights of Colombian citizens.

In the spirit of not being afraid to advance human rights interests, we would certainly be amenable to an amendment of the type suggested by the hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. The same government that brought forward the brilliant and diabolical kill-a-trade-unionist, pay-a-fine provisions of the current Colombian agreement is now saying that the Colombian government can basically report to itself on its own human rights violations.

The problem all along has been the Colombian government's complete lack of ability to deal with these major human rights violations with its connected paramilitaries and its own military arm. To say that the government has the magic bullet, because it is now asking the government to report on itself, is absolutely shameful. Two years ago, at the time when there was a much more progressive Liberal leader, the trade committee said very clearly that there needed to be an independent and impartial human rights assessment of the effect of this agreement. That is what the NDP stands for.

Putting in place an independent human rights assessment would allow the government to perhaps defend this agreement, but it cannot. It cannot and it will not because it knows that every human rights organization in the western hemisphere opposes this agreement and knows that it will increase human rights violations in Colombia.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is pleased to support the government of Colombia as it makes efforts to improve the human rights conditions in its country. Significant advances have been made under the Uribe government.

We are not alone in our effort to improve human rights conditions by engaging Colombia through freer trade, which creates jobs and opportunity and will improve the human living conditions for Colombians. In his recent state of the union address, President Obama indicated his support for going forward with a free trade agreement with Colombia. He views that as critical to improving human rights conditions. The European Union is also on the same page. These are hardly countries that have a disdain for human rights.

The records of President Obama and the countries of the European Union are clear, as is the record of Canada in advancing human rights as the cornerstone of our foreign policy around the world. We will continue to do that and we believe this agreement will help support and further advance human rights in Colombia and around the world.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are good free trade agreements and there are bad ones. Time often tells which they turn out to be.

I get the feeling that, in this case, the government made a positive assessment strictly from a business perspective, and that is more than we can say, because we are far from convinced that this is a good deal.

Colombia is not one of Canada's major trading partners. The human rights aspect does not seem to have been assessed properly.

In the words of my colleague from the NDP, the trade committee said very clearly that there needs to be an independent study. Why does the government not accede to this request?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's priority in entering into free trade agreements is to create jobs and increase opportunities for Canadian workers.

We are very interested in human rights. That is why we are supporting the amendment put forward by the official opposition today. That is also why we have a parallel agreement on labour rights and one on the environment.

We are confident that a free trade agreement with Colombia will advance the interests and human rights of all the Colombian people. Consequently, all parties represented in this House should support this free trade agreement.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, with the renewed interest of the Liberals on behalf of this trade agreement and in the spirit of co-operation, it looks as if we will get some assistance from them. Certainly it is disappointing to hear the NDP continuing to use the same old rhetoric, as if there is no trade going on with Colombia at this very time.

The part of this debate that I find most amazing is the fact that we are doing $1.3 billion worth of trade with Colombia today, and I will give an example.

A company in my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's does a lot of business in South America and Central America. It has a contract for a gas dehydrator in Colombia. It is looking at building that dehydrator in Mexico because Mexico can trade with Colombia without paying the tariffs.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the point the hon. member for South Shore makes is a very valid one.

When this agreement is in place, there will be a reduction of tariffs on Canadian machinery and equipment going into Colombia in the range of 5% to 15%, depending upon the equipment. Fifteen per cent is a significant number that could make the difference between a contract being viable or being able to get into a marketplace.

That is why it is important. If we want to create jobs and opportunity for individuals like those workers in the hon. member's riding in Atlantic Canada, we need to support this free trade agreement.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will understand the directness of my question and need for a direct answer.

Could the minister confirm that he will in fact accept the amendment as has been outlined and proposed by my colleague from Kings—Hants, yes or no?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is yes, and I indicated that earlier. I certainly welcome the hon. member for Toronto Centre's enthusiastic support for free trade because I know he has not always been on that page, but it is great to have him here.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite amazing when I sit here and listen to the minister say that human rights issues will be in parallel agreements and other things of this nature.

If he and his government are so convinced to tell Canadians that they are really serious about human rights abuses in Colombia, why then are human rights issues not in the main text of the agreement? Why must human rights, the environment and other issues always be on the side? Why can they not be in the main body of the agreement?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason is very simple. Because it is a trade agreement. If we want to have an agreement relating to human rights, that has to be a parallel agreement dealing with human rights.

We have a labour agreement already in place that protects the internationally recognized rights of workers and ensures that those will be respected. We also believe it is a positive thing to engage with Colombians.

The approach of the NDP is one of opposing each and every free trade agreement it encounters. What is interesting to me and this government is how each trade agreement requires some new and creative arguments for the reason for opposition. I can assure the House that if we satisfied every one of the criticisms raised by the NDP, it still would not support this free trade agreement or any free trade agreement.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when we last debated this legislation in the fall of 2009, I asked the House to consider the human dimension of this free trade agreement.

I said that this debate should not be about ideology, it should be about people, the people of Colombia whose lives have been ripped apart and turned upside down by civil war and narco-politics, the good, decent and proud people of Colombia who deserve a better future and the kind of economic opportunities provided by legitimate trade.

Throughout the debate on this FTA, the Liberal Party has put people not ideology first. Unlike some of the other parties in the House, we have not been blinded by an ideology that believes that all free trade agreements are good or, on the other hand, that all free trade agreements are bad. Instead we have carefully studied the conditions surrounding Colombia's political environment, economy and society.

We have examined and considered carefully how this free trade agreement could impact the people of Colombia and the people of Canada. We have looked for ways to strengthen this agreement in order to better protect the people of Colombia and to strengthen our engagement on human rights issues with the people of Colombia.

There is no question that Colombia is a violent country, where human rights abuses have been fueled by the illegal narco-economy. At the same time, the Colombia government has made significant progress toward reducing violence and human rights abuses. This progress must be supported.

As President Barack Obama said after his meeting with the president of Colombia:

I commended President Uribe on the progress that has been made in human rights in Colombia and dealing with the killings of labor leaders there, and obviously we've seen a downward trajectory in the deaths of labor unions and we've seen improvements when it comes to prosecution of those who are carrying out these blatant human rights offenses. President Uribe acknowledges that there remains more work to be done, and we look forward to cooperating with him to continue to improve both the rights of organized labor in Colombia and to protect both labor and civil rights leaders there.

Earlier this month, Navi Pillay, High Commissioner for Human Rights, tabled her annual report on the situation of human rights in Colombia. In this report she also recognized that:

—the significant progress made in terms of a drastic reduction in the number of complaints of extrajudicial executions and the continuous prosecution of members of Congress and public officials for alleged links with paramilitary organizations.

She also recognized:

—the Government’s openness to international scrutiny...[and] the spirit of cooperation that exists between the Government and OHCHR-Colombia and the commitment of the Government to address human rights challenges.

On the issue of extrajudicial executions, she writes:

Since November 2008, complaints of extrajudicial executions attributed to security forces...have drastically decreased, primarily as a result of the implementation and monitoring of the measures adopted in October and November 2008 by the President and the Ministry of Defense.

Therefore, the government is taking action. There is more work to be done, but the fact is the government is doing everything it can. It needs support and it needs legitimate trade opportunities to wean people from the narco-economy, which fuels much of this violence.

The report explains that:

In 2009, the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law National Unit of the Attorney General’s Office recorded 7 cases compared to 144 in 2008 and 464 in 2007.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights continues by placing the violence in context:

The report demonstrates how the internal armed conflict continues to pose many challenges for the country, including the complete disregard for international humanitarian law by guerrilla groups [FARC]. This situation is exacerbated by violence against civilians committed by illegal armed groups that emerged after the demobilization of paramilitary organizations, links between illegal armed groups and drug trafficking, and the particularly acute impact of the internal armed conflict on indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombian communities.

The armed conflict is drug fuelled by drug money. It began initially as an ideological battle with FARC on the left. It has now become largely a drug war between demobilized paramilitaries who are now drug thugs and the FARC. Again, it is a business of the narco-economy and drug money fuelled conflict. The best way, once again, to wean the people from this violence is to provide legitimate economic opportunities.

On a previous visit to Colombia, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said:

I was impressed by the increased expenditure on government programmes to protect and support vulnerable groups. Such efforts, in a country facing such a complex and multifaceted armed conflict, must be acknowledged and encouraged.

Still, we all recognize that there is much work to be done.

Standing in the way of further progress is poverty, resulting from persistently high unemployment rates in Colombia. That is one area where free trade could help. To increase trade, Canada can help build Colombia's legitimate economy, creating real jobs for Colombians, including the most vulnerable. We can provide opportunities that help wean Colombians off their illegal and violent narco-economy. At the same time, this free trade agreement can help strengthen the protection of Colombian workers.

In fact in committee, Canadian senior official Pierre Bouchard of HRSDC has called the labour cooperation agreement in this FTA “the most comprehensive labour agreement in the world today”. No two countries have signed an FTA with a labour agreement as strong as the one in this trade agreement and our amendment today, as we move forward, will even further strengthen human rights and labour rights in Colombia.

The Liberal Party did want to do better and go further, wanted to do more to ensure engagement on labour rights and human rights in Colombia. That is why we sat down with the Colombian government. We listened to the concerns of Canadians and worked to strengthen this agreement by improving public oversight in the area of human rights.

While Liberals recognize that free trade can create jobs and strengthen the economies of both Canada and Colombia, we also share the concerns of those who believe this FTA must strengthen the protection of human rights in Colombia. The result is a first for any free trade agreement in the world.

Both Canada and Colombia will, under this agreement, now be required to measure and analyze the impact of this FTA on human rights both in Canada and Colombia. Each government must then table an annual report analyzing the impact of this FTA on human rights. This requirement puts the focus on achieving sustained progress in the area of protecting the rights and security of the Colombian people.

If the reports are tabled in Parliament, the human rights impact assessment will be available to the public, will be debated at the trade committee. We can hear from witnesses, both from Colombia and Canada, on an annual basis. It will deepen the transparency and accountability of this trade agreement, and I believe it will be a gold standard for trade agreements signed between countries around the world.

Dr. Jorge Rojas Rodriguez is a civil society leader in Colombia and president of the Consultancy for Human Rights and Displacement. He says about this amendment:

...this proposal sends a strong political message to Colombia about Canada's interest in seeing the human rights situation improve in the coming years.

He believes that this human rights reporting mechanism has the potential to become an important tool for improving human rights in Colombia and also for involving the private sector in achieving that goal. Dr. Rojas supports our outreach to Colombian civil society in the preparation of this innovative proposal and believes the amendment has the potential to set an important precedent for other FTAs.

Dr. Leon Valencia is a prominent civil society leader in Colombia and the executive director of Arco Iris. He says:

I think it is interesting and useful that the Free Trade Agreement between Colombia and Canada includes an amendment which requires both governments to present an annual report to the respective Parliaments on the repercussions of the agreement on human rights in each country.

This will provide an important yearly forum to discuss the situation in Colombia, and will give Canadian citizens the opportunity to monitor human rights violations in our country.

Dr. Valencia goes on to say about this amendment:

Canada's proposal is innovative and converts the Treaty into something which is dynamic and provides new platforms for analysis and discussion. Perhaps this could be included in other free trade agreements.

Dr. Gerardo Sánchez Zapata, president of Colombia's apparel and textile industry trade union, representing eight other private sector unions, has said:

This procedure is welcomed by Colombian workers and we are thankful to the Honorable Parliament of Canada for its position, because it helps strengthen a mechanism already in place that monitors and evaluates the progress in matters of human rights and freedom of association in our country, through annual reports to the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the United Nations.

It also helps our efforts, as trade unions, in interceding with the national government to adapt our legislation to the international standards and regulations...

This amendment, this approach, this deeper human rights engagement and accountability and transparency is being endorsed by private sector unions in Colombia, by some leaders of civil society in Colombia and by human rights organizations. With this amendment in place, Canadian parliamentarians will be able to call forward civil society groups on an ongoing annual basis and require testimony from our public officials and expert witnesses in order to hold governments and companies to account for actions taken under this FTA.

If it becomes clear that the FTA is not strengthening human rights, the fact is that either country can cancel the agreement with six months' notice. But we have to believe that this agreement will be upheld and that further progress will be achieved because economic engagement, through the right trade agreements, can fortify human rights engagement. Colombia has a strong, independent judiciary that can be counted on to uphold the rule of law, and we have seen that recently. In the words of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights:

The Supreme Court and the Attorney General's Office are incredibly brave in investigating and bringing to trial public officials linked to mafias and drug trafficking in the so-called 'Para-politics'.

We should all support their efforts in such difficult circumstances and continue to uphold the independence of the judiciary—something Colombia is rightly proud of.

On the issue of President Uribe's seeking a third term, the leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for Toronto Centre, our foreign affairs critic for the Liberal Party, and I, as trade critic for the Liberal Party, had serious concerns that we raised directly with President Uribe. On February 26, 2010, Colombia's constitutional court ruled 7:2 against a referendum permitting presidents to run for three consecutive terms. Despite the overwhelming support of the Colombian congress for this popular referendum, the court ruled that the measure posed substantial violations to democratic principles and was thus unconstitutional.

President Uribe announced immediately that he would respect the ruling of the court. That decision by that court demonstrates the independence of the judiciary in Colombia. This free trade agreement will put in place a more robust legal framework that will better protect the environment, strengthen labour laws and encourage stronger corporate social responsibility for Canadian investors.

As Carol Nelder-Corvari, of Finance Canada, emphasized in her testimony before the trade committee, trade between Canada and Colombia is already taking place but without a rules-based system to encourage stronger labour and human rights. So we already have a trading relationship. This trade agreement brings with it stronger rules on labour and the environment, which can only help fortify labour rights and environmental protection in Colombia.

As Carol Nelder-Corvari said at committee: “I want to be clear that Canadian investors are investing in Colombia, have been investing in Colombia and are increasing their investment in Colombia”.

She said that this is the strongest labour agreement related to any FTA in existence, that corporate social responsibility aspects of this agreement are the first time Canada has placed such commitments and that they are in the investment chapter and in the environment chapter. It is an area of cooperation that has ongoing dialogue with Colombia and our investors in Colombia. This agreement gives us avenues of engagement we have never had before.

Canadian businesses are taking note. With the signing of this agreement, Canadian entrepreneurs are prepared to make long-term investments that will benefit the Colombian people. Canadian agricultural interests are supportive of this agreement. Canadian business organizations, including some members of the small business community, see the opportunities with this agreement.

In terms of infrastructure, and I heard the minister refer earlier refer to the importance and the dramatic need for the Colombian people to invest in and strengthen their infrastructure, Toronto's Brookfield Asset Management recently established a $400 million Colombian infrastructure fund to invest in and help the Colombian people develop their infrastructure.

We must support these investments and work to increase the opportunities for and protection of Colombian workers.

I want to mention the geopolitical stability of the Andean region, which is under threat from the Chavez regime in Venezuela. It is important that we engage and not isolate Colombia at this time, as isolation would leave the Colombian people vulnerable to the effects of border closures and trade blockades and the ideologically motivated attacks of the Hugo Chavez regime in Venezuela.

It is important that we engage Colombia and the Colombian people as a partner in progress to help the Colombian people achieve a more peaceful and prosperous future. I believe this agreement, particularly with this amendment, will strengthen human rights engagement on an ongoing basis and ensure that this Parliament on an annual basis will receive a report on the human rights impact of this agreement, will help continue the debate, continue the engagement and strengthen human rights and labour rights in Colombia.

We have a responsibility in this Parliament to do the right thing, not to be purely focused on ideological issues and to be ideologically rigid but to do the right thing for both the people of Canada and the Colombian people.

Accordingly, I move:

That this question be now put.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The motion is in order.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Halifax, Oil and Gas Industry.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly—and I ask my Liberal colleague the question—we just saw the birth of a new Liberal-Conservative coalition to speed up the adoption by the House of Commons of a free trade agreement in spite of the commitments to have an independent study conducted on such an agreement before the Government of Canada could ratify it and Parliament could approve or reject it.

We just saw a major loss of support for all the communities in Columbia that are victims of human rights abuses. Would the member who just spoke explain how a government that has been unable to put an end to all the abuses, murders and displacements could produce a credible report every year that the Standing Committee on International Trade would have to take into consideration? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the main reason we are talking about human rights in Colombia is that we are talking about a free trade agreement which demonstrates that economic engagement leads to human rights engagement. It is highly unlikely we would be having a debate in this House today on human rights in Colombia if we did not have a free trade agreement.

An annual reportage mechanism would ensure, on an annual basis, that the House of Commons trade committee could hear from witnesses from Colombia and from Canadian NGOs on progress and understand the impact of the trade agreement on human rights in Colombia.

I suggest that the hon. Bloc member and perhaps the NDP ought to just say that they are against free trade, that they do not support free trade, and get this foil that it is throwing over this that this is somehow an issue of human rights. This is their latest tactic in an ideological fight against free trade that has nothing to do with human rights.

If they are sincere about engaging the Colombian people and strengthening human rights in Colombia, they will support this agreement and, as good members of Parliament, they will engage on an annual basis in this House in debating the effects of this agreement on human rights in Colombia.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his cogent intervention on this very important issue, which is the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. It has often been said, and it bears repeating today, that these kinds of agreements are what makes Canada one of the great trading nations of the world.

We know that Canada is one of the great traders of the world and it is free trade agreements like this that are absolutely critical to our long-term prosperity. Yet, over the years we have become so dependent on the United States. Some 75% to 80% of our trade is still with the United States. It is incumbent upon us to explore more of these trade agreements.

I would ask the member a question relating to human rights. Is he aware of other free trade agreements that Canada has already signed that have actually led to improvements in human rights and labour protection in those countries?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Canadian companies, through their investments in other countries, are known globally as leaders in corporate social responsibility.

In my travels to places like China and the Americas, I speak with business people and government leaders who refer to Canadian companies as setting a gold standard. Canadian companies are accountable to this Parliament and to the Canadian people and Canadian values. The presence of Canadian companies in these countries often leads to a strengthening of labour rights and improvements in human rights in general.

I agree with the hon. member that economic engagement is important. I think the hon. member agrees that we need to ensure that through robust labour agreements we continue to ensure progress on labour rights and human rights, not just with the signing of one trade agreement but on an ongoing basis.

I hope this Parliament will pass this motion, which will help enable the Colombian people to move forward with both a more prosperous and a more peaceful future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be gentle on the member for Kings—Hants. He has been strongly criticized by organizations across the country for his comments in this House defending the Uribe regime and denying the killing of trade unionists. I will not go over that ground again. His constituents have written in. I was at a standing room only meeting in Wolfville in his riding where his constituents were expressing concerns about human rights in Colombia.

It is fair to say that this latest position of the Liberal Party, that used to stand for human rights and for an impartial and independent human rights assessment, is being repudiated by every reputable human rights organization around the planet and every independent union, whether we are talking about Canada or Colombia. The facts speak for themselves.

This latest whitewashing where somehow the Colombian government produces a report on itself means that in some way we are reinforcing human rights, can be taken as pretty ridiculous and pretty sad. However, it does show how desperate the Conservative government is in trying to push this bad bill through.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there was no question and, in fact, no point, to the hon. member's intervention.

The NDP has been against every free trade agreement Canada has ever signed and against every free trade agreement that any country has ever signed. The New Democrats have an outdated, Marxist-Leninist policy when it comes to the economy. They are globaphobic, socialist Luddites who do not understand the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. In fact, their ideological rigidity prevents them from doing the right thing and helping the people of Colombia with real economic opportunities so that they are not forced to depend upon the drug economy that is killing young Colombians.

The member should be ashamed of himself for not giving legitimate economic opportunities to the people of Colombia and forcing them into the narco-economy that is killing so many Colombians. The real crime is the NDP being blinded by ideology, hurting the people of Colombia, refusing to stand up for human rights in Colombia and respecting and engaging the Colombian people in a reasonable, moderate and fair way.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my colleague from Kings—Hants for the masterful job he did with this file, how he opened up the discussion with Colombian officials and for putting forward the motion that he has today, which, seemingly, has been accepted by the government.

Just a short time ago, I was reading what was tabled earlier concerning another free trade agreement between Canada-Jordan. It talked about the parallel agreement when it comes to labour, a labour co-operation agreement, but instead of dealing with that, I would like for him to talk about it from the Colombia perspective.

Some of the initiatives within this particular free trade agreement do discuss and help enshrine things such as collective bargaining, the elimination of child labour, forced labour and workplace discrimination. Some of these things are enshrined within it. I would like him to talk about that and how this will be, not could be, beneficial to a place such as Columbia.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we already have a trade relationship with Colombia that has grown by 55% in recent years and Canadian companies are investing significantly. I mentioned Brookfield Asset Management earlier putting together a $400 million infrastructure fund. So we do have a trade relationship.

This trade agreement, with the labour and environment agreements, and this amendment that will be put forward at committee, will fortify and provide a rules-based framework around labour that we do not have currently. When we do not have rules around a trade relationship, adding rules can only strengthen our engagement on these issues of labour rights.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say very clearly at the outset that the Bloc Québécois is not in favour of Bill C-2, which the government tabled in the House today.

We do not like this bill any more than we liked it in the last session, despite the amendment, or the supposed amendment, that the Liberals are going to propose at the Standing Committee on International Trade. We fail to see how we could possibly be in favour of an amendment like that. It will leave the two parties involved in control and will mean that the governments of Canada and Colombia will be both judge and jury in evaluating respect for human rights. It does not make sense.

I am very familiar with the entire issue and with the previous positions of the Liberal Party, and I really cannot understand what they are doing now. Their previous position was to protect and respect human rights in Colombia. But now they have gone off in another direction.

Canada initiated discussions in 2002 with the Andean countries of Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia about a possible free trade agreement.

Canada negotiated bilateral agreements with Colombia and Peru over the space of a few years. On June 7, 2008, Canada and Colombia announced they had completed their negotiations, and on November 21, they signed the free trade agreement.

We looked for the main reason why the Conservative government would sign this agreement regardless of the major objections that were raised.

We noted that the agreement does not really help trade. The trade issue is a red herring, because the agreement is actually about investment. It is obvious that an agreement like this is intended to promote investment.

It has a chapter on protecting investments that will make life easier for Canadian investors in Colombia, especially in the mining sector.

When it comes to trade, Colombia is only the fifth-largest market for Canadian exports to Latin America and the Caribbean and the seventh-largest source of Canadian imports from that region.

It is obvious that Canada has trading partners in this region that are a lot more important than Colombia. Concluding an agreement with Colombia, therefore, has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons always used to justify a free trade agreement. Far from it.

Canada’s trade with the other countries of Latin America has tended to increase over the last few years, meaning that the proportion of our trade with Colombia has fallen.

The bulk of Canadian investment in Colombia is, as I just mentioned, in the mining sector.

What use then is a free trade agreement? It does not make sense.

We have statistics on the amount of trade between Colombia and Canada. It is hard to understand why the Conservative government is so attached to this agreement. When two countries want to negotiate and sign a free trade agreement, it is usually because they are especially strong trading partners and the trade flows between them are particularly heavy.

When the value of trade is high, abolishing trade barriers becomes more interesting because it facilitates further trade.

Trade with the market we are talking about is limited. We do trade with Colombia, as with all countries, but we fail to see what kind of business benefits Quebec and Canada could find in this agreement. As I said before, this agreement is all about stimulating investments, and not so much about stimulating trade.

In the last few years, Canada signed investment protection agreements but the one that would bind Canada and Colombia has been ill conceived. All these agreements contain clauses that enable foreign investors to sue the local government if it takes measures that reduce the return on their investment. Foreign investments have been growing exponentially.

In order to create a predictable environment and ensure that a foreign investor does not end up losing his assets without compensation in the event of nationalization, for example, countries sign agreements to protect investments. This is perfectly normal and the Bloc Quebecois approves such agreements. In fact, the North American Free Trade Agreement includes a chapter on investment protection.

However, NAFTA's chapter 11 marked the beginning of a negative trend. The provisions were not well structured and were highly criticized. For example, as soon as some environment protection legislation affects the returns of a foreign investor, the government is open to massive lawsuits.

Still, over the years, the Government of Canada has signed a number of bilateral agreements modelled on NAFTA's chapter 11. There was so much criticism that even the Liberals, who just gave their support to an agreement that they condemned for many legitimate reasons, stopped signing such agreements.

Under the Conservatives, Ottawa is now on the offence and is negotiating all kinds of agreements like this one. In this case, the government is handing responsibility for deciding what is in the best interest of the people over to multinationals. They are giving up. They are saying that since such an agreement is good for investments, the multinationals can determine whether displacing thousands of people is acceptable.

The Bloc Québécois opposes the bill to implement the free trade agreement with Colombia because it contains clauses based on chapter 11 of NAFTA. Our party is asking the government to revert to the old treaty formula, which did not give multinationals control at the expense of the common good.

The bill will be referred to committee and we will see if it can be amended.

I would also like to talk about corporate social responsibility. In recent years, Colombia has had one of the worst records in terms of human rights and corporate social responsibility. Colombian exports tend to come from rural regions in the most remote parts of the country. These regions have valuable natural resources, but they are also the most violent regions.

Allowing these investments will only aggravate the problem.

Coming back to the rural regions I mentioned earlier, these regions have experienced 87% of all forced population displacements, 82% of all human rights and international humanitarian law abuses, and 83% of all union leader assassinations.

The measures allowed by the free trade agreement with Colombia will only make this situation even worse. The agreement will increase the presence of foreign investors, especially multinationals and mining companies.

I asked the minister a question a moment ago. We are not necessarily opposed to free trade agreements. There may be some very good free trade agreements, just as there may be bad ones. But we do not believe this one can be a good agreement in trade terms. The volume of trade is so low that we do not see how an agreement will change things. This agreement will encourage investment, however. Generally, when one country signs a free trade agreement with another country, the economies of the two countries are similar. The reason is very simple: measures to protect investment can slow the development of poorer countries because they give corporations the power to take the government to court if it makes laws or regulations that reduce the return on investments. If we look at the socio-economic data, it is readily apparent that Canada and Colombia are very different.

The fact that Colombia is a country where enormous poverty prevails cannot be ignored. In 2006, 47% of the population was living below the poverty line, and 12% of the population was living in abject poverty. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, poverty hits hardest in rural areas. In 2006, 68% of the population was living in poverty, and this is a serious problem. A government often has to adopt measures to get its country out of poverty and develop it. Such measures can take the form of labour, environmental or health legislation or nationalization of certain economic sectors. So this kind of protection for investments jeopardizes the ability of the Colombian government to effectively combat poverty. Essentially, the Government of Colombia has to continue fighting poverty, but with a chapter that provides for protecting foreign investments. This agreement ties its hands, and that will prevent it from making progress, even if it has good intentions to reduce violence in Colombia. In Colombia, there are still paramilitary groups that are not controlled by the government. In my view, it is unacceptable for a government or a democracy like Canada to sign an agreement like this. Colombia is a democratic country, but it is a democratic country that is unable to take action against human rights violations. Personally, I think it is a democracy that cannot be seen as having the same characteristics as other democracies on the planet.

Colombia has one of the worst track records in the world when it comes to human rights, and certainly the worst in Latin America. In order to improve the human rights situation in the world, governments often use the carrot and the stick. They support efforts toward greater respect for human rights and they reserve the right to withdraw certain benefits if there is backsliding. By signing this agreement, Canada will be giving up any ability to bring pressure to bear. Let us hope that some Liberal members will recall their earlier position. Canada will be giving up any means of bringing pressure to bear against a human rights situation that is unacceptable.

The Conservatives say over and over that the human rights situation in Colombia has greatly improved. It may be less catastrophic than it was a few years ago, but it is still very far from ideal.

Canada’s former ambassador to Colombia, Mathew Levin, said basically the same thing in speaking of the Colombian economy: “The [Canadian] government knows that the Colombian reality is not ideal. There is poverty, violence, lack of access to services”.

I want to provide just one statistic. Since 1986, 2,690 trade unionists have been murdered. Although these murders declined somewhat after 2001, they have increased since 2007. According to Mariano José Guerra, the regional president of the National Federation of Public Sector Workers in Colombia, “thousands of people have disappeared and the persecution of unions continues”.

In view of all these facts, we cannot understand why the Conservative government is so intent on concluding this agreement. With all the population displacement we see, we wonder as well why the Liberal Party is very likely to support the agreement. That is totally unacceptable.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the last time this bill was before us, the issue of an independent human rights assessment already had been dealt with at committee. In fact, the committee had reported back to the House that such an assessment should be done prior to proceeding with this bill. I understand that even Amnesty International had been reluctant to come forward to conduct such an independent assessment.

Does the member believe such an assessment would be valuable? Does he believe it would change the understanding of the House with regard to current human rights conditions in Colombia?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the first question, I think an independent evaluation would give us a true picture of the human rights situation in Colombia. Even the Colombian government is not able to control everything that happens in the country. An independent study is absolutely necessary to help us make a much more reassuring assessment of the situation.

As for the second question, we would need to have the results of an independent study in order to know whether our opinion would change. Such a study might change our minds if it showed that things are getting better. I tend to think the opposite. We do not know, though, because no independent studies have been done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I quite liked the speech of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain. Even though he has been the international trade critic for only a short time, he understands the situation in Colombia and the need to reject this agreement much better than people who have been sitting on the committee for years.

What was proposed today changes nothing. They think the Government of Colombia could write a report itself and that might improve the human rights situation. It is totally ridiculous. All the organizations in the country that are concerned about this bill will surely let our Liberal colleagues know. The Liberal members will respond by thinking that the facts have changed.

I want to ask my colleague from the Bloc Québécois a question. According to figures provided by the Colombian comptroller general, drug dealers and paramilitary forces own about half of the farmland in Colombia. In view of the fact that no independent studies have been done, does the hon. member think the agreement could worsen the human rights situation in Colombia?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree. As long as there is no independent study, I think it will be very difficult to understand precisely what is going on in Colombia. If I understood the hon. member correctly, paramilitaries control half the rural territories. If that is truly the case, it is terrible.

I find it completely unacceptable that some members of Parliament, being aware of this situation, would still accept the fact that the Canadian government is proposing a free trade agreement with a country that is unable to control the paramilitaries.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain for his clear understanding of the situation in Colombia.

I want to remind him that the two main goods imported from Colombia are grains and beef. It seems to me that we have plenty of both those products here in Canada.

What is this really about? I think we know. There are a lot of hypocrites around. There is a concentration of wealth in Colombia. I would like our colleague to elaborate on the subject of mines. Clearly, the purpose of this agreement is to allow Canadians to invest in mines.

I would like my colleague to say a bit more on that.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

That is exactly what I was saying earlier. Trade between Canada and Colombia is nothing compared to trade with all of Latin America.

We know very well that the fact that a free trade agreement is before this House at this time has nothing to do with increasing or facilitating trade between Canada and Colombia. It is a way to promote investments and to promote investors who will continue to make off with the natural resources of a country like Colombia. In fact, these people think that because we have the expertise here, we will continue to trade.

We know that the mining industry in Colombia just encourages more violence and causes more people to be displaced. These people, who are already very poor, lose their land and are exiled to the cities. Every day, about 50 people arrive in the capital with no means of survival. This bill will only encourage this.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement between Colombia and the United States has been before Congress now for a considerable amount of time. I know that the President mentioned it in his speech in January, the state of the union address.

A group of us were down in the United States on Congressional hearings on February 19 and the member for Kings—Hants was there. Although we were in different groups, we did meet with a number of senators and members of Congress. On at least two occasions Republicans told us that this deal had absolutely no chance of making it through Congress. If the member for Kings—Hants knows that, then why is he and his allies in the government so bent on forcing this agreement through, when the Americans, as I have said, have had it before Congress now for several years and they have no intention of doing anything about it this year.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that this question is addressed more to the member for Kings—Hants. Earlier, he announced his intention to put an end to the debate by moving that the question be put. This is likely a new form of Liberal-Conservative coalition to speed up the adoption of a free trade agreement with Colombia, an agreement that goes against the values of a great many people.

As the NDP member who asked me a question earlier said, the Liberal members will surely be hearing from their constituents, who will be calling on them to reconsider. This is the complete opposite of their previous position. Before, they supported the people and said that an agreement would be harmful to them. They will have to answer for their decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by identifying what this agreement and bill is not about. It is not about any real intentions of the government to push Canadian exports.

I just came back from Argentina. I was down there with FIPA. I asked the trade commissioners what the budget was for Canadian export supports for the market of Argentina. Argentina is a country of 40 million people. That is larger than Canada. The entire amount that the government is giving to export promotion supports, such as product promotion and service promotion, comes to a grand total of $400 a week. That is unbelievable. That is less than what an average corner store spends in my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster.

That is less than an east Montreal corner store spends.

But that is what the government is giving in export promotion support.

While we have trade commissioners having to pay for coffee of potential clients out of their own pockets, while we have $400 for the entire market of Argentina, our competitors like Australia, the United States, the European Union are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in export promotion support.

Therefore, the government is a government of trade dilettantes. It has absolutely no overall strategy to actually build export development. It does not invest in export development. To say that in some way this agreement is part of an overall strategy, when the government has failed so lamentably on the whole issue of export development, I think is to say the least disingenuous.

The other point that the Conservatives have been bringing up is why did the NDP not support the softwood sellout and why did the NDP not support the shipbuilding sellout? I would like to say to the members of the Conservative Party, it is because they negotiate bad agreements. It is as clear as that.

The softwood sellout, the shipbuilding sellout, and now this Colombian trade agreement either repudiates Canadian jobs or it repudiates Canadian values.

This is not about trade. It is about whether our foreign policy, our trade policy, should in some way be connected to fundamental Canadian values. The most fundamental Canadian value is human rights. That is something that Canadians share from coast to coast to coast.

The Conservatives have no interest in the human rights component. Liberals have abandoned any real attempt to build on human rights. If they were really concerned about human rights, they would have stuck with their support of the NDP motion to amend the trade committee report from two years ago that called for an independent and impartial human rights assessment. That was put forward by the committee.

Conservatives promptly backtracked, but Liberals under their former leader, to their credit, stuck to their guns and said that we should not move any further with negotiations with Colombia until we have an independent and impartial human rights assessment about what the potential impacts would be.

Just a few weeks after the report was issued, the government slapped the Liberals around and everyone else in the committee and said, “No. We're going to move forward with this agreement just the same”.

A year ago this week, the Conservatives brought this bad bill and this bad agreement forward to the House of Commons.

The NDP and the members of the Bloc Québécois are sticking to those fundamental Canadian values of human rights. We are not going to allow the Colombian government, given the egregious human rights violations that take place in Colombia, to get some kind of reward from the Canadian Parliament.

I certainly hope that Liberal members of Parliament, once they get a sense of the public reaction to this whitewashing, will share the view that they should go back to their original position under their former leader and stand up very clearly for human rights.

What is the human rights situation in Colombia? Over the last few years it has actually gotten worse, despite some of the comments we have heard from Conservatives and Liberals. Over the last three years the number of trade unionists killed in Colombia has tragically increased, not decreased. In fact, there was a 25% jump in 2008, maintained in 2009, and tragically we are seeing further murders this year.

Colombia is the most dangerous place to be a labour activist than anywhere else on earth. That is a reality.

Members of the Conservative Party and Liberal Party who want to push this bill forward have offered absolutely no proof that the bill and the treaty would actually improve human rights in Colombia. In fact, as I will get to later on, every single reputable human rights organization, every single independent union either in Colombia or Canada, has actually said the contrary. They have said that in a very real way, and a very dangerous way, the bill and the treaty with Colombia could worsen the human rights situation in Colombia.

There is the killing of trade unionists. What else? There are the hundreds and hundreds of the so-called false positives in Colombia over the last few years. Hundreds and hundreds of the so-called false positives is a banal term that masks a horrifying reality. These false positives are nothing less than cold-blooded murder of people in rural areas, aboriginal people and Afro-Colombians who were taken out and shot by the Colombian military.

It is important to note that a number of human rights organizations have cited the fact that in the Colombian military, there are bonuses offered for the killings of so-called guerrillas, which encourages the murder of innocent peasants and rural residents. Those hundreds and hundreds of false positives are a blight on the Colombian government and a blight on the human rights reputation of Colombia. If we pass this bill, we are essentially saying that we do not have fundamental concerns about the killing of trade unionists or these false positives by the Colombian military.

As horrific as those cold-blooded murders are, as horrific as all of that is, perhaps the most egregious aspect to the human rights situation in Colombia is the ongoing forced and violent displacement of millions of Colombians. It is the second worst situation of its sort in the entire planet, only rivaled by Sudan. In other words, the millions of Colombians who have been forcibly displaced by paramilitary groups often connected with the government, or guerrilla groups that oppose the government, are leading to the development of shantytowns throughout Colombia, particularly in Bogota.

When I was down in Colombia with the trade committee that looked at that, we went to Soacha. We met and spoke to those residents. They expressed real concerns about what is happening in rural Colombia. That has resulted in a concentration of land in rural Colombia that has intensified and it is now estimated that over 60% of agricultural land is in the hands of 0.6% of the population.

That forced displacement has led to a small number of landowners, drug traffickers and paramilitary organizations that are connected to the government taking over this rural land. The comptroller general of Colombia noted in his speech just a few years ago that drug traffickers and paramilitaries now own almost half the agricultural land in Colombia.

That is the reality. When we talk about human rights abuses, the fundamental reality is that as parliamentarians, we are obliged to consider when we look at something like a privileged trading relationship with President Uribe's regime. When we talk about the killing of trade unionists, we talk about killings by the Colombian military, the so-called false positives which are cold-blooded murder, we talk about the forced displacement by paramilitary groups connected to the government of millions of Colombians. We are not talking about some kind of state where human rights are improving, but rather we are talking about a human rights catastrophe.

That is the situation before us now in Colombia. It is not something that can be fixed by the whitewashing of reports. It is not something that can be fixed by having the Colombian government report on itself.

What is worse is the timing around what the government is bringing forward right now. It is an electoral period in Colombia. The issue of these so-called free trade agreements, and the Colombian state and human rights and democratic development in Colombia are being discussed to a certain extent by some Colombians. As the International Pre-electoral Observation Mission released in its report just a few days ago, at this critical time, it talked about the factors that impede free and fair elections in areas of Colombia. We are going into an electoral process. That is why the Colombian government is pushing this agreement, so that we Canadian parliamentarians can get involved in some way in this electoral process.

Reputable observers are saying there are factors that impede free and fair elections. The factors that they mention include widespread fear among the Colombian population and the fact that public moneys are being transferred for illicit uses in the election. They talk about negative practices such as vote buying and selling, misuse of identity documents, illegal possession of identity documents including stolen documents, coercion and intimidation of voters, fraud committed by polling officers at the polling station, obstruction of electoral observers, and control over public transportation to prevent voters from moving freely.

This is the situation right now. Instead of taking a step back, which the government should have done, to send observers so that in some way we could put pressure on the Colombian government to actually produce the free and fair elections that are being denied, the Conservatives with their Liberal allies are moving forward to reward the regime for what are clearly not going to be free and fair elections at this time.

The Conservatives and Liberals are working together to deny Colombians their democratic choice that will take place in a few weeks. Reputable observers are saying that these are the problems. Instead of putting pressure on the government, Liberals and Conservatives are saying, “Well, that is okay. We will try to get this deal through for you. Maybe that will help you in the election”.

It is so highly irresponsible, so highly inappropriate. I think Canadians in general can understand very clearly what is going on.

When we talk about the Uribe regime, the regime that is in power now, and given the impediments to a free and fair election in Colombia, presumably the government would be re-elected, we are talking about concerns that have been raised consistently about the Uribe government.

BBC News broke the story last year about the fact that a drug lord in prison in the U.S. said that he and his illegal paramilitary army funded the 2002 election campaign of Colombian President Álvaro Uribe. This particular individual, Diego Murillo, also known as Don Berna, was the successor to drug lord Pablo Escobar. As we know from the history of President Uribe and the defence intelligence agency briefings back in the early 1990s, President Uribe was a close associate of Pablo Escobar. Don Berna is his successor and he says that he funded that campaign in 2002.

Now there are elections in 2010 that are impeded; there are obstacles to free and fair elections. Very clear concerns are being raised about violence, about coercion, intimidation and fraud. Instead of the Conservative and Liberal members of Parliament standing up and saying that they are going to consider seriously this issue and that they are going to apply pressure, they are giving a free pass, a reward.

As was reported in the Washington Post, Colombians found out that the secret police, run by the government, had spied on supreme court judges, opposition politicians, activists and journalists. Suspicion swirled that the orders for the wiretapping as well as general surveillance had come from the presidential palace. Those revelations have come on top of an influence-peddling scandal involving the president's two sons, Tomás and Geronimo, and a widening probe of the links between Uribe's allies in congress and right-wing paramilitary death squads. Also, there have been journalists in Colombia who have expressed concern about President Uribe's links from the very beginning with the drug trade.

When Conservatives stand in this House and say that they are opposed to the drug trade, to cocaine use and at the same time push, at this sensitive time, a trade agreement that is a privileged trading relationship with the Uribe administration, it strikes the very heart of hypocrisy.

The Conservatives cannot stand in the House and stay that they are against the drug trade, that they are against the Colombian drug cartels when they are rewarding a regime that has very clear connections and consistently over time has had personal association with the paramilitary organizations that are part of the drug trade. Yet that is what the Conservatives are pushing today in this House. They are pushing this at a sensitive time of elections when they should be stepping back and implementing an independent and impartial human rights assessment. They are trying to push forward. It is highly inappropriate and a complete repudiation of the basic Canadian values that Canadians hold dear.

There is no doubt that if Canadians were polled on this issue, they would overwhelmingly reject this agreement because they would be concerned about human rights. As people in the province of British Columbia, the “show me” province would say, the government has to show me that it has done due diligence. It has to show me an independent and impartial human rights assessment.

The Conservatives have not done it because they know darn well that the human rights assessment would show what report after report has shown.

Whether it is MiningWatch Canada, Inter Pares, Amnesty International, Peace Brigades, they have indicated in reports that it is inappropriate to move forward with this agreement. Briefing notes by the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives have said that it is inappropriate to move forward with this agreement.

Report after report after report, every single reputable report has said the same thing. Every single one of them has said that it is inappropriate to move forward with this agreement.

I will read from the executive summary of the last one I mentioned:

Trade can support development and the realization of human rights, if it brings benefits to vulnerable populations and allows states, who are willing, to promote developmental outcomes and protect the environment. But neither the political conditions in Colombia nor the terms of the Canada-Colombia FTA provide these reassurances. Indeed, while Canadians were promised that this agreement had been tailored to take account of human rights concerns, in fact the agreement turns out to be a standard “market-access” oriented trade deal, with ineffectual side agreements on labour and the environment. Colombian civil society and human rights organizations have been clear: they do not want this agreement.

Colombian civil society and human rights organizations have been clear: they do not want this agreement.

We could spend the next couple of weeks citing report after report after report, but what is very clear is that killer trade unionists pay a fine, that the reward for bad behaviour, that the complete refusal to have Canada in any way try to provide incentives for free and fair elections, all of these are repudiations of basic Canadian values.

In this corner of the House, NDP MPs stand for those Canadian values. We stand for those human rights. We stand for freedom of speech. We stand for labour rights. We believe that criminals should be prosecuted, not rewarded. That is why we will be voting no on Bill C-2.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member will have a 10-minute period of questions and comments when this debate resumes.

It being 5:38 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, 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, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster had the floor. There were 10 minutes remaining for questions and comments consequent upon his speech. I, therefore, call for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was here to hear the member's speech, and I know that he has some concerns about the human rights aspects. In fact, at one point in his speech he said that our trade agreements should have one common element; that is, that there is this respect for human rights.

The dimensions of trade with Colombia are not major. However, I think that the issue is, at what point in time does the criteria of human rights kick in and supercede the benefits of a trade agreement?

Second, I would be interested in the member's comments with regard to whether or not entering into a trade agreement would be premature, given the reconsiderations by countries such as the U.S. and the U.K.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is sincere in his concern about the ongoing human rights abuses in Colombia. I certainly hope he can make those views known to his caucus and his leader, because we are very concerned in this corner of the House about the deal that seems to have been concocted between the Liberals and Conservatives to try to ram this bill through, despite the egregious, ongoing and growing human rights violations throughout Colombia.

Just yesterday the Flanders government, another European government, rejected an investment treaty between Colombia and Belgium, saying that there was a huge gulf between the human rights rhetoric and reality in Colombia. Yesterday the Liberal trade critic said that what the Liberals are going to try to do with the Conservatives is to have the Colombian government report on itself. Can anyone imagine allowing elementary school kids to give themselves their own grades or criminals to choose their own punishments?

If one extends that ridiculous notion to other aspects of government policy, one can see that the government is desperate to ram the bill through. Canadians oppose it and say no.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, given that the United States Congress has yet to pass its own legislation, which has been before it now for a number of years, and given that Republican members of Congress said as early as last month that they did not feel the legislation had any chance of passing Congress with the Democratic majority in control, the question is: Why is the government, which normally likes to follow the United States in everything it does, trying to be a leader on what is basically a very unpopular piece of legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has been front and centre on this issue.

In the U.S., the treaty will simply not go before Congress and has been set aside entirely. In the European Union, government after government after government have rejected a proposed treaty.

Thus what we have here is a Conservative government, with some Liberal allies, trying to push this agreement through at the worst possible time. Colombia is in an election period and impartial observers have talked about widespread fraud, fear, and coercion being used by the government to try to ram through a puppet election, and yet here we have the Conservatives trying to reward that government for bad behaviour on the electoral front.

The question that stands in the House is why are the Conservatives, at this worst possible time, trying to aggravate the human rights situation in Colombia rather than standing up to the Colombian government and saying that it needs to have free and fair elections, to stop the fraud and coercion and stop the fear the government is generating among the population, and to hold democratic elections in Colombia?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a real passion of my colleague over the last year.

Other European countries are denying free trade with Colombia, and I know there have been a lot of murders of union activists and people who want to make a Colombia a better place to live. If all of these other countries are not willing to participate in free trade with Colombia, can the hon. member tell me what the motive is of the Canadian government in wanting to participate in this free trade agreement with Colombia?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nickel Belt has also been speaking out very clearly and strongly against the appallingly bad judgment shown by the Conservative government on this.

Why is it pushing the agreement forward at this time? When every other democratic government is taking steps back and trying to put pressure on the Colombian government to improve the human rights situation, why are the Conservatives rewarding bad behaviour, criminal behaviour, murder and the ongoing violence there?

I have to note that the Colombian Commission of Jurists talks about the military arm of the Colombian government, the sexual abuse of women and the ongoing murders. We know about the so-called false positives, the growing number of killings that are taking place and the paramilitary's link to the Colombian government. Yet there is not a single Conservative member willing to stand up for human rights, not a single Conservative member willing to stand and say this is an appalling human rights situation and that Canada should stand with the people of Colombia rather than a government whose hands are stained with blood.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian Labour Congress, more labour activists and trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia than all other countries on the planet put together. Think about that.

In this country we have trade unionists and working people who gather to sit down and discuss with their employer the working terms and conditions of their employment to try get a fair piece of the economic activity they produce. Yet in Colombia, they kill people for this. Imagine in this country if 40 Canadian trade unionists were killed this year by paramilitaries.

I see the hon. member across shaking his head. Really? Stand up and tell me what is wrong. I would like to hear where he disagrees with me on this.

Forty trade unionists were murdered this year, and this is a country that the government wants to sign a free trade agreement with. There are other countries in South America who are taking steps to progressively mobilize their economies and to share the resources more equitably with their people.

I would like to ask my hon. friend what other countries in South America does he think are on the right path and with whom Canada maybe ought to be looking at having closer economic relations with?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has been very sensible on this issue as well. I know that he has read the reports and that unlike a single Conservative MP, he actually understands the situation.

We have Conservatives laughing in this House about the death toll in Colombia. It is absolutely inappropriate. If they feel it is somehow funny when trade unionists are killed or human rights activists are killed, I think they should go and defend that in front of their constituents. If they think it is somehow funny that 4 million people have been displaced by violent paramilitaries connected to the government and by guerrillas, then they should go and talk to their constituents.

This appalling approach of the Conservatives, this disregard for human rights, is something their constituents do not share. Their constituents believe in Canadian values. Their constituents believe in labour rights and human rights, and their constituents, quite frankly, believe that the Conservatives are completely off-centre in trying to force through this bad deal with a bad government, when Canadian values are being repudiated.

I think it is fair to say that the Conservatives are embarrassing themselves today by trying to push this through when they should be aware of the egregious and ongoing human rights violations taking place in Colombia against human rights advocates, against labour activists, against Afro-Colombians and against aboriginal peoples throughout Colombia. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for recognizing me in this discussion on the implementation of the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

I feel that this debate is very important because we do not all agree by any means with this treaty, neither the members of the House nor the people of Canada and Colombia. The debate we started yesterday will prevent the government from claiming that it did not know that parliamentarians were in favour of respecting human rights in Colombia.

We are still wondering whether the government is paying any attention to what we say. In 2008, the Standing Committee on International Trade presented a report on this free trade agreement with Colombia, which contained a number of recommendations, including the following:

The Committee recommends that an independent, impartial, and comprehensive human rights impact assessment should be carried out by a competent body, which is subject to levels of independent scrutiny and validation; the recommendations of this assessment should be addressed before Canada considers signing, ratifying and implementing an agreement with Colombia.

The committee said that in 2008. Today, as a member of that committee, I doubt that the report was even read by the Conservative members. It seems, unfortunately, that the Conservative government has turned a deaf ear and wants to proceed with this agreement even though absolutely no impact assessments have been conducted, as demanded by a number of groups, including the Bloc Québécois.

We tried in vain to find some valid reasons for signing such an agreement. There are none. The Conservatives and Liberals alike have only one argument to make: free trade brings prosperity; free trade fixes everything.

No one is against prosperity, of course, not myself or my Bloc Québécois colleagues, but it is wrong to think it can be achieved by signing bilateral agreements without any serious criteria.

Whenever we enter bilateral trade agreements, we should familiarize ourselves with the realities of the countries with which we are dealing. We should take the time to assess the consequences of our decisions, both within Canada and within our partner countries, and not just from a commercial point of view. Human rights are important.

In the case of Colombia, it turns out that the effect on trade between our two countries will be negligible in comparison with the damage that could be done to Colombia's ability to defend the interests of its own people. Even the prosperity argument collapses if we take a close look at who will really benefit from an increase in exports.

Contrary to what some may think, free trade is not always welcomed by the agricultural sector, for example. For small farmers in Colombia, an increase in trade also means an increase in imports. The free trade agreement with Canada, which provides for the immediate elimination of duties on wheat, peas, lentils and barley, among others, would be devastating for Colombian agriculture, which accounts for 11.4% of GDP and 22% of employment in Colombia.

Some organizations, such as the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, maintain that, as a result of the free trade agreement with Canada, 12,000 livelihoods will be undermined by Canada's industrially-produced wheat and barley exports and the value of domestic wheat production in Colombia will drop by 32%, leading to losses of 44% in employment levels and wages. These are serious consequences.

Another potential consequence of the competition and the progressive loss of market share is that it will favour the establishment of coca plantations because coca is becoming the only product with a strong export market that remains profitable.

The sale of coca, drug trafficking, guerrillas, paramilitaries, the link with power, corruption and so on—this is a cycle that is not easily broken and involves many innocent people. Clearly Colombia must develop the means to break it, and Canada can help. In our opinion, however, the free trade agreement is not the way to go about it.

It is not obvious from a careful look at the bill why the Conservative government, with the clear support of the Liberals, is insisting so strongly on approving such a trade agreement. From various standpoints, this agreement flies in the face of the concept of a responsible government working for the welfare of its citizens and the well-being of humanity. In the country with the worst human rights record in Latin America, Canada must create conditions to improve the situation, despite its economic interests.

Unless it is proven otherwise, it may be said that the Conservatives are not doing their duty. I myself am a farmer with a background in the farming union, and I tremble at the thought that, as I speak, unionists in Colombia are the target of attacks simply because they insist on fighting for workers' rights.

Still today, people in Colombia who try to advance human rights are paying with their lives. Even yesterday, people died as a result of an attack in the streets of Bogota. It is awful. And I am not even talking about the number of children, women and men who have to leave their homes and comfort because of conflict between the government security forces, paramilitaries and guerrillas.

Increasingly, economic displacement is forcing subsistence farmers and small-scale miners to leave their land in favour of the major agri-food and mining companies. Whole communities are obliged to leave. In this case, too, no significant measure is proposed in the agreement to remedy such injustices, and it is utterly unrealistic to think that such an agreement will help resolve the situation.

We have to ask ourselves why the government wants a free trade agreement with Colombia. We have to ask ourselves what the government's and the Liberals' real reasons are for wanting to ratify this agreement at all costs. Colombia is Canada's fifth-largest trading partner in Latin America and the Caribbean. It is its seventh-largest source of imports in this area. So, Canada has more important trading partners than Colombia.

In recent years, trade between Canada and the other Latin American countries has increased considerably, cutting into trade with Colombia. In addition, Canada exports primarily cars and grains, which represented 23% and 19% respectively of our 2007 exports, and most of Canada's investments in Colombia, as we might expect, are in the mining industry.

In my humble opinion, a free trade agreement requires a relationship of equals between the two governments. They must therefore be special trading partners and the level of the trading must warrant the lowering of trade barriers.

Let us be candid: Colombia is not a very attractive market, considering that trade between the two countries is quite limited. Might it be that the Conservative government’s main motivation for signing this free trade agreement at all costs is not trade, but investment?

I wonder about this because this agreement contains an investment protection chapter that will, without a shadow of a doubt, make life easier for Canadian investors who invest in Colombia, more specifically in the mining sector. That chapter is closely modelled on chapter 11 of NAFTA, which is in fact a charter for multinationals at the expense of the common good.

More specifically, chapter 11 of NAFTA, which, I reiterate, is what the investment chapter of the agreement in question is closely modelled on, includes the following points: foreign investors may themselves apply to the international tribunals, skirting the filter of the public good that is applied by governments; the concept of exports is so broad that any law that might have the effect of reducing an investor’s profits can amount to expropriation and lead to legal action being taken against the governments; and the amount of the claim is not limited to the value of the investment, but includes all potential future profits, which is completely excessive.

That chapter has been denounced by everyone. When a law, for example human rights legislation, reduces the profits of a foreign investor, the government is exposing itself to enormous legal claims. Ironically, when the Liberals were in power, they signed a number of trade agreements containing clauses resembling chapter 11 of NAFTA. The Liberals were harshly criticized for their improper practices and stopped signing agreements like that. And yet here they are today, supporting Bill C-2 Why?

We are seeing a return to the past, with the job of determining the common good being assigned to multinationals. That is what is being done. That is what the Liberals and the Conservatives want.

I hope the Conservatives and the Liberals do not think these multinationals will be serving the public interest by giving the public the resources that are needed and working toward greater respect for human rights, workers and the environment.

The Conservatives and the Liberals keep hammering away at their argument that we have to support developing countries and help them to progress, and they are not wrong. The Bloc Québécois and I do think that it is our duty to enable other societies to make progress, and we have to give them all the resources they need to do that. But the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement does nothing to promote that kind of improvement. There is no significant measure in Bill C-2 to improve the economic, social and environmental situation in Colombia.

Let us not hide behind pretexts to achieve our objectives. Let us instead take these business opportunities to develop an equitable form of globalization that encompasses the ideas of human rights, workers’ rights, the environment and honourable trade. Why do we not try to play that role from time to time?

The impact on the environment is another factor we cannot ignore. The side agreement on the environment does not come close to meeting the expectations of people who are concerned about compliance with environmental standards. This agreement provides for no penalties for non-compliance with the most minimal requirements and ultimately could be an incentive for Colombia not to move ahead with adopting new measures to preserve the environment.

The Canadian Council for International Co-operation report says that:

The ESA not only fails to provide a credible vehicle for enhancing and enforcing environmental laws and regulations, but it also fails to mitigate the corrosive pressures the CCFTA will exert on existing environmental and conservation measures and may in fact provide a further disincentive for environmental law reform.

Canada should be very concerned about this, yet this is exactly what the Conservatives and the Liberals plan to support.

This country should follow Belgium's lead, do the right thing, and refuse to sign this agreement because it will be bad for human rights in Colombia. Even the U.S. Congress has backed away from its free trade agreement with Colombia and does not plan to proceed without more information about the human rights situation in Colombia. We are not just making these issues up.

Free trade is meant to improve the lives of workers by providing them with higher pay and better working conditions. But here at home, in Quebec, a lot of companies are choosing to close their factories so they can take advantage of the lower wages and less rigorous workplace standards in other countries.

This industry-wide approach results in unemployment at home and promotes human rights abuses in other countries, while companies rake in the cash. Do we really want to make things worse than they already are?

Before being elected to represent my riding, I was the president of two Quebec agricultural unions for 11 years. As a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade since last year, I have had the opportunity to hear from many witnesses. As an agricultural union president in Quebec, I often took strong stances to defend the Quebec farmers I was representing. Had I done so in Colombia, I would have received serious threats. People would have threatened to kill my three daughters and me.

I do not understand why the Conservatives and the Liberals are so bent on signing this agreement, which will provide only minimal economic benefits. The answer to that is self-evident. All they want to do is roll out the red carpet for mining and agri-food companies that want to invest in Colombia, where costs are low and mineral resources plentiful. There are lots of opportunities for resource exploitation in Colombia. Labour is cheap too.

Unfortunately, this agreement will lead to the displacement of entire populations. They will be uprooted and exiled to parts of the country that are not their own.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I will fight this agreement to the bitter end.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has expressed very well why his party and mine believe that this is a bad deal for Canada as well as Colombia.

The NDP does not believe that the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia will promote human rights and improve conditions in Colombia. In fact, we believe the opposite to be true. The Conservative government, with the help of the Liberals, is feeding us explanations. I would like to hear my colleague on that.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

As I indicated in my speech, which was based on all the evidence I heard at the Standing Committee on International Trade, there is absolutely nothing in this agreement to suggest that the human rights situation in Colombia will be improved. Colombia has the worst human rights record in the southern hemisphere, and this agreement is certainly not going to make things better.

A number of interesting proposals to help us make an informed decision were made by witnesses. An independent inquiry could be conducted by leading international experts, who would be able to fully assess each point in the agreement we are debating today to ensure the well-being of the people of Colombia.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. He mentioned an attack that took place yesterday in Colombia. We learned that, at the very moment the Liberal member for Kings—Hants was agreeing to what I would call a bogus amendment from the Conservative government asking that the Colombian government conduct its own assessment of the human rights situation in that country, an attack was taking place in Buenaventura, killing two people and injuring 30 others.

For a long time, that place has been a hub for drug trafficking with a high level of violence. It had been two years since the last violent incident. But the governor of that province, Mr. Juan Carlos Abadia, is now saying that he is very concerned about the upsurge in drug-related violence in Colombia. The attack was a car bombing near the public prosecutor's building and the mayor's office.

Such an image is enough to compel us to ask our Liberal colleagues to rethink their position. I wonder what the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques thinks of that.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a good point and is asking a good question. He is the new international trade critic for the Bloc Québécois, and I am very happy to be working with him.

In my speech, I pointed out the dangers of taking a stand in Colombia, saying that it would have been different for me if I had been president of an agricultural union in Colombia rather than Quebec. Yesterday's attack left some people dead and many others hurt.

I would like to bring something to the attention of the House and the Speaker. There have been Colombian families living in Rimouski for some time. Last summer, in my office in Rimouski, in my riding, I spoke with a father who still had children in their 20s in Colombia. I no longer remember his name. He is moving heaven and earth to get his kids brought to Rimouski.

It has been months, if not years, since he has had news of his children. They might be trade unionists and they might have disappeared; he does not know.

Meeting this father and seeing his emotion as he told his story tells me that, despite what some people think, there are still serious issues in Colombia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech given by my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. He is a real asset to this Parliament, as we can see from his speech on the free trade agreement with Colombia.

As he knows very well, and as all members of the House must know, the electoral process currently underway in Colombia has been very problematic. Impartial, independent observers have reported that the people of Colombia, who simply want a bit of democracy in their country, fear the violence, electoral fraud and intimidation perpetrated by their government.

Yet not one Conservative member has risen to denounce the Colombian government's practices. Not a single Conservative member ever stands up to defend democracy in that country.

I wonder what my colleague's thoughts are on why the Conservatives have nothing to say about the abuses of human rights and democracy taking place in Colombia. Is it because this government has allied itself with a regime that has blood on its hands?

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, those are certainly legitimate questions.

After hearing all the testimony in committee, we cannot deny that Colombia has some serious problems regarding democracy.

In my opinion, the Conservatives and the Liberals want this agreement to be ratified, whatever the cost, simply in order to pave the way for big Canadian mining companies. I am convinced that a powerful lobby representing these companies has influenced the government. I can see no other reason. That said, I see no valid reason to ratify this agreement.

As we have clearly demonstrated, from an economic standpoint it offers absolutely nothing. So we must ask ourselves some questions, and I think the answer is obvious. They simply want to pave the way for Canada's big mining companies.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate Bill C-2, formerly Bill C-23, and to talk about the free trade agreement with Colombia.

I would like to put some contextual form to the debate initially, in the sense of why it is we are authorizing a trade deal after the fact and why parliamentarians have not had the opportunity to discuss beforehand whether we want to pursue a free trade agreement with certain places rather than simply at the tail end of it having to put a rubber stamp on it, as the Conservative government and its co-conspirators in this deal, the Liberals, would like us to do.

If we are going to enter into free trade agreements with whomever across the globe, then what we ought to be doing in this House is actually deciding what the framework of those trade deals should be. The word “free” in free trade begins with the letter f, but it ought to be the a “fair” trade agreement, not a free trade agreement. The partners to it, whether it be a bilateral or multilateral agreement, should be equal partners. That includes those folks who work for a living, whether they be unionized or non-unionized, whether they be in the manufacturing sector, the service sector or in the agricultural sector. No matter where it is they work they should be seen to be equal partners in trade deals that will affect them whether or not they want the agreement.

We are seeing with these trade deals the effect on us as workers in this country. I spoke to this before. A StatsCan report talked about income disparity in this country and it is a disgrace. The report clearly showed since we signed the first free trade agreement a little over 20 years ago that our income is either stagnant or declining. Yet the previous Liberal government and now the present Conservative government tell us that free trade is good for all of us. I beg to differ.

Workers that I represented when I was involved in the Canadian auto workers and workers that I have the pleasure to represent in this place are testimony to the fact that it is the opposite. They are not better off. In fact in many cases they are not even equal to where they were as far back as 1985. If that is prosperity, to be stuck in 1985, then I really do not understand the meaning of prosperity.

Sure, there is a small percentage in this country, and it is less than one and a half per cent, the wealthy elite, who have done remarkably well. I suppose for them free trade is a wondrous thing. When it was sold to us as Canadians it was sold to us with the aspiration that it would be better for all of us. This meant that the standard of living for every man and woman in the working world of this country would increase. What we have seen is the opposite.

This brings me to this particular deal and what it really means. How important is it to our manufacturing sector, our agricultural sector and any other sector that the government is suggesting are really important and we need to ram this deal through. When we look at it, it is infinitesimally small. It does not mean to say that is not significant to some of those players. Of course it is.

There are markets elsewhere where we could enter into a trade deal that would be fair in nature because we would be seen as co-equals. We would look at it from the sense of saying to one another that our rules are basically the same; our human rights issues are basically on par; maybe their rules are better and we could improve ours; our labour laws and environmental standards are on par; and the freedom in both countries is about on par.

Yet we are going to enter into an agreement with Colombia rather than some other country because it has less and somehow we feel that that is a fair deal.

With respect to this deal, when we talk about human rights, the argument being brought forward is that things are getting better. That is marvellous. That is great for Colombians. We applaud the fact that it is getting better, but it is not yet good enough to enter into a trade deal.

To suggest that somehow allowing multinational corporations to come in and perhaps generate some wealth for themselves will enhance the human rights for those who live there is a specious argument at best and a falsehood at worse.

We had agreement in the previous session. We talked about an international human rights group going in to monitor and help bring them out. Even the president of Colombia, Mr. Uribe, who was here before us, admits they have work to do in the human rights field. They themselves say they are not there yet. If that is the case, if they have the understanding and have actually told us they have work to do, why do we not let them go about doing that work and then come back to us when they have finished, rather than trying to ram this through before the president's term expires in another month or so?

Of course, he cannot run again because their constitution has a two-term limit. He already tried to get an extension of the two-term limit to three and was denied by his own supreme court. Now he will basically have to retire and go into another line of business, whatever that happens to be.

I do not see why we should shove this through so that Mr. Uribe can hold a meeting, hoist a toast and say they have done what they said they were going to do without doing what he said they wanted to do. He said they wanted to ensure people were safe inside his country, paramilitary squads were not still out there and trade unionists could be safe and secure and not find themselves under threat and murdered.

It is astonishing for me, as someone who comes from the labour movement. I look back to leaders of my labour movement, going back to Bob White and Buzz Hargrove and before that to leaders like Walter Reuther of the UAW. Those folks would probably have been found in an alley with a bullet either between the eyes or behind the ear if they had been in Colombia.

Because of the things they stood for, the things they spoke about and what they did for their members, including their efforts to enhance the ability of their members to move up that socio-economic ladder and get freedom of speech, their efforts to allow them to collectively assemble and their efforts to allow them collective bargaining, all of those folks would have never lived to ripe old ages of retirement. They all would have been dead by now. That would be a great travesty.

In this land, as much as a lot of folks do not agree with the trade union leaders who I mentioned, we do it in a civil way. We express our opinions and we debate the merits of what we stand for on one side and what we stand for on the other. None of those trade union leaders ever felt under threat, albeit Walter Reuther back in the 1950s was a different issue.

However, things have progressed from those days to the point where those leaders do not feel under threat, including the president of the CLC, Ken Georgetti, who is not afraid to walk across this land and talk about trade unionism, human rights, the collective bargaining process and the right to organize. The Supreme Court of Canada has said folks have that right under the laws of this land. It is an important fundamental right that we do not see in Colombia. As long as trade union leaders in Colombia feel under threat and duress, my sense is that this is not an agreement we need to go forward with.

What are we doing in Colombia? What is the benefit for us in Colombia? There is no great benefit for a free trade agreement with Colombia. Certainly, there are some power elites in Colombia who truly want an agreement with us because it sends out a signal to the broader world that they should come back to the table to enter into negotiations with Colombia. The EU has walked away. It threw its hands up and said it was going to stop negotiations and was no longer interested in talking until Colombia cleaned up its own house.

As a member of the G8 and the G20, we see our partners in that club saying it is time to let the Colombians take care of their internal issues and allow them time to ensure their population is safe, their human rights record is on the upswing and at a level where trade unionists no longer fear for their lives and indigenous people no longer feel as if they are going to be forced off their land, allow them time to ensure the country has actually stabilized itself.

It is not to take away from the work that has already been done. There is no question that we are seeing a decline in the violence in Colombia from where it was 10 or 15 years ago. However, it is still not at a place where we should be in trade negotiations, not until it finds itself stabilized.

It is for them to do that, not for us to say we will send them a trade deal, we will send them some of our products and we will let some of our companies go into their country, and somehow that will stabilize their country. Governments stabilize countries by a set of rules, by the understanding of their populations that they respect those rules, and at the moment, that is not happening. The statistics clearly point to that.

Some of my colleagues will point out that there are not paramilitary death squads anymore; they are really narco-gangs. Yesterday's narco-gangs are tomorrow's paramilitaries, and vice versa. They are interchangeable. They go back and forth across that very, very blurry line. There is no question there are some narco-gangs in Colombia. No one disputes that, but no one can suggest that somehow they have demilitarized every paramilitary group in Colombia. That is not the case. The evidence shows it is not the case and we have to accept the fact that it is true.

In the end, if we know that to be true, then we know we cannot get sustainability in Colombia when it comes to human rights, the right to collective bargaining, the right to collective assembly and the freedom and democracy that we know and share here. That is why our friends in the club of G8 and G20 have said no to the Colombians this time, not no to them on a permanent basis.

But I think that is what the House needs to know about what the New Democrats are saying. We are not saying no to Colombia forever. In fact, we are saying yes to Colombia. We want to help it, to help get it back up on its feet. We will allow it and help it with those institutions that it needs to form.

I would suggest to the government that what we ought to enter into with Colombia is to help them strengthen their government organizations, their court systems, so that they can indeed move forward, as we did years ago. We had to develop ours and strengthen them, and eventually the rule of law in a free and democratic society likes ours, where we respect it as individuals, will then be in Colombia as well. Then we become co-equal partners. Then we can enter into trade. Trade should never be measured by simply dollars and cents. It is about those who are affected on both sides of that ledger, which means workers here and indeed workers in Colombia.

In the agricultural sector, we see what happens to indigenous farmers when multinational organizations in the agriculture sector come in. When we talked to our friends in the campesina movement, they told us they have been pushed off the land. Yet we talk about how to help folks who perhaps are not eating as well as they should because there is not enough nourishment, not enough sustenance, because we needs folks on the land to actually grow food that can be consumed by those who live there. When people have to buy food from abroad, they are at the mercy of the prices in the world market, which means that if they are poor already, they become not only poorer, but hungry.

We need to make sure that all of those factors are in play, that indeed none of the things we see happening today are happening anymore. It will not be an idyllic society. It will not be a perfectly peaceful place; nowhere is. In this country we find from time to time folks get annoyed at things that happen. We have demonstrations. Sometimes those demonstrations lead to the odd window getting broken. That is what we would like to see in Colombia: a time when demonstrations result in no more than a broken window rather than a bullet behind someone's ear. Then we will know they have got to a place where we can put our hand out and invite them to talk about trade; that will be the time we can sit down and talk about the actual trade negotiations.

My friends will talk about its being an addendum to the back of the agreement with labour laws, environment laws and the fact that we could pay a fine if there are things going on, or we could make a complaint and a fine would be charged against us.

When I wrote collective agreements in the bargaining that I did over a number of years, if we were serious about what we meant about something, we did not write it off the agreement. It used to be called “letters off the agreement”, which for the most part used to be hidden. Those are things we did not tell the folks we represented. We gave them the collective agreement and we kept the letters off to the side. That is why we did that, because those were in the so-called clandestine semi-agreement between us and the employer. In my view, those letters at the back of the agreement are what that is about. It is about a certain group of folks saying that they know they are there and they know they can exercise them, but the majority of folks will not.

When people actually find themselves in a situation where they should use them, they do not even know they are there to try to exact a price that folks should pay as far as the fine is concerned, which I find ludicrous, to be honest. I know my fellow New Democratic colleague has coined the term “kill a trade unionist, pay a fine”. It seems rather cruel when we hear it out loud, but that is a reality. That is clearly what this piece of the agreement talks about.

It does not talk about how to stop it. It does not talk about setting up fundamental rights and freedoms for trade union leaders to actually go about doing what we consider to be legitimate, which is to organize workers if they choose to be organized, collectively bargain for them because that is what they have asked to be done, represent them in the bargaining process and, indeed, the grievance process and from time to time engage Parliament in advancing the rights of workers, which it believes workers are asking it to do.

In Colombia, we do not see that. In fact, my friends in the CUT, which is the largest trade union movement in Colombia, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting over the years, tell me this is not a good deal for workers. If Colombian workers are telling us it is not a good deal for workers, why is it we are so pious to believe that we can tell them it is, it will be good for them?

It reminds me of the 1985 debate on free trade, to be honest: “This will be good for you”. The president of my union, unfortunately, told General Motors during bargaining in 1996, “You are going to eat Pablum because I am feeding it to you because you are going to like it”. It turned out they did not like it that much and they put us on strike for a long period of time. The bottom line is that because we think it is good for them does not make it necessarily so. In fact, I would suggest it is not.

What we should be doing is listening to the workers in the fields, factories and cities in Colombia who are saying, “No thank you. Thank you very much for thinking about us. Thank you very much for telling our government that it needs to do better with human rights. Thank you very much for saying you want to make sure I am protected. We appreciate that. We want you to continue that, but we don't want this deal at this moment”.

They are not saying they do not want a deal. They are saying not right now. We should respect that. We should respect the fact that the citizens and workers of Colombia are saying to us, “Thank you, but not right now”. To suggest that we know better than they do is not only insulting to them but it is quite delusional for us.

We are entering into a pact with whom? An elite? Because the government says it will be good for workers? We saw the results here and I mentioned them earlier. If we ask workers in this country if they are better off today, Statistics Canada says unequivocally no. It did not work for ordinary Canadians who toil across this land.

The proof is in the pudding. People always ask where the proof is. The proof is in the report. The Statistics Canada report clearly shows how we have done as working men and women across this country. We did not prosper. A very few at the top did. By and large, 80% of us did not. Therefore, why are we foisting this deal on Colombians and telling them they will be better off?

It reminds me of what we said with regard to the North American Free Trade Agreement when Mexico was brought in. We said it would be better for them. I would challenge anybody to go across the maquiladora zone and ask how people are making out. They are worried about losing their jobs to China, and yet they have the lowest wage rates in North America. Their wage rates do not sustain them in the Mexican economy. Yet they were supposed to be better off.

Across the globe, when it comes to free trade instead of fair trade, and I stress the word “fair” trade, which has in it many other pieces that this free trade agreement does not, what we need to be doing is saying no to this, respecting Colombian workers' wishes, respecting the citizens of Colombia who say no, taking a step back and telling them that when they are ready, when they decide it is in their best interests, the workers and citizens of Colombia should tell us that they want to sit down and negotiate a fair trade agreement.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, 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, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Quite some time ago, when we left the regular debate on Bill C-2, the hon. member for Welland had just completed his speech. At this point, I would ask if there are any questions or comments for the hon. member for Welland.

I recognize the hon. member for Elmwood--Transcona.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for the Bloc and the member for Welland talked about getting behind the real reasons for this trade deal because we know Colombia does not provide a big market for Canada. There must be other reasons why this agreement is being pushed to the fore. The suspicion is, of course, that it has to do more with mining companies and big business interests than anything else.

As the member mentioned, not only is the EU withdrawing support from its deal but Britain has cut off military aid agreements to Colombia. In addition to that, congressional leaders in the U.S. have as recently as a month ago indicated to us that there is absolutely no chance that this agreement would pass Congress.

Since the Conservative government always wants to follow the United States, why is it trying to lead in this case?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

My hon. colleague is right, Mr. Speaker. There is a certain group that believes there is an upside for them and that is truly the mining companies. They are in Colombia at the moment. We have heard a great deal of debate around how well they are doing. A private member's bill talks about a code of conduct for mining companies. It seeks to have them do abroad what they do at home, especially Canadian companies. I agree that their conduct should be the same in both places. Everyone should be treated the same.

As my hon. friend from Elmwood—Transcona said, it is quite interesting to note the number of countries around the world that have put up their hands and said not right now when it comes to free trade with Colombia. These countries are going to take a step back and rethink this. In the meantime, they have asked the Colombian government to basically find a way to sustain itself within its own house when it comes to workers' rights, the protection of indigenous people, the human rights of its population, its narco-trade with narco-gangs, and the paramilitary. When it does this and Colombians, as workers, ask us if we wish to enter into a fair trade agreement, then we ought to do that.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Welland has done a lot of fine work in terms of the importance of the agricultural industry to Canada. Given that a lot of his work has been focused on the way in which the Conservative government has not stood up for the agricultural industry in Canada, I would like him to comment on some of the hypocrisy that we have been hearing.

The government is asking us to support this agreement because it is good for Canada's agricultural industry and livestock industry, but it ignores the call for support from that industry on the ground. It attacks the Canadian Wheat Board. It attacks the Canadian Grain Commission. I would like to hear his thoughts in that area.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question and I know the member is doing great work on behalf of her constituents.

Clearly, when we look at the agricultural sector across this country, we see a business operation, a business model, that has the highest rate of bankruptcies of any business in this country. It is quite literally falling out from underneath folks who have been in the business of agriculture for generations in some cases.

The family farm, as we once knew it, has almost been eradicated across this land. That happens due to all kinds of things. One is the void of good policy that will help the agricultural folks in this country actually survive. However, what we see is a crippling of them when it comes to prices.

What has been held out as a policy from the government is: “We will get another free trade deal that takes us into another market, and that will help”. What we have seen in the agricultural sector is that as markets open up, the price for commodities goes down in a lot of cases and producers are actually poorer for that.

More markets does not necessarily enhance the agricultural sector in this country. Ultimately, what we need to be talking about is what the agricultural sector looks like in Colombia and here, and how they can be linked. There are things that we grow in this country that Colombia does not grow and wants to purchase.

However, to allow multinational agri-business into Colombia to drive campesinos off the land and destroy the family farm in the way that we have done here is not a model for prosperity in Colombia nor is it a model for agricultural workers in this country. Owners of family farms across this land who need help from the government, and need that help now, do not need to have more impediments put in their place. An open market in some places, wherever it is, including Colombia, that is not helpful to both sides in the agriculture sector is not a good deal for either one.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, in 2008 the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade passed a recommendation that the human rights impact study be undertaken to determine the real impact of a trade agreement, which the government has totally ignored.

Curiously, at that time the Liberals were in favour of this impact study under their former critic. Then they had a change in leaders, and the new critic, the member for Kings—Hants took over. Now we see a virtual marriage on this issue between the Liberal Party and the Conservatives. They are working in lockstep. We see no speakers from the government or from the Liberal Party speaking to this bill at all. They are joined as one.

Could the member explain why this has developed?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's question is a very important one.

Clearly, what we see is the government and Her Majesty's opposition in lockstep when it comes to free trade. This from a group that at one point, as the member correctly said, was in full favour of the international trade committee looking at the human rights abuses in Colombia.

I know that to be true because I have had the great occasion to actually sit at that committee, not only to substitute but to attend on most occasions. I have actually witnessed the fact that members of the Liberal Party are no longer in that position, which I think is really a sense of how they believe in free trade first and clearly they are putting human rights second, which is really unfortunate.

At one point in time, the Liberals actually said human rights first and free trade second. It seems that what they have done is they have decided, as my hon. colleague has said, to marry their position with the Conservative government.

Now, when it comes to international trade, we see there is no difference between the government and Her Majesty's loyal opposition. They are indeed united as one. They are the same when it comes to trade deals. There is no different viewpoint. They are both free traders. They both say the deal is okay, we should go ahead and sign it, and we should get on with it.

They have not raised a hand in opposition to it. They continue to say that it is okay. That, from my perspective, and I know from the New Democrats perspective and from the Bloc perspective, on the committee is unsettling to say the least. What it really tells us is that they will put profits before people. That is really shameful.

What it should be about, what we should all be about, is not only representing our constituents, not only representing Canadians from coast to coast to coast, but indeed when we enter into agreements with whomever around this world, we should respect them and want them to have the things that we have as they want for us. They want us to have that shared responsibility, and that sharing and caring that we talk about.

I would look to the Liberals and say that they should respect the decision that they had before, when it comes to human rights in Colombia. Let us have the investigation first and say no to this free trade agreement with Colombia.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, we would rather not be resuming this debate on Colombia. I think the only good thing that came out of the prorogation is that this bill died on the order paper. If memory serves me correctly, this bill at the time was Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

The Bloc Québécois is still somewhat surprised—and so are many Canadians and Quebeckers—to see the Conservative government's determination to negotiate a free trade agreement with Colombia, a country with which we have relatively little trade. There are other countries, other communities, the European Union for example, where Canada would do equally well to negotiate a free trade agreement or a partnership agreement, as it is doing with the European Union.

Knowing what little interest the government showed for years in opening negotiations between Canada and the European Union, we are surprised to see how determined this very same government is to implement this free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

The first reason why the Bloc Québécois cannot support this free trade agreement is the clauses on investment protection. It is rather surprising that, in the case of the free trade agreement we just concluded with the European Free Trade Association, which the Bloc Québécois supported, we were able to get a clause on investment protection for Canada and the member countries of the association. That clause comes from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and is traditionally found in this type of trade agreement. It ensures that in the event of a dispute between investors, whether from Canada or one of the member countries of the association, the countries negotiate the settlement and make their representations to the relevant tribunals. It is not the companies that do so directly.

I remind you that we are not opposed to opening borders—we have supported a number of free trade agreements in the House beginning with the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA—but to these clauses. They make it so that it is not the governments that are making representations, but the companies themselves, which can go directly before the special tribunals to contest the decision of a government to establish industrial or social policies or make other choices intended to improve the welfare of its citizens.

I also note in passing that only recently, pursuant to the softwood lumber agreement with the United States, it was not the American company that took the Government of Canada before the London tribunal. It was the government of the United States, which contested a decision taken by the Government of Quebec, in this case, and it was the Government of Canada's lawyers who represented the interests of the Canadian companies before the tribunal.

NAFTA was the first free trade agreement signed by developed and industrialized countries, Canada and the United States, and a developing country, Mexico. There is some paternalistic distrust on the part of the industrialized countries, because they fear that the governments of developing countries will adopt policies that could have negative consequences, in Mexico, on Canadian or American companies and investments. NAFTA provided, for the first time, these new kinds of investment protections. Under NAFTA's chapter 11 a company may go directly before a special tribunal to challenge a government's economic, social or other policies.

We cannot accept that, especially in the case of countries such as Colombia or Costa Rica. We also opposed a free trade agreement with Costa Rica.

There is no balance of power between these countries and an industrialized country such as ours. Governments like that of Canada or the multinationals are continually imposing rules on them.

For this reason alone, the free trade agreement with Colombia is unacceptable in our opinion. The Bloc works very hard to ensure there are no abuses in the case of NAFTA's chapter 11. Up to now, we have been able to prevent them, but the threat will remain that an American company will contest a decision of the Government of Canada. It would be surprising to have a Mexican company do so.

UPS already started proceedings against Canada Post because it felt it was facing unfair competition from the Purolator branch of Canada Post. Fortunately, that hit a dead end. Multinationals want to use this sort of clause for purposes contrary to the common good.

There is already good reason to oppose the free trade agreement but there are even better reasons: human rights and trade union rights in Colombia. The government can prevaricate all it wants but the reality remains. There are constant violations in Colombia of human rights, union rights and the rights of citizens, especially aboriginals.

I will provide a few figures. The U.S. State Department and Amnesty International say that another 305,000 people were displaced in 2007. In 2008, more than 380,000 people had to flee their homes or workplaces because of the violence.

According to the Human Rights Council, there was a 25% increase in the number of population displacements in 2008. The same organization says that 2008 was the worst year since 2002 for population displacements. Since 1985, nearly 4.6 million people have been forced to leave their homes or their land. The number of displaced people is estimated to be more than 3% of the entire population. Every day, 49 new families arrive in Bogota.

Aboriginals are especially targeted. They account for about 4% of the population but about 8% of the displaced persons. Colombia is actually the second worst country, after Sudan, for the number of people who have been displaced as a result of threats, reprisals and violence.

Would the Canadian government consider negotiating a free trade agreement with Sudan? It would be extremely risky politically and harmful to our international image. So it is very unlikely. The same kind of situation exists in Colombia.

Canada already only goes through the motions of denouncing the situation in Colombia. The danger of a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia is that we would simply abdicate our international responsibilities and, even worse, subcontract immigration cases to the Colombian authorities.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak about a family that lives in my riding and reflects the situation in Colombia. A citizen and his wife had to leave Colombia because they were threatened both by FARC and the government. After quite a saga, they managed to come to Canada, where they both got refugee status.

Thirteen other members of their family are still in Colombia and witnessed the massacre of the Turbay Cote family by a former Colombian parliamentarian, Luis Fernando Almario Rojas. The family that witnessed the former parliamentarian’s massacre of another parliamentarian’s family is currently under the protection of the Colombian police.

Anyone familiar with the situation in Colombia knows that the existence of paramilitary forces and the protection of the Colombian police or of a specialized police force meant to protect witnesses involved in such cases can provide little in the way of guarantees. That kind of protection is cause for much concern because, as we all know, corruption is not unlikely, and law enforcement personnel can easily be bought.

The members of these two families, my constituent's family and his wife's, have been threatened. They went to the Canadian embassy in Bogota to ask for refugee status, but their claim was denied.

Like so many others, they went to Bogota because they wanted to get away from the people who were threatening to persecute them. They were from Caquetá. The Canadian government says right on its website that, because of political instability in certain regions, including their region, Canadians and Quebeckers are advised against travelling there. Something just does not make sense here.

I am going to read the warning because we should all be aware of the Government of Canada's own assessment of the situation in these parts of Colombia.

The presence of armed drug traffickers, guerrilla and paramilitary organizations, including the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and the ELN (National Liberation Army), poses a major risk to travellers. These groups continue to perpetrate attacks, extortion, kidnappings, car bombings, and damage to infrastructure in these areas. Landmines are used by guerrilla groups, especially in rural areas.

You are also advised against all travel to the departments of Cauca, Caquetá [the department that the citizen I mentioned, my constituent, is from], Guaviare, Valle del Cauca (excluding Calí) and Antioquia (excluding Medellín), to the southern parts of Meta department and to the city of Buenaventura, due to the presence of similar armed groups.

That is right on the government's website. How can the government warn citizens of Canada and Quebec not to visit these regions because they are full of paramilitaries, guerrillas and criminals, yet be so insensitive to what these two families are going through?

The worst part of the story, and the part that brings us back to the free trade agreement, is that the excuse given by the government's representative, the immigration officer in Bogota, was that since they are protected by the Colombian police, they have nothing to worry about. However, we know that many people in the paramilitary forces cine from the police and have direct contact with most members of the Colombian Congress.

It could be said that the government has contracted out the security these people need—through an immigration officer—instead of shouldering its international responsibilities and allowing these 13 people to rejoin their brother, son, and uncle in Quebec, in Canada, in beautiful Joliette. They would undoubtedly be safer under the watchful eye of the member for Joliette. None of the Colombian refugees here in our region are afraid. But that is not what happened. Instead, Canada's responsibilities were sub-contracted to an immigration officer and, ultimately, to the Colombian authorities.

And that is what is happening without a free trade agreement. Imagine what the situation would be like if there were a free trade agreement. This tendency to avoid seeing a realistic picture of Colombia would be even worse and even more Colombians who are in danger in their country would be rejected under false pretences.

This is not a unique case, but it is a case I will follow through on. I cannot accept an agreement that is strictly for trade reasons, for investment reasons and for protecting Canadian investors, particularly a few unsavoury Canadian mining companies. I am not in any way suggesting that is the case with the whole industry, but we must be aware of what is going on in many countries. This situation is not acceptable right now, and it could get worse with a free trade agreement that will, in a way, legitimize the Colombian authorities.

The government's reply is that there are two parallel agreements being discussed here: one on labour rights and human rights, and the other on the environment. That is interesting, because it means that what the government is currently negotiating with Colombia has nothing to do with human rights and is strictly commercial.

Having two parallel agreements that provide nothing—we can be sure of that—but that affect areas that have nothing to do with trade or even protecting investment shows that the Canadian government knows this agreement has a much broader scope than a simple trade agreement.

I remind the House that these parallel agreements first appeared in the negotiations for the North American Free Trade Agreement. That was rather interesting. I was not part of the negotiations, but I was part of the North American Forum on Integration, a coalition that was following these negotiations very closely. At the time, we had a Conservative government. Its leader, Brian Mulroney, was a Progressive Conservative, but the approach was the same. We were told that NAFTA would not affect the environment or rights, and that it was strictly a commercial agreement.

Unfortunately for the Canadian and Mexican governments, Bill Clinton's election in 1993 and inauguration in 1994 completely changed things. Bill Clinton was elected by claiming that the North American Free Trade Agreement would be enhanced by agreements on the environment, union rights and labour rights. Paradoxically, it was the American government that forced the Canadian government to negotiate these agreements. I remember that the government scrambled to bring us to Ottawa to give them an idea of what an agreement on labour or the environment was. In fact, I believe Montreal is the headquarters of the environmental secretariat.

We made recommendations that were not implemented because these agreements have no teeth and are not binding in the least. We have the proof—we have been living with NAFTA and its side agreements since 1994—that these produce absolutely nothing. Furthermore, the many reports by the two secretariats indicate that there has been no progress, and that the situation has even deteriorated sometimes in Canada, the United States or Mexico. Once again, we should not see this as a paternalistic attitude. Canada and the United States have taken steps backwards in many areas in recent years. I am thinking of union accreditation in the United States and even in much of Canada.

We need agreements that are an integral part of the trade agreement. I would go so far as to say that they must be a condition for obtaining the privileges set out in the free trade agreements or partnership agreements, as they are now called by Europeans. Compliance with international conventions on the environment and the major conventions of the International Labour Organization must be included.

That is the direction being taken. The Conservative government of Canada does not understand this. In the United States, President Obama is talking about a second generation of free trade agreements that will include these aspects. That is one reason why the ratification of the free trade agreement is currently blocked in the U.S. Congress.

Compliance with major international conventions can take many forms. It is not a question of imposing a model on developing countries.

In closing, I will give the example of union accreditation. In industrialized countries, democratic countries, there are countless means of accreditation. The practice differs completely from France to Canada to the United States.

However, in each country, some pressure is put to uphold the right to unionize. It is not always effective, but it does at least exist.

For example, in terms of union rights, it is important to respect the right of association. I do not believe that a free trade agreement will move Colombia in that direction.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, as we all know, Colombia is among some of the world's worst offenders when it comes to respecting the human rights of social activists and trade unionists. In fact, I note that the vice-chair of an expert committee of the Belgian Christian trade union federation said that in the nine years he has been vice-chair of that committee on the application of ILO rules and recommendations, the only countries he has seen that are comparable to Colombia in terms of ILO violations are Myanmar and Byelorussia.

I am wondering if the hon. member would comment on the relationship between lack of respect for trade union rights and the extrajudicial killings of trade unionists in the country and trade deals.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The point he raised is extremely important.

Some in business and political circles believe that free trade will automatically improve rights and democracy, but there is no way to verify that. Therefore, before opening markets, it is essential to ensure that Colombia, in this case, really has the political will to solve the problem. That is why there needs to be, in the agreement, a firm commitment to indicate that union rights will be respected.

Let me say again that the term union rights here means fundamental rights. It does not necessarily have to do with bargaining and certification. There are in this world as many types of union accreditation and as many types of bargaining as one can imagine. However, we must ensure total respect for the right to organize and bargain.

Again, that does not mean that it will be perfect, but a firm commitment from the parties is necessary and must be included in the agreement. The same thing goes for environmental rights, which are just as fundamental as union rights.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too want to congratulate the member for Joliette. He made a most interesting speech and gave us tangible proof of what he said with the story of a couple from his riding.

This bilateral free trade agreement should, in principle, be beneficial to both countries. We know that Canada will draw very few benefits from this agreement, and yet, Canada keeps bringing it back, insisting that we pass it.

Can the member for Joliette tell me why Canada is so eager to enter into this agreement?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Terrebonne—Blainville for her question, because it opens an opportunity to give the Canadian government an alternative with respect to opening the borders to trade.

As I said earlier, the Bloc Québécois supports that kind of openness. It does approve any forms of protectionism that are extremely damaging to the economies of nations and the international economy.

It is quite clear, however, that this free trade agreement with Colombia is a legacy from the Bush administration in the United States, and the Conservative government, which was George W. Bush’s lapdog, is caught up in something it cannot get out of. It started something and now it cannot stop it, although in the United States it has been blocked in Congress until there are firm commitments regarding human rights.

Second, this follows the failure of the Doha round of negotiations. The industrialized countries tried to impose their agenda on the developing countries, particularly the emerging ones like China, India and Brazil. Those countries, with the support all of the African countries, did not accept our way of looking at development, since the industrialized countries would have been the only ones to benefit from it. In fact, we saw this in the previous round of negotiations.

Those countries wanted to find another way of negotiating other issues. Obviously, the developed countries, particularly the United States, but it is also true of Canada and Europe, overruled them. As a result, the strategy is now to negotiate bilateral agreements with the weakest countries.

Take the example of negotiations with Costa Rica. I have no idea what makes Costa Rica a major economic partner for Canada. Free trade agreements are being proposed with these extremely vulnerable countries, and this is a way of trying to surround the most promising countries for Canadian or American investors. It is a strategy put in place by the Americans. In fact, this strategy reminds me that Mao Zedong had exactly the same approach: he said that you had to use the countryside to surround the cities. That is what the Americans and Canadians are doing to the developing countries.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot from the Bloc Québécois and the NDP about Colombians’ human rights and how this agreement would enable the paramilitaries and some Colombians who support their government to maintain the attitude they have adopted.

One of the attacks on human rights we do not hear a lot about is the attack on women. The government says it is important to end trafficking in women. In reality, Colombia is one of the worst countries when it comes to trafficking in women, because women, particularly indigenous or Afro-Colombian women, are vulnerable and come from communities that have been displaced because of development by mining companies or agricultural multinationals. Those women are therefore in a position of heightened vulnerability.

Once again, we see the hypocrisy of this government, which wants to support an economic system that will continue this kind of exploitation, this trafficking. The Bloc has often been taken to task for some of its philosophies in this regard. I would like to know the member’s opinion on this subject.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question, which complements my remarks perfectly.

These are indeed the most vulnerable groups. In Colombia, there are massive displacements involving aboriginal women. The ratification of a free trade agreement will further protect unscrupulous Canadian investors who may be doing business in that country. I do not want to paint everybody with the same brush, but we know there are some because complaints have been filed by humanitarian organizations.

In Colombia, certain cases involving Canadian companies were reported in the newspapers. This is not good for Canada's image and it is not good for Quebec's image. The Bloc wants Canada to be in good shape when we are going to leave it. We want to make sure that things are done properly and that there are laws in place to prohibit and prevent this human trafficking that we are condemning loud and clear.

In fact, this is why, in the coming weeks, the hon. member for Ahuntsic will introduce a bill that will truly target human trafficking. We are not going to do like the Conservative government, which proposes legislation just for show, just to look tough, when in fact the whole exercise is just an illusion, hot air and a smokescreen. But perhaps there is a connection between this smokescreen and powder in Colombia.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

There are only 55 seconds left for a very brief question from the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier, the hon. member for Joliette said that the Conservative government looks like a lapdog compared to the U.S. government, as regards the free trade agreement with Colombia. I would like to remind him that, yesterday, the lapdog produced another little lapdog. Indeed, the Liberals are going to support the Conservatives to ensure that this free trade agreement goes through. I wonder if my colleague could give us his thoughts on this new position by the lapdog's offspring?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Joliette has 15 seconds to respond.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, in 15 seconds I will say that I am extremely disappointed to see the Liberals turn into quislings.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, we rise at second reading to debate among all parliamentarians a bill that deals with free trade. At second reading, parliamentarians are charged with the responsibility of debating the principle of the bill that has been put before them.

I believe all members in the House could support describing the principle of the bill before the House as one that engages fundamental principles of sound trade policy. That is what underpins this bill. When we look at the issue of sound trade policy, we ask ourselves what that means. What do Canadians want to be the underpinnings of Canadian trade policy? I would submit for all parliamentarians the three principles of sound trade policy are sound economic principles, sound environmental principles and sound social and ethical principles.

I would submit that all three of those principles have to be satisfied in any particular trade proposition put before the House if we truly are going to pursue a path of sound trade policy. I do not mean one of the three principles. I mean that all three of those principles must be satisfied. Let us consider each.

Let us consider the principle of sound economic benefits. If a trade bill put before the House does not reveal that it would be beneficial for the citizens of Canada and the citizens of the country that is the target of the trade deal, then that criterion is not satisfied and the bill ought to be rejected. If that bill before the House does not contain aspects to promote and sustain environmental practices that we all know are necessary for the world to adopt, but instead leads to environmental degradation, then that criterion is not satisfied either. Finally, if that bill raises serious social and ethical questions about violations of human rights and basic social rights, or if it contains measures that may exacerbate social inequality in either country, then that criterion is not satisfied either.

Why should we have those three criteria about sound trade policy applied in the House? Because trade is an instrument of policy. With our trade policy, we can influence. We can encourage nations. We can discourage and dissuade nations through the result of decisions made in this chamber. I do not say that our trade policy is determinative. We will not fix every problem in the world through our trade policy. However, our trade policy is a reflection of what Canada can do on the world stage as we take a position that might help make the world a better place in certain corners, or a worse place.

We can reward countries that are demonstrating positive behaviour. We can discourage those nations that are violating human rights, damaging the environment and exacerbating inequality. That is because, in my respectful submission, trade is not amoral.

Would Canadians want us to trade with South Africa if the system of apartheid were still in place? Would Canadians want us to trade with Rwanda if the genocidal regime were still in power? Would Canadians want us to trade with fascist Germany, if that type of regime was on earth today? They would say no. They would not want to engage, reward or give succour to those countries if those countries were pursuing policies that are dangerous, damaging and cause death.

Trade on the international stage ought to be, should be and must be a reflection of Canadian values. Canadians want our country to be a positive force on the world stage.

The New Democrats have always made those principles the cornerstone of our own policy on trade. The NDP would push for progressive, fair trade agreements that fulfill the following requirements: the agreement must promote human rights; it must be a win-win on jobs and raise the quality of jobs in both nations; it must raise Canadian standards of living and standards of living with the recipient country; it must respect and enhance environmental stewardship; and it must preserve Canada's ability to legislate and protect our sovereign areas vital to our own interests.

I studied the bill quite carefully in the last session and this session and I can tell the House that there is no doubt whatsoever that the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, as it is presently written, is contrary to all of the principles I have just enunciated, it clearly fails the human rights test and has only a marginal positive economic impact on Canada to boot.

Let us look at Colombia. It is one of the world's worst human rights violators. It is a renowned narco-state. A Canadian who does not know anything about South American politics will easily tell us that they recognize that Colombia is a major source of harmful drugs coming into our country.

It is a country with out of control paramilitary death squads and a country of gross inequality. Those are not just my conclusions. Those are the conclusions of a wide and disparate group of very respected international bodies. I will quote from a few. Amnesty International and the Canadian Council for International Co-operation have expressed deep concern that the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia has been signed without regard for the widespread and serious human rights violations that continue to be the daily reality in Colombia. They say that there is an ongoing and extensive link between state security forces and paramilitary death squads which continue to operate despite government claims to have successfully demobilized them.

There is an ongoing failure to bring the perpetrators of human rights violations to justice despite several high profile prosecutions. Justice remains the exception and impunity the norm, giving the green light to those who continue to abuse human rights.

This is not just last year's reality or the reality of the year before. It is carrying on this year as well. Most recently, these same groups have concluded that there continues to be the use of excessive force by state security against the mobilization of indigenous people expressing opposition to free trade agreements and other policies that they believe negatively impact their rights. There continue to be threats and attacks against land rights activists, particularly in areas of economic interest impacted by this agreement.

In 2008 alone, there were threats and attacks on trade unionists that increased by 16% and more than 40 people were killed last year alone in Colombia.

There has been an increase in extrajudicial executions by state security forces of civilians and there have been repeated public statements by President Uribe and other senior officials demonizing trade unions such as striking sugar workers, indigenous organizations and other groups that are speaking out about violations of human rights. Such statements have led to threats and violence, including killings.

Following critical reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in October, President Uribe publicly accused Amnesty International of fanaticism and dogmatism and the Americas Director of Human Rights Watch of being a “supporter and an accomplice of FARC guerrillas.

President Uribe also has demonized members of his own supreme court who were investigating links between politicians and the ruling coalition and paramilitaries.

The United Nations High Commission on Human Rights issued a press release in March calling on Colombian state authorities to guarantee the protection of human rights defenders and leaders of grassroots social organizations. It also urged Colombia's office of the attorney general to promptly begin an investigation into these events.

According to the Canadian Labour Congress, there are more labour activists and labour leaders murdered in Colombia than in all other countries on the planet put together. Colombia has 4 million internal refugees. This is a snapshot and a picture of the country with which we propose by the bill to engage in closer economic ties.

I want to talk a bit about equity. I did some research on the domestic situation in Colombia and two stark figures jumped out at me. The first is that 49.2% of Colombians live below the poverty line. Second, in terms of splitting up the population and their share of the wealth of Colombia and household income, the lowest 10% of people in Colombia have less than 1% of the nation's wealth, and the highest 10% of the Colombian population controls or owns 45% of that country's wealth. We are talking about a country where there is gross disparity between the wealthy and the poor and yet we want to reward that country by engaging and giving it the benefits of increased economic relations with Canada.

I find it interesting that when the government prorogued Parliament, it claimed that it did it, supposedly, to recalibrate the agenda, to consult with Canadians and to focus on the economy. When the House came back in early March, what was the first piece of legislation that it put before this House on any substantive issue? It could have been on any topic but it chose to introduce Bill C-2 on Canada-Colombia trade, a controversial and divisive piece of legislation and a rehash, by the way, of old legislation that was introduced in the last session.

I reiterate that the government could have introduced legislation on any topic it wanted. It said that it had consulted with Canadians. If so, it could have introduced a bill on jobs. Jobs are a priority for my constituents. We have a need for a national industrial strategy. We have a need for a green energy, green economic strategy. We need to create jobs in this country to help the working-class and middle-class take care of their families. We need to protect the environment and position our country to prosper in the global economy. Did the government bring in a bill on that? No.

It could have brought in a bill on housing. We have a need for a national housing strategy. My colleague from Vancouver East has put forward an excellent bill on this very subject that the government could simply adopt. The federal government could re-enter the affordable housing business. It could help create seniors' housing, housing for the disabled, co-ops, affordable rental stock and affordable market housing. It could have brought in a bill that would have housed millions of Canadians, which is also a priority in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway. Did it do that? No. It brought in a bill to increase economic relations with a murderous regime in South America.

Did it bring in a bill on child care? A national child care program is long overdue. My colleague from Trinity—Spadina has done excellent work in this regard. Many ideas have been proposed that the government could have adopted that would help working families, women and parents across this land. They would have helped to put Canadians back to work, because when we have quality, affordable child care spots, parents are free to go back to work. No, that was not a priority for the government.

The government could have brought in a bill on pensions. In the last session, the House adopted our motion unanimously in this House. We need to improve pensions for Canadians, strengthen the Canada pension plan, increase GIS and OAS, and lift seniors out of poverty. One year of the government's spending on corporate tax cuts would be more than enough to lift every senior currently living in poverty out of that condition. What did the government do? The Minister of Finance just announced that we will engage in consultations on pensions.

We get action on engaging in economic activity with countries that are killing their citizens, but we get consultations on lifting pensioners out of poverty. We do not need consultation in this country. This House has unanimously adopted a New Democrat plan that we put forward and that is what we expect a responsible government to do.

When the government prorogued Parliament and it went out to consult with Canadians and recalibrate, did it consult with Canadians about the advisability of signing trade deals with human rights abusers? Did it go to Canadians and ask them if they wanted to have a trade deal with Colombia? Did it ask Canadians how they felt about 40 trade unionists being killed last year? Did it ask Canadians if they wanted to get a little closer with those people? I do not think it did.

I want to stop for a minute to illustrate how we feel on this side of the House about this matter: Ken Georgetti, Buzz Hargrove, Robert Bouvier, Ken Lewenza, Sid Ryan, Paul Moist, Leo Gerard, Judy Darcy, Hassan Yusuf, Leah Casselman, Tom Dufresne, Jim Sinclair, Debra McPherson, Ed Frenette, Phil Benson, Darryl Walker, Wayne Fraser, Bob White, Wayne Peppard, Barbara Byers, Marie Clarke Walker, Denis Lemelin, Lorene Oikawa, Don MacLeod, Steve Hunt, Reid Johnson, Gary Kroeker, Irene Lanzinger, Andy Ross, Barry O'Neill, Amber Hockin, Kay Sinclair Kevin, Phil Venoit, Kevin Rebeck, Don McGill, Susan Spratt, Jim Pearson, Ivan Limpright and Cindy Oliver. Let us pretend those people were murdered last year in this country by paramilitary groups. That is what happened in Colombia last year alone.

I worked for a trade union for 16 years and represented workers when they had grievances in their workplace. I sat at bargaining tables with their employers, in the private sector and the public sector. We sat cooperatively around the table and talked about each other's interests. If I had been in Colombia last year, there is a chance I would have been killed. Is that the kind of country we want to sign a free trade agreement with? How would Canadians feel if those people I just named had been murdered by roving paramilitary right-wing groups in this country and some other country in the world wanted to foster closer relations with us? How would we feel about that country and how it regards our civil rights, our human rights?

My constituents in Vancouver Kingsway know about trade and the importance of relations with other countries. Vancouver Kingsway is a multicultural riding. Citizens in my riding come from dozens of countries around the world. Many of them are involved in import and export businesses of all types. I have thousands of small businesses in my riding working with other businesses overseas. My constituents favour building strong cultural, diplomatic, economic relationships with other countries because they recognize the benefits of economic cooperation. They know that we need to share our ideas and technologies, that we need to foster economic growth in developing countries and in our own communities, that we all want and have an interest in alleviating poverty, and that we want to build a global community. They know that trade can and should be mutually beneficial, but trade, they also know, must be done right and it must be fair.

Trade deals must benefit citizens and trade must never trump human rights. My constituents, and I believe all Canadians, do not favour giving trade priority over human rights. Canadians do not favour dealing with countries that are regressive as opposed to progressive.

The bill before us is a bad intentioned bill and it is one that would not be consistent with those values I just spoke of. Many countries in this world are showing improvements in human rights and many countries would see a real benefit to its citizen from increased economic ties to Canada. The government should be seeking out those countries. We should be fostering closer relations with countries that build the kind of country and the kind of world that Canadians want to see in our own country and our own world.

I would encourage all parliamentarians to put aside their partisan interests, look at the facts and join with all Canadians in building a trade policy that is consistent with the principle of peace, prosperity and respect for human rights.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do agree with one thing the hon. member said, that we will not put human rights before trade. I think all Canadians believe in that.

Last week, in lieu of the concerns that we all have as we move forward, I hosted a round table discussion with Minister Adriana Mejía Hernández to actually discuss this and give us facts.

With all due respect, the Conservative Party was there, the Liberal Party was there, the Bloc was there. I personally invited the NDP there and found it insulting that not one of them showed up to ask questions.

However, my questions are these, because we must deal with facts.

The European Union is dealing with Colombia, that is, the EU with its 27 member countries. It has pretty rigid prerequisites for trade: human rights, et cetera. Some of its members are also dealing with Spain.

In 2000, there were almost 30,000 homicides in Colombia, and now these are down by 50%. In 2002, there were almost 3,000 kidnappings, and now only 213. They talk there about how the number of union members have increased. I could go on, but I just want to point out to the member that what he is dealing with are innuendoes, not facts.

We should go there, work with these people and show them a different way, a Canadian way, and help them overcome some of these difficulties that nation is going through.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, one thing that can be said about Liberal trade policy is that it changes from year to year. I was in this country in 1988, when his party opposed free trade. I was in this country in 1993, when his party, the Liberals, said it would abrogate NAFTA. Of course, when the Liberals came to power, they did not have any problem completely abrogating whatever they had said on child care and housing to get elected. They did none of what they said in those areas. Now the member is standing in the House today and saying he is in favour of free trade.

I think it is a disgrace for the Liberal Party of Canada to be standing and encouraging Canada to sign a free trade agreement with a country like Colombia. The member says the situation is improving there despite dozens of people still being murdered. Imagine if we had dozens of people being murdered in this country, or even 12. Would we say the situation is improving? There should not be one person killed in a country for standing up for his or her beliefs, for standing up for the basic human right to do something as audacious as wanting to organize co-workers in a collective way to deal with an employer. As long as one person is being killed for that purpose in any country, I say on this side that we should never reward that country with a free trade agreement.

I would urge him and his other colleagues in the Liberal Party to have the courage to vote against this bill.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my NDP colleague who spoke against the free trade agreement with Colombia. Obviously I share his opinion on this and I am proud to belong to a party, in Quebec, that shows great concern for human rights, as do many civil society associations, from both Canada and Colombia, that are opposed to this agreement.

I can understand that this bill would be brought forward by a Conservative government born from the right-wing Reform Party. However, to see that the Liberal Party is willing to support this kind of bill, despite all the fine speeches it made in the past, is something that is totally beyond me and that saddens me for the future of this country when I think that the Liberal Party is currently the official opposition.

I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on this. How does he see the future of this country when the two main parties in the House seem to support this bill?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think what Canadians see is what we all see in this House, that the current iteration of the Liberal Party is virtually indistinguishable from the Conservative Party, in terms of major policies. That is, of course, when we can discern what the policy of the Liberal Party is, because it often takes contrary positions. The members contradict each other day to day and year to year and it is difficult to determine what they actually believe in.

I must say that the members opposite, the government, at least have the courage of their convictions and are actually consistent with their beliefs, philosophies and principles. I give them credit for that, however much I may disagree with them from time to time. However, the Liberal Party is completely adrift.

Again, by pursuing a policy indistinguishable from that of the government on deepening and embracing trade with countries that have horrible human rights records and terrible, deep social inequality is a sad testament to where the Liberal Party is today.

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

Madam Speaker, I have breaking news.

Just a few hours ago the Liberals floated this trial balloon of somehow letting self-monitoring take place, so that the Colombian government would monitor itself. I would just like to read the first of the press releases that seem to be coming in.

This one is entitled, “Liberals sell-out on human rights with amendment to Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement”. It is by the Council of Canadians, Canada's largest citizen organization, with 100,000 members, five times more than the National Citizens Coalition the Prime Minister formerly headed.

It says the following:

A Liberal proposal that would fast-track the passage of a free trade agreement with Colombia would put Canada at odds with international allies and betrays a parliamentary commitment to perform an independent human rights impact assessment first.

A council trade campaigner adds that:

The Belgian government today rejected a new investment treaty with Colombia because of ongoing and often unchecked human rights violations, and spying on NGOs by the Colombian intelligence agency. Incredibly, the Liberals are ready to ignore all this by letting the Colombian government monitor its own human rights violations.

The council also states:

The Liberal proposal flip-flops on a previous commitment...that the free trade agreement should not be ratified until an independent human rights impact assessment can be carried out first.

Carleen Pickard, one of several Canadian members of the pre-election monitoring group that went down to Colombia, states that:

Canada entering into a free trade agreement with Colombia now not only sends the wrong message to Canadians and the Colombian regime, it also may make Canada and Canadian companies complicit or passive supporters of continued violence in Colombia.

I would like the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway to comment.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to express the gratitude of millions of Canadians for the fine work the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has done on this file.

There is a fundamental lack of logic in the position that we should trade with known human rights abusers because we can make things better that way. If that were the case, then we would have no principles whatsoever when determining whom we are going to trade with. We could take the worst violator of human rights in the world and believe that we should start trading with them from the mistaken logic that if we trade with them somehow it will improve things.

Another grotesque lack of logic is that we can let a country like Colombia self-monitor. Talk about letting the cat among the pigeons. One simply cannot do that.

We talk a lot in this House, and I hear a lot from the other side, about responsibility and accountability. Well, to me responsibility and accountability mean that one put one's actions before one's words, that one puts up before one shuts up.

Colombia should demonstrate to the world over an extended period of time that it respects international norms of conduct. Then and only then ought it be considered as eligible for the benefits of a free trade agreement with our country.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I just want to inform the New Democrats, who of course do not support any free trade agreement, that this agreement actually requires the Government of Canada and the Government of Colombia to both author a report that will be tabled both in their congress and our Parliament on an annual basis.

We will be able to debate that report at the trade committee and actually hear from the authors of that report there, where we can question them and also hear from NGOs, civil society representatives, the business community and labour unions on an annual basis. This actually sets a gold standard for engagement.

Will the NDP stop misrepresenting this and calling it—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. I must give the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway a few seconds to respond.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the question by the hon. member is one that continues to perpetuate an absurd lack of logic.

This deal will open up Colombian territory to foreign resource extraction. It will worsen Colombia's refugee crisis. There will be no Canadian jobs created by this agreement. It will be a benefit for corporations, not workers. It will make things worse for workers in Colombia.

The trade unions do not want it. The human rights organizations do not want it. Civil society does not want it.

I wonder why the member is pushing so hard to trade with a country that is—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, today is March 25, 2010, and the negotiations between Colombia and Canada began in 2002.

On June 7, 2007, the international trade minister at the time announced that the negotiations with Colombia and with Peru had been resumed.

On November 27, 2007, a motion was introduced to study the future agreement with Colombia, and in April 2008, we started hearing testimony in committee.

There were two years of negotiations and several months of consultations between the civil societies and representatives of the Canadian and Colombian governments.

In May 2008, our committee had the opportunity to go and visit Colombia and conduct consultations there. We were in Colombia in May 2008 when we heard that the government had finalized its negotiations and would sign the free trade agreement. However, the committee had not finished its consultations. We were in Colombia consulting people. The trip was actually much appreciated by the opposition members, who were deeply moved by it.

It seemed at the time that even the Conservatives were profoundly affected. Every time witnesses told us about human rights violations, the displacement of people and killings, especially of union activists, the Conservative members seemed touched by their cause.

We also visited a small municipality where displaced people had gone. We had an opportunity there to hear the deeply moving testimony of people who had seen their fathers or husbands killed and who had been displaced by military forces, probably FARC, paramilitary forces or guerrillas. We could not help being very moved, because these people were talking about things that had happened to them.

I thought at the time that the Conservatives and the Liberals had been touched by what they heard. Lord knows how many times the Liberals have changed leaders over a short period of time. We know now that though the leaders may change, the ideas remain the same.

Returning to the Conservative government’s denial of democracy, we were in Colombia when we heard that the negotiations had ended and that the government wanted to sign the agreement. We know what ensued: prorogation, an election, prorogation and a motion to limit debate and not continue the discussions.

In actual fact, it was good that Parliament was prorogued again, because it enabled us to start the debate on Colombia all over again. We are not starting right at the beginning. Some members think seriously about these things, and their position has not changed because the situation has not really changed.

The NDP is against this free trade agreement for reasons on which the vast majority of us actually agree. The NDP tends to oppose free trade, but we do agree with the NDP about human rights, the environment and everything that could happen in Colombia.

I had the opportunity to meet President Uribe twice. Unfortunately, he failed to convince me that he was sincere. In Colombia, I found it hard to understand the high levels of public satisfaction with that government and its president. He was first elected in 2002. Thanks to changes made to the constitution, he managed to run a second time and get re-elected in 2006. He then tried once again to amend the constitution.

The French daily Le Monde wrote the following on February 27, 2010: “On Friday, February 26, Colombia's constitutional court invalidated a law passed in September and designed to organize a referendum which, if it had been approved, would have changed the constitution to allow the head of the state to run in the May 30 presidential election. This means that Alvaro Uribe, who left his mark in that country with his firm stand against FARC guerrilla forces, may not be able to run for a third mandate.”

There are some who are very pleased about that. Civil society and unions are among those of course, and also those people who have been suffering for eight years. In fact, they have been suffering for longer, that is 40 years during which they were caught in a corrupted system. However, members of the international community thought there was a real will to change things, including the Conservatives, who blindly believed this to be the case. The will to change things had little to do with improving the plight of the overall population and acting as quickly as possible. The president's goal was primarily to change the constitution and get re-elected for a third time.

Let me again quote Le Monde: “In July 2008, his government snatched from the FARC fifteen of their most valuable hostages, including Franco-Colombian Ingrid Betancourt. That year, some observers were even talking about FARC's demise. However, guerrilla forces have been gaining ground since and remain present on half of the territory.”

So, some efforts were made, but they were minimal and they only sought to project a positive image to foreign countries that, of course, President Uribe wanted to welcome to his country to engage in free trade.

Just to show the lack of seriousness of President Uribe, who said he was an angel and was doing everything he could to ensure that democracy would prevail and that violence would disappear, here is another excerpt from Le Monde: “The constitutional court decided to invalidate in its entirety the law under which a referendum was going to be held, said the president of the court. Before that, the judge had harsh words for this legislation which, in his opinion, seriously violated the basic principles of a democratic system. These violations included irregularities in the funding of the campaign to promote the adoption of this legislation, and also during the legislative process.”

We came back from Colombia in May of 2008.

We continued hearing witnesses and holding committee meetings and produced a report that does not really correspond to the position taken by the Liberal Party today. I would like to read a few of the recommendations made in that report, recommendations that the Liberal Party supported. I will not read them all, because there are a number of them, but I will read the main recommendations.

The committee recommends that the Government of Canada should not sign and implement a free trade agreement with the Government of Colombia until the Canadian government has taken into account the recommendations contained in this report, including those of the dissenting reports.

The second recommendation reads as follows:

The committee recommends that the Government of Canada maintain close ties with Colombia without signing a free trade agreement until there is confirmation that the improvements noted are maintained, including continued improvement as regards displacement, labour law and accountability for crime, and until the Colombian government shows a more constructive attitude to human rights groups in the country.

And the third recommendation states:

The committee recommends that the Government of Canada draw on the work of the organization Rights and Democracy to give an independent body the mandate to conduct studies regarding the impact on rights and the environment when it is negotiating economic agreements with countries at risk, as in the case of the agreement with Colombia.

Clearly, what the committee recommended was not signing this agreement as long as there were no policies in place and no ongoing improvements in terms of human rights, labour rights, the environment and impunity, and until there was an end to violence and murders of trade unionists.

Yesterday we learned that the Liberal Party was going to assess the situation and that it might support us, but that assessment will take place on March 31 each year. How can we accept a government's claims that everything that is happening in Colombia will automatically work itself out as soon as we begin trading with them and have a free trade agreement? That is impossible.

The government should have used that to—I would not say impose, because Colombia remains a sovereign state—ensure that Colombia improves the situation for its citizens, maintains this improvement and demonstrates it.

The Conservative government has a plan for South America. At one point, it held negotiations with groups, but there is now a plan to move step by step, country by country, without no other thought than to take advantage of the situation.

I always come back to this, and it is pretty much my pet subject when I talk about free trade and globalization. On the subject of globalization and the actions of the multinationals, which moved pretty well across the globe in a mad dash, to whose benefit or disadvantage did it all take place? This is what happens in a number of countries. They exploit the labour force and the environment and often, unfortunately, even undermine human rights. This is blatant.

Now, imagine what it would be like if we could put a human face on globalization where all these elements were included in a free trade agreement and would provide the necessary tools or even give teeth to this agreement to ensure that people respected human rights, the environment and the workers, too.

But that is not happening. Why show this great interest if for no other reason than to develop a piecemeal policy to enter into free trade agreements with South America?

The United States signed the agreement in 2006, but never ratified it. It was never passed in Congress because of the human rights aspect. Just before the election of Barack Obama, I travelled to Washington, where I met senators and people from Congress. They seemed to want to change their mind, but did not do so. One of the reasons Canada wants to move as quickly as possible is to get the edge on the United States and negotiate tariff reductions that are more favourable to Canada than to the United States.

Statistics on crime in Colombia paint a very grim picture. In 2008, while we discussed the free trade agreement in committee, crime committed by paramilitary groups rose by 41%. The Conservatives, however, told us that things were going well and the situation was improving. Crimes committed by the government security forces rose by 9%. Despite the increase in crime, impunity remains unchanged. Only 3% of crime ends in a conviction.

Since 1996, 2,690 trade unionists have been killed. While murders of trade unionists have declined somewhat since 2001, the murders have resumed since 2007. There were 39 murders of trade unionists in 2007 and 46 in 2008, while we were hearing witnesses in committee. The Conservative Party said the situation was improving, when it was worsening. They said trade unionists had made progress.

Colombia does not have a legal framework to govern collective bargaining. On that point, about 95% of the public sector workforce is not covered by legislation governing collective bargaining. The situation is similar in every field, but I am sensitive to what the Colombian community is experiencing. Blindly signing whatever free trade agreement is presented is not the way to help them. We need to have a genuine desire to help these people get out of this stagnant situation and treat them as equals. Conditions have to be comparable and the agreement has to help both parties.

At present, we have the impression that the Canadian government wants to exploit Colombia. Colombians have enough problems already. I hope Canada will not make things worse.

In the past, we could count on the Liberal Party, which had genuinely demonstrated compassion and a desire to improve the situation in Colombia before doing business with it. The Conservative government said we had to hurry up because we needed to do business, to export and import.

The figures show that no free trade agreement officially applies, but there has been an increase in trade with Colombia between individuals. The fact that no free trade agreement applies has not reduced transactions between the two countries. In the normal course, they increase.

Some members of the committee have changed because the party leaders changed, but I recall that the previous leader of the Liberal Party was very sensitive to this situation. I think this kind of agreement would not have been accepted. The environmental aspect was important to him, and it still is.

There is also the human rights aspect. It is inconceivable that we would sign a free trade agreement without making sure that effective policies have been implemented. We must not act like Uribe and blow smoke in our eyes for a brief instant. It is known now that he will not be there any longer, so it is increasing.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, we now know what the government was doing while it was recalibrating after proroguing Parliament. It was basically cooking up a deal with the Liberals to support Bill C-2. Make no mistake, this agreement could not pass in the House if it were not for the Liberals' changing sides and cooking up a deal with the government to support it.

In 2008, the Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that a human rights impact assessment be undertaken, but that was under the previous Liberal leader and the previous Liberal critic. There was a change of leader and a change of critic, and the new critic has been quoted as saying that Colombia has more robust labour rules than Canada does. I could go on. We have numerous quotes from the member.

We know that Colombian labour laws stifle workers' rights. The rate of unionization is less than 5%, the lowest of any country in the western hemisphere. It seems to me that the Liberal Party has turned completely 180^o in its position on this issue in the last year.

Could the member somehow enlighten us as to what is going on with the Liberals?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member is asking me to enlighten him on some of life's mysteries and on some political mysteries that are often impossible to explain.

There are flip flops. A party gets a taste of power and at some point, the tide turns. And then the tide turns again and that party is left wondering what it would do if it were in office. It thinks that it can ill afford to be against the free trade agreement because, after all, it supports free trade and trade is important. God knows how dangerous that kind of thinking can be. I find it difficult to understand that kind of behaviour.

However, it can be explained by the fact that that party wants to return to power and has often acted a little or I should say a lot like the Conservatives. The Bloc Québécois made a lot of proposals to the Liberals when they were in office. It is strange to see that today, they support practically all of them whereas when they were in office, they rejected them categorically.

In short, life's mysteries are easier to explain than Liberal mysteries.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are debating Bill C-2, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act at second reading. As members know, we are here hopefully to put onto the table fundamental facts, which should be driving the conservation and building up the case that, if this matter gets approval in principle at second reading and goes to committee to hear from expert witnesses, there will be a body of evidence coming from members here. Unfortunately, second reading is being used for something a little different, and that is unfortunate because I know there are many hon. members here who do have this kind of information.

Therefore, I would like to ask the member if he has anything to contribute to the understanding of the bill, whether or not he has any evidence that other jurisdictions that were discussing trade relationships with Colombia have had second thoughts or there has been emerging information that there is some reluctance now, and whether or not there are jurisdictions, in fact, that have announced they will not be proceeding at this time, notwithstanding what leaders of countries said. These are important factors the House should be aware of, and we should use this time wisely. I ask the member for his comments.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

To ask the question is to answer it, Madam Speaker.

By shying away from signing this free trade agreement on the basis of human rights, the United States are acting somewhat contrary to their nature. Some European countries have also done so while we were considering this proposed agreement. I encourage the hon. member and those who might not be aware of what transpired to read the report of the Standing Committee on International Trade and its recommendations. I am tempted to say that the recommendations received 100% support from the Liberals, but I could be mistaken, so I will say 99% support. I want to give them some leeway, because I am really not that mean.

I urge all members of this House to read this document carefully and, then, talk to their colleagues who came with me to Colombia and ask them what they saw there. The people with whom we met did not have any direct interests like mining companies or businesspeople in other sectors do. These were people who experienced oppression, violence and reprisals. It could go as far as murder, depending on what stand they took in that society.

In my riding, we have many people who came from Colombia. Sherbrooke is home to many immigrants. In fact, I think it is one of the cities in the region with the most immigrants. We have many Colombian immigrants. Some of my constituents have experienced things similar to what the hon. member for Joliette described earlier. There are also students from Colombia who are being constantly oppressed. This is still a reality in 2010. More often than not, where does change come from? From university students with a craving for justice and freedom, who are oppressed and under constant threat.

I encourage all members of the House to read the report. Through efforts in terms of international assistance to help the various sectors of activity dig themselves out, something could surely be done and a free trade agreement could be signed with the people seeking to be free.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask this of the hon. member who has so much experience with South America. There are countries in South America that are committed to progressive values. They are democratizing their countries. They are trying to raise the standard of living of their citizens, and they are making human rights progress. I am thinking of countries like Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and even Venezuela. I am wondering if my hon. friend would comment on why he thinks the government has chosen to sign a free trade deal with Colombia, probably the worst violator of human rights in South America, as opposed to these other countries. I am wondering if he thinks Canada's trade policy might be better directed at dealing with trade with other countries including Brazil, notably, which is one of the most powerful emerging economies in the developing world.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not from a trade point of view that this free trade agreement is beneficial to Canada, but rather from an investment point of view. The investment agreement is the twin of chapter 11 of NAFTA. The best resource lands are those from which people were forcibly removed or for which they were simply killed.

These lands were taken without their owners' consent. The day those people decide to claim their rights with regard to those lands after they have been sold to a Canadian company, can one imagine what kind of situation this will create? Once again, the Conservative Party's main focus is to protect the financial interests of those who invest in Colombia, whatever they do.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak to this agreement, which the Bloc Québécois opposes. We could not possibly be in favour of it.

It is hard to understand why the Liberals jumped ship and say—as an hon. member did this morning—that there is less violence and fewer murders now in Colombia when our colleague tells us that 48 trade unionists were killed in 2008, which is not so long ago.

Is it because the Liberals think life is less valuable now than it used to be or that lives in Colombia are not worth much? Is that how we should take it? Or should we assume they are afraid of being accused during the next election of opposing the agreement with Colombia?

In my view, it is probably the latter. It is still too bad, though, that they fail to see how valuable the lives of Colombians are.

We in the Bloc have always been in favour of free trade when it is with countries where the standard of living is roughly comparable to our own. That was true of NAFTA but it is not the case in the agreement with Colombia, where 77% of the people live below the poverty line and 12% in dire poverty.

This means that 17% of the people live in a certain amount of comfort and that real wealth is concentrated in the hands of 1% or 2%. This is the tiny proportion with whom the government wants to sign an agreement. A few Canadians would also like to be able to operate mines and factories without being bothered by the Government of Colombia, which might bring legislation forward that would place restrictions on their operations.

What we need to remember about this free trade agreement is that it will enable Canadians and Quebeckers who have the money to develop new mines or factories to get around potential legislation passed by Colombia.

If the Conservatives were sincere—and I will return to this point—and really wanted to see the situation in Colombia improve, they would start by providing aid and helping to reduce drug trafficking. When poverty in Colombia has been reduced, they could then sign a free trade agreement more or less between equals.

The Liberals are really feeling guilty—at least that is what I heard them saying this morning—and say they will require a report to be submitted every year in order to see whether the situation has improved. Just imagine. They sign an agreement and then they study the reports.

Once the agreement has been signed with the Government of Colombia, are they really going to change their minds and backtrack because of a report? That is nonsense. A report certainly will not change anything.

There is extreme poverty throughout Colombia.

It is really unfortunate and there has to be help in this regard. This country is heavily in debt, has 43 million inhabitants and has wealth concentrated in the hands of a few individuals. So it is hard to imagine respect being given to people working in difficult areas, such as mines, and human rights being upheld. It is also hard to image that the unions will have the power to change the government's attitude.

I would like to quickly go over conditions which prevent the country from readily adopting legislation. We are told it is for trade. Let us take a look at one thing. Colombia exports grain and beef. We have those here. That is their primary production. We are not going to trade cattle for cattle and grain for grain. Is it not really for the extraction of precious metals? I think that would be much more likely. So, it is not a trade agreement, it is an agreement to avoid legal proceedings if damage to the environment results.

The environment is global and important. In other words, the government does not want Colombia to pass restrictive legislation on the environment that would reduce the production of Canadians investing there. In terms of the environment, consideration must be given to potentially dangerous waste from a number of open-pit mines. Deforestation occurs as well. Trees are cut without proper replanting because the mine is open. If there were legislation requiring replanting, some would not be pleased because it would cut into their profits. Landslides are a risk as well. When open pit mines are created over vast areas, mudslides can occur in heavy rains, such as we see increasingly with climate change, which can bury villages built below the cliffs where people go to work in the mines. There are no town planning regulations, it goes without saying. The investors do not like that.

As concerns water, a number of factors may have an impact. What is taken from the mines can impact surface water, drinking water. We have seen this in mines in South America owned by Canadians. The water is so polluted that people can no longer drink it or use it for laundry. Naturally, underground water and the water table can be contaminated. It can have even more sinister effects because water some 40 or 50 kilometres away in another village can be polluted along with all the wells.

So we can see where this leads? Only the word environment and binding environment protection legislation can lead us further. The sole purpose for this free trade agreement is to save investors from having to face too many environmental constraints.

As for labour laws, the situation is the same. It means that people would be given respectable working conditions, that the unions could make demands so that it would cost investors more a few years after they set up. It is too restrictive, so they do not want to hear about it.

Let us talk about health laws now. Whether we are talking about open-pit mines or underground mines, in the long term, health can deteriorate when minerals this dangerous are being extracted. They prefer to let people’s health deteriorate rather than allow a government to enact binding legislation.

Let us also talk about pension laws. We would have to look long and hard to see people being looked after once their career is over. The government could enact pension legislation, and the companies would then have to pay. That is among the things that would not be welcomed by companies that prefer no constraints.

Once again, this is all aimed more at protecting investments than at trade. These are not negotiations between equals. I have described the extent of the poverty in that country. It is quite obvious that we are not going to be selling General Motors cars to the population. We will sell some to a few people who are very rich, and we will sell a few commercial or utility vehicles to people on the ground to promote investment from Canada. It is quite obvious that this agreement is not about free trade with the people. Thinking that amounts to putting on a blindfold.

There is a certain hypocrisy in this kind of agreement. Obliquely, we imply we will be opening up. Yesterday afternoon, I even heard a member of cabinet say that this kind of agreement would allow Canada to develop its foreign trade. That is not the case. Signing an agreement with Colombia is not going to develop Canada’s foreign trade. Be serious! We have to have agreements with Europe. We have to have agreements with people who have money. We have developed our foreign trade with the United States because there are people there with purchasing power; and still there are ups and downs. Because of the current crisis, globalization has had some setbacks.

Other members said earlier that it was time to sign this agreement because of the current global crisis. In a global crisis, poor countries are much harder hit than wealthy countries. Let us now go and see, in Colombia, how hard the Colombians have been hit by the crisis. This is not the time to go and exploit them more, it is the time to help them. If we really wanted to help those people, we would lend them money, we would help them to get on track and develop their country, we would not be proposing to sell them things. It is entirely improbable that this is going to happen.

This kind of agreement will not produce any improvement. Globalization has not improved the situation in every country, but it has greatly improved the situation in the big countries: the United States and its satellite countries.

Let us go and see whether globalization has brought well-being to Africa. The United States sells them rice that is subsidized and grown using super-mechanized methods. In those countries rice growing has been killed off. Elsewhere, countries have killed off the garment manufacturing industry by dumping cheap clothing.

So globalization is not automatically an improvement, particularly for smaller or less wealthy countries like Colombia, whose economic equilibrium is fragile.

Canada is able to make products cheaply and wants to sell them those products, and this will destroy the commercial fabric of those countries, which is very fragile.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Could I ask for a little order, please. Out of respect for the member who is speaking, I ask for a little order until 2 o'clock when the speeches will be finished.

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I will carry on, Madam Speaker.

At present, there is no protection for unions. In Colombia, one can kill a trade unionist and pay a fine. Does that qualify as protection of life and human rights? I think not. In that case, how can we be expected to vote for a free trade agreement with a country where we know human rights are not respected? While some Liberal members said this morning that progress had been made, the fact remains that 48 trade unionists were killed in 2008, as my colleague indicated. That is certainly 48 deaths too many. I do not think that Canada would have tolerated having 48 trade unionist murdered on its territory in 2008. That would make absolutely no sense because human rights are respected in Canada. So why do we not care about a South American country where human rights are much more severely trampled and very little progress is being made? Too little progress can be expected to be made, say within the next year, to see an agreement signed and expect that everything will be fine from then on.

The prevailing political, economic and social conditions in Colombia are deplorable, and not just because there are so many poor people. Conditions are bad because of the 17% of the population that I mentioned earlier, the people who are in government, who keep the government in power, who control commercial activity, and who thwart efforts to pass social legislation. We are not talking about a democratic government that all citizens have a say in. Most of the illiterate people do not have a chance to express themselves. One has to wonder why a government like Colombia's would even want to sign a free trade agreement with Canada. Clearly, the real reason for this agreement is investment.

If Colombia is just after investment, then, to be sure, it will not bite the hands that feed it. It will not pass restrictive laws. It is clear to me that an agreement like this one, with a poor country, is not an agreement between equals. The poor country wants an agreement that makes it easier for investors to play a leading role. This agreement is ill-conceived. It will enable the Government of Colombia to keep doing what it has been doing all along. The government will not voluntarily pass measures that could reduce returns on those investments, and this agreement will not require it to do so.

These are all reasons why we must vote against this agreement. I believe that anyone voting for this agreement will be doing so for purely electoral reasons.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When this bill comes up for debate again in the House, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi will have 10 minutes for questions and comments on his speech.

Bill C-2--Notice of time allocation motion

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, we have debated it for over 30 hours in this chamber and the standing committee has already studied it twice. Unlike the Bloc and the NDP, this government is committed to pursuing a free trade agenda. Therefore, I would like to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-2, 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, 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, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before question period, the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi was able to complete his speech. He now has 10 minutes for questions and comments on his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi said.

I think that what matters most today is that it is election time in Colombia, and independent observers monitoring the situation are accusing the Colombian government of fraud, spreading fear among the population and attempting to intimidate the population. All this information can be found in the report of the pre-electoral mission in Colombia.

In light of the undemocratic situation in Colombia, why is the Conservative government refusing to step in and push the Colombian government to do the right thing and establish democratic rules for those elections?

Also, how come they got a merit award when the government is trying to push this agreement through the House of Commons without the kind of debate that the human rights violations in that country call for?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my NDP colleague for his two excellent questions.

With respect to the first question, I think that the government is looking out for itself in preparation for the next election. There are not many bills right now that do not have to do with law and order. This bill, which would implement a trade agreement with Colombia, could be considered openness in the next election. I must point out that the Conservative government has not shown much openness. That is why I think this bill is pure vote-chasing. I do not understand why the Liberals decided to support it, unless they too are afraid of voters. But they do not know when an election will be held.

The two questions my colleague asked are essentially related.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once again I guess we cannot address often enough the fact that we are here today, and the bill is still viable, entirely because of the Liberals. The bill was completely dead and the government would never have reintroduced it had it not been for the agreement that was cooked up between the government and the Liberal critic.

We know that it was only last year that the House Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that a human rights assessment impact be undertaken.

Under the former Liberal leader, the critic of the day was 100% on side with doing that. Then there was this coup in the Liberal Party. It changed leaders overnight and appointed a new critic, and now the critic has taken the Liberal position from the left over to the extreme right. Now its position is indiscernible from that of the Conservative Party.

As a matter of fact, the Liberal critic has been quoted as saying that Colombia has more robust labour rules than Canada does, and there are other quotes that would certainly question our understanding of what this deal is all about.

I would ask the member once again to give us some ideas as to why he thinks the Liberals flip-flopped back and forth so fast in such a short time.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I answer that question, I would like to add that introducing strong, robust laws in Colombia will not do any good if they are not enforced.

The government is looking to protect Canadian investments that will be made there. It means nothing to them to sign an agreement with Colombia, even though there are robust laws, since they are not enforced.

Why did the Liberals change their minds so fast? As I explained earlier, in the event of an early election, the Liberals are afraid of being perceived as not being open to international trade. But they do not explain the real dangers of violating human rights or the dangers of signing an agreement with a very poor country. We cannot sign a balanced agreement with a poor country.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have some quotations from civil society, human rights, and labour leaders in Colombia on this agreement and the amendment and its requirement to have annual reports tabled to both parliaments and be debated in, for instance, our House of Commons trade committee.

Dr. Jorge Rojas Rodriguez, a civil society leader in Colombia and president of the Consultancy for Human Rights and Displacement, says:

...this proposal sends a strong political message to Colombia about Canada's interest in seeing the human rights situation improve in the coming years.

Dr. Leon Valencia says:

I think it is...useful that the Free Trade Agreement between Colombia and Canada includes an amendment which requires both governments to present an annual report to the respective Parliaments on the repercussions of the agreement on human rights in each country.

This will provide an important yearly forum to discuss the situation in Colombia, and will give Canadian citizens the opportunity to monitor human rights violations in our country.

Colombia's human rights leaders actually see this agreement as a step forward, in terms of human rights engagement. I would hope the Bloc would stand with the people of Colombia, who are seeking better economic opportunities and better human rights engagement and support. We do not want to isolate Colombia and its people but instead to engage them as partners in progress as these fine people move forward.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the hon. member heard a single word of my 20-minute speech. How could he say such a thing if he had been listening? Two Colombians are telling us that humanitarian laws are slightly better than they used to be, but our colleague just said that 48 trade unionists were killed in 2008.

Perhaps the situation has improved, but 2008 was not 20 years ago. It was only two years ago. Even if things have improved, it is not enough. I do not understand why the Liberals feel it is not serious that people are being killed. They are only worried about trade. To me, the fact that 48 trade unionists were killed is very serious. It is unacceptable.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague, who knows this issue like the back of his hand, will be able to answer my question.

An NDP member mentioned why the Liberals, supported by the Conservatives, have re-opened the Pandora's box that is the free trade agreement with Colombia.

Is it possible that these two parties in the House support the mine owners and lobbyists who have specific interest in Colombia and that that is why they want to sign this treaty and enter into free trade with Colombia?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I think it is pretty clear that certain interests are at stake, and this explains their actions.

As I have already indicated, this is not a matter of trade, because the people of Colombia are poor. This is so that companies can mine there, without having to respect the environment, people's health, the unions or the areas around the mines. This is very important. We should not blindly accept this simply because two people from Colombia—who probably have a vested interest—tell us that human rights practices are improving.

The Liberal Party certainly found a compelling lobby to follow. That explains why they changed their minds so suddenly.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we were debating this bill before the House was suspended for the government to recalibrate. The bill was formerly known as Bill C-23, and now we have brought it back as Bill C-2. At this second reading, I want to participate in debating the bill on behalf of my party and to add a few a comments that do not directly affect the bill itself, but deal peripherally with it as a result of some of the comments made today during debate. The minister's response was a low blow in terms of our position as Liberals and was uncalled for, if I may say.

Here we are as the official opposition standing in support of the free trade agreement with Colombia. Yes, the hon. member from the Conservative Party is acknowledging that. Maybe what he should do is tell the Minister of International Trade to be a little more polite in his response, because we are not going to allow the new Conservative Party to give us a lesson on human rights. We are noted as the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, unlike that party, which had to change its name not once and not twice, because Canadians were literally scared of them. However, I am going to get to the essence of the bill.

Last week I held a round table discussion with Ms. Adriana Mejía, a senior minister from Colombia whom we were very fortunate to have visiting with us. She is the deputy minister of foreign affairs in Colombia. In light of the concerns about the human rights situation in Colombia, I thought it would be a great opportunity for us Canadians to hear what the minister had to say, to hear of some of their initiatives and, of course, to question the minister.

I am very pleased to report to the House and Canadians that we had a packed house. There were members from the government, the Liberal Party, the Bloc and there were no members from the New Democratic Party. Well, we might say that maybe they did not know about it, but they knew because I went out of my way to invite them personally. I am very disappointed they could not find one member in their caucus, especially if they were so concerned, to be there and ask questions of that visitor of ours. Nevertheless, the minister went into a very in-depth presentation. She had a deck with her that I will go through and point out certain initiatives they have undertaken to address some of the concerns that we have and other members of the international community and, of course, the UN have.

However, before I go there I want to remind members that last May, before our summer recess, I chaired the committee on international trade and our guest was President Uribe of Colombia. The gentleman was very gracious and gave us a lot of latitude. Whereas initially the Colombians had said no to having any cameras or anyone else there, the president then said, yes, invite the media and people in and let them hear, as we have nothing to hide.

Of course, there were some very constructive yet tough questions put to him. I thought the questioning by the NDP was rude, given that we had invited a head of state of a foreign country. We might agree to disagree, but Canadians are a very well mannered and refined people and in a forum like that, we should ask the tough questions, but politely, civilly and in the Canadian way, and that was not done. I just wanted to put that on the record today.

Canada signing free trade agreements is nothing new, whether by that party or our party, basically the mainstream parties, if I may say, who have governed this country. It is maybe no coincidence that the New Democratic Party has never governed and most likely will never govern. Thank God, they never governed, as there has not been one trade agreement they have supported.

What leads Canadians to believe, with all this huffing and puffing, that they would even sign this agreement? Nothing does. Sometimes the viewership out there puts more credence into what people write as opposed to what politicians say. I will quote from an article:

The MPs should also press for an independent human rights impact assessment--

--which we have--

--as the Commons trade committee has already urged.

--and we are moving forward on that--

But at the same time they should challenge critics of the deal who argue that Canada would set back the cause of human rights by signing a pact. That has yet to be shown. The pact is broadly modelled on others Canada has signed with the United States, Mexico, Israel, Chile and Costa Rica in the past 15 years.

This agreement is patterned around similar agreements that we have made with our other trading partners. I have named some of them. What leads Canadians to believe that we are going to sway from the terms that we have set in the past? Are we going to make worse deals? No, I believe we are going to make better deals because we have learned from the past.

It is not that Colombia is going to make or break our economy, on the contrary. My attitude and the attitude of the Liberal Party is that if there is any kind of business that can be had for Canadians, whether they be Conservatives, Liberals or otherwise, let us go out and get it.

I am not going to go into the details on CAFTA, the Central America free trade agreement. For whatever reason, the Americans were off the starting block much faster than we were. They ratified it by one vote. Who ended up being hurt? Canadians got hurt. The Canadian pork industry got hurt. The beef industry got hurt. Various other sectors in our economy were damaged because the Central American countries signed the agreement with the U.S. and then our leverage as a country was diminished.

I do not want to see that happen here. I am not standing up to defend the government. I am standing on behalf of my party to defend Canadians, Canadian farmers, Canadian workers, Canadian manufacturers and Canadian producers. That is what it is all about. I and other members attended a luncheon and were very impressed when the minister used a PowerPoint presentation to walk us through the concerns that some of these parties are outlining with respect to other countries.

The European Union, an organization made up of 27 countries, is signing an agreement with Colombia. We know very well that European Union has very rigid guidelines as to its trade agreements. Spain is also signing bilateral agreements with Colombia.

With respect to unions, trade union leaders and workers numbered about 800,000 in 2002. Today, the number has doubled to just over 1.5 million. Who is preventing people from forming unions or associations in Colombia? They have doubled in number. With respect to trade union leaders and workers, in 2002, there were 99 trade unions and in 2009, there were 164. That is an 80% increase. To me, these numbers do not indicate that Colombia is taking away the rights of people to form associations or unions.

I will move on to talk about homicides. In 2002, there were just under 29,000 homicides. In 2009, there were a little over 15,000. We can see the concerted effort that has been made to address the concerns that not only the outside world has, but that they have as well.

In 2002 there were 2,882 kidnappings in Colombia, and in 2009 the number was down to 213. I think that is progress. As they say, Rome was not built in a day.

[An hon. member]

It was not 213.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Maybe my colleague from the NDP who made a comment should have been at the luncheon. Maybe he should have heard the minister. If he thought that the minister was lying, he would have had every opportunity to confront the minister, as the president was confronted last June by the NDP. Again I stress how tolerant the president, the head of state, was when he was literally bombarded with comments which I felt was an unprofessional approach. Nevertheless, the gentleman stayed, took the questions and he was gracious enough to respond.

Maybe those members do not like it when I present the facts, but I have to deal with facts. That is what Canadians must know, not the huffing and the puffing that comes from people on the extreme left who, if they had their way, there would be no way.

With respect to victims of massacre, in 2002 there were 680, and in 2009 there were 147. That again is progress.

In 2002 there were 1,645 terrorist attacks, and in 2009 there were 486. I believe they are going in the right direction.

With respect to displacements, there were close to 440,000 in 2002, and in 2009 there were 114,000. That is a success story in itself. Is the number of 114,000 alright? No, even that number is too high.

What these stats are showing us is that they are working on addressing this most serious problem.

I was visited by a gentleman by the name of Frank Pearl, who works with a government program that is investing millions and millions of dollars to reintegrate combatants into society, to reunite them with their families and retrain them so they can become progressive, constructive people within their society and work for a living as opposed to doing other unacceptable acts.

With respect to women's rights, there is an entire section on how they are addressing violence against women. On December 4, 2008, they approved law 1257 for raising awareness, preventing and penalizing forms of violence and discrimination against women. It is not as though they have neglected their responsibility towards women.

With respect to internally displaced persons, I have talked about how they have been reducing those numbers consistently.

I met Mr. Frank Pearl who was kind enough to share some information with me.

Let us turn to children, on whom we put such value here in Canada. I have often said in this House that unless we address the needs of our young men and women, their proper upbringing and early education, then our country will obviously miss out on the future. They are our future. Colombia is doing the same thing. They realize that as well. They are investing heavily in their young men and women.

Let me give an example regarding free education. As of October 2009, resources transferred to schools to subsidize education costs for vulnerable groups have provided benefits for 5,230,446 children. The goal established for 2009 was 4,670,000, so they have in essence exceeded their goal.

The Colombian government, as difficult as its past has been, is making a genuine effort to address the problems we are concerned about.

The way I see it that nation is going to trade with Europe. If it is not Canada today, it is going to be some other country tomorrow.

At the end of the day, my attitude personally, and I know I speak on behalf of my other colleagues on the Liberal side as well, is that we have a unique opportunity not necessarily to benefit by doing trade, not necessarily to go in there and sell them more goods and buy some of their goods as well, as that is secondary to me. We have a unique opportunity to go to this troubled spot, if I can describe it like that, a country that understands its shortcomings but wants to do the right thing. It is dealing with difficult circumstances. The most important thing I see for us is that we have an opportunity as a nation to go there and show them the Canadian way.

If we had taken this very aggressive attitude that we are hearing from the New Democratic Party and from the Bloc as well, we would not be doing any trade with China. We would not be trading anything with China. Just imagine how many jobs Canada would have lost over the years.

What did we do? We know now that human rights, labour violations, et cetera, have been addressed in China. Twenty or 30 years ago, we would not have been able to say that, but we went there. As former prime minister Chrétien used to say, “I will go there”, and he did go there. He did engage with China and he did create jobs and opportunities. Most important, we showed them that there is a responsibility to everything and that it is not just a matter of producing goods and services and making money. It is a combination of things. This is what we are trying to do with Colombia as well.

We were ready to sign the Central America free trade agreement. I would be misleading Canadians and my colleagues here in this honourable chamber if I said that there were no violations in Central America. I am not going to name countries because that would be unfair, but I will just talk about the region. We know very well there are some troubled spots in almost any country in that region, but we were not prepared to go there. By not going there, we hurt our textile and garment industry, our pork industry, our beef industry, and many other industries that have lost out. We could have been there and showed them how we do things here in Canada.

I mentioned Mr. Pearl who was here to visit. The president himself was here and came before the committee, which I chaired, and the senior minister that I referred to was here. It shows us two things. It shows us that Colombia is not walking away. It is not saying it does not have problems. They are the first ones to say, “Yes, we have problems and we want to address them, but we also need help”. If there has ever been a country on this globe that knows how to help, it is Canada. We have an opportunity to put our stamp on Colombia by engaging in this deal.

The United Nations has also put forth certain prerequisites. The United Nations is monitoring this engagement with Colombia very closely. It is not as though the UN is saying, “Go off and do your thing”. That is not how it is. That is how it is being portrayed right now by the NDP, and that is totally unfair and inaccurate. I do not like to use the word “lies”, but it is totally inaccurate, because the UN is on top of it. If the UN is there and if we do not respect it, we are also saying that we do not respect the UN.

I look forward to answering questions from my colleagues. The government's side, the Minister of International Trade and the secretary of state know what our position is. There is no room for low blows or rhetoric at this stage, given that we are more than prepared and happy to work with them to do the right thing.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Liberal Party for its support on this bill. The reason I do that is that this is a much broader issue than simply a trade agreement.

One thing that history has demonstrated is that where countries enter into trade agreements and enter into agreements to arbitrate these disputes, the rule of law develops. Once the rule of law develops in respect of commercial activities, the rule of law in respect of human rights is not far behind. One follows the other. That is what unfortunately the NDP is missing here. It does not understand the connection between the rule of law in respect of commercial relationships and the positive implications it has for human rights.

I am wondering whether the member could comment on that.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with him wholeheartedly. He hit the nail on the head. That is exactly what I am referring to about the Canadian way.

We are a nation that respects the rule of law. We are civil society and we are described as a model in many ways. It is not good having this model only within Canada.

My father taught me one thing. I will provide the fish, but I want to teach them how to fish as well. This is what we are doing. We are going there to show them how we do things. I do not believe we should only keep handing out support. We will hand out support, but we will also hand out knowledge, the way of doing things.

The minister talked about the rule of law, the way we do things, and that is what it is all about. We are not going to do it by sitting here in Canada and becoming an esoteric society and saying we are good. We live in a global economy. We live in the global village. We have an obligation to the future generations, especially Canadian generations, to get out there and do the right thing.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is strange that the member and his party are supporting this bill so firmly. They must have some sort of interest in these activities.

The member said that there have been only 213 murders recently. I find that number shocking. More than 30 members of congress have been arrested in Colombia, including members of the president's immediate family. In addition, 60 paramilitaries are under investigation. These people under investigation work for the Colombian parliament. From 2007 to 2008, crimes committed by paramilitary groups increased from 14% to 41%.

One problem is the displacement of populations. The needs of the mining and agri-food sectors are the main cause of these displacements. What is happening to these people? They are not being properly relocated. They are being pressured by threats, murders and flooding. These people are being kicked off their land and mistreated.

How can the member and his party side with the Conservatives and support a bill that is bad for the people of Colombia?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. I have to be honest with him. I am not going to hide it anymore. I do have an interest and that interest is called what is good for Canada. It very simple.

On displacements, he is absolutely right. I guess he must have not heard when I gave the statistics, so I will give them again. With respect to displacements, in 2002 there was a number totalling 437,967 displaced people in Colombia. In 2009 it was 114,602. I am sorry that this is not zero. It should be zero, but find me one country in the world that is zero and I will ask it to please show us the way to do it.

That country is showing it is doing everything possible to address this horrendous situation. Surely we have an obligation to support that.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the member referred to Colombia as a trouble spot.

The fact is the Americans, who the government tends to follow, had a bill before the Congress for three or four years before we had a bill before the House of Commons, yet it has not been passed. It was not passed under George Bush's tenure. It has not been passed under Barack Obama's tenure. In fact, it is not likely to be passed any time soon. Just a month ago Republican Congress people told us that this deal would never pass the U.S. Congress as long as the Democrats were the majority party in the United States. That is certainly going to continue until November.

Why are the Liberals facilitating the government in a trade deal that the Americans have decided they do not want anything to do with?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, this is Canada, not the United States.

Second, our system moves much more efficiently than the American's. We have seen the example most recently on the health care issue.

Third, President Obama has given guidelines to move forward on this trade deal.

Fourth, the Americans did beat us, as I mentioned earlier, on the Central America free trade agreement and Canada lost.

One thing he did say was that I called it a trouble spot. I agree. If it were not a trouble spot, we would not be having these discussions. We would not have the committee going indepth, hearing the concerns of witnesses et cetera, outlining and identifying concerns in areas directly to the president and down. He mentioned the fact about members of the president's entourage running an investigation. Find me one country that does not have some troubles and will call it Utopia.

Let us not take the holier than thou approach and say that there is total innocence. There is no total innocence in Canada, and there will be never be anywhere.

It is a trouble spot. That is why Canada needs to go there to do it the Canadian way, to show people the Canadian way.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member, my colleague and the vice-chair of the House of Commons trade committee. Does he believe the amendment we have proposed has the capacity to make a real difference, in terms of human rights engagement on a long-term basis in Colombia?

Gerardo Sánchez, the president of the apparel and textile industry of Colombia, has made the following statement, on behalf of the following Colombian unions, fibre and plastics, mechanics, soft drinks and beverages, fruit farming, sewing and embroidery, footwear, flower growing, energy, water, telecommunications, textiles and apparel. He says:

This procedure is welcomed by Colombian workers and we are thankful to the...Parliament of Canada for its position, because it helps strengthen a mechanism already in place that monitors and evaluates the progress in matters of human rights and freedom of association in our country, through annual reports to the...(ILO) and the United Nations.

It also helps our efforts, as trade unions, in [dealing] with the national government to adapt our legislation to the international standards...

Does the member agree with some of these union leaders in Colombia who see our proposed amendment as being constructive?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the critic for international trade, the member for Kings—Hants, is absolutely right. It is all a matter of monitoring. The recommendations speak for themselves. The fact is it would be monitored and addressed by both governments involved and the UN on a yearly basis. It is not just some paper that has been written, or an idea. It is an enforcement mechanism.

I will close with this. The fact that the number of unions, something which I outlined in the statistics I provided earlier, and membership in unions are on the rise is indicative of the fact that the country and that government is saying that it is not adverse to the protection of workers, child labour, women's rights, et cetera.

I believe it will go a long way with these reports. It is a statement of confidence, and I cannot thank him enough for that input.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the House today, yet again in opposition to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. This time it is Bill C-2, 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.

Before I get into the substance of the bill, I will say a word about the process. This is the second time the government has had to introduce the bill. It has been unable to pass it in each of the last two sessions of Parliament as a result of the staunch opposition to this agreement by the NDP caucus and by the Bloc, but in particular, because of our critic for international trade, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

Unfortunately, the Liberal members of the House have been as keen to get the bill passed and out of the public limelight as the Conservatives have been. They know that when it comes to human rights, environmental and labour issues, this is a seriously flawed agreement, but their friends on Bay Street are pushing them hard to support the bill. Just as they have done on so many other occasions, they have completely rolled over.

In theory, therefore, the bill should have passed a long time ago, but the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has almost single-handedly out-organized them. Recognizing that people right across the country, and indeed around the world, are opposed to this trade agreement, he has built a coalition that will do anything in its power to stop this deal from coming into effect, and we in the NDP caucus have been representing those views in the House. I think every one of our members has spoken on the bill. Many of us more than once. We are doing it because the only tool opposition members have at their disposal to stop a bill from passing is to debate it until there is no time left at the end of the session for the bill to get to a vote. We have done that twice now, once in the spring session of last year and once again last fall.

Now we are dealing with the bill a third time, and we are prepared to go to the wall again. What is at stake is nothing less than the protection of human rights, environmental protection and labour rights.

Let me address each of these concerns in turn. Since we are on the eve of Earth Hour, let me start with the environment.

To the extent that free trade agreements result in increased investment, there are often corresponding issues of environmental degradation. This danger comes in one of two forms: a lack of adequate monitoring and enforcement of existing environmental regulations; and shortcomings in domestic environmental policies.

The issue of monitoring and enforcement relates directly to the conflict in Colombia. The Colombian government does not have an effective presence in all parts of the country. As a result, its capacity to perform functions such as enforcing environmental regulations is limited and business compliance with these regulations is low. As free trade increases investment activity, there is a corresponding increase in the likelihood of significant environmental damage.

The second issue is that Colombia's existing environmental policies and regulations are simply not sufficiently well developed. Environmental groups in Colombia point to the fact that Colombia has some internationally recognized environmental legislation and is a signatory to nearly all major international environmental treaties. However, they go on to point out that there was a struggle between two visions in Colombia, economic and environmental. Many sectors in Colombia have seen environmental laws softened or made of secondary importance to economic sustainability.

Much more work needs to be done to build stronger environmental policies and to strengthen evaluation and monitoring standards. For example, Colombia needs to adopt policies to protect sensitive areas and to guard against environmental threats. The Colombian government has not taken any steps to identify environmentally sensitive areas to protect from oil and gas exploration.

Similarly, the issue of deforestation of the jungle in Colombia to make room for large-scale agricultural plantations is also of great concern. Nearly 200,000 hectares of natural forest are lost in Colombia every year due to agriculture, logging, mining, energy development and construction.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement completely ignores these facts and fails to enforce environmental protection. The environment issue is addressed in a side agreement with no enforcement mechanism to force Canada or Colombia to respect environmental rights. The process is seriously flawed. It is just a smokescreen.

We have seen in the past how these side agreements are unenforceable. We just need to look at the North American Free Trade Agreement. There has not been a single successful suit brought under the NAFTA side agreement.

Let us be honest. The Colombian market is hardly a top tier market for Canada. Only 0.15% of Canadian exports actually go to Colombia. As Glen Hodgson, vice-president and chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada, has pointed out:

Our annual trade with Colombia is about the same level as with South Dakota, and it is actually smaller than with Delaware or Rhode Island. Compared to some other markets that are much closer, Colombia is not really a major player...80% of Colombia's imports to Canada are actually duty-free already, so the gains from free trade are probably not as great as they would be in other cases.

So why is this free trade deal such a priority for Canada? It has nothing to do with trade and has everything to do with investments. Since this agreement would contain investment protection provisions, it would help Canadian investors in Colombia, particularly in the mining sector.

If past agreements are any indication, the investment protection provisions in the Canada-Colombia agreement would contain provisions that would allow an investor to directly sue a foreign government if it adopts regulations that diminish the output on its investments. That means progress on environmental and labour laws would be actively constrained by the very language of the free trade deal. It puts the interests of Canadian investors ahead of any improvements in the Colombian standard of living. So much for the Conservative government's contention that this trade deal would actually encourage and facilitate improvements to human rights and environmental and labour standards.

If I am right that this deal has much less to do with trade than with protecting the interests of investors, then it all comes down to politics. However, I would like to remind the government that concerned citizens in Canada far outnumber Canadian mining operations in Colombia and those citizens have made their opposition a clarion call to action.

The Prime Minister would be well aware of the literally thousands of postcards he has received from the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace. I am proud to have a particularly active chapter in my riding of Hamilton Mountain. It has gathered signatures from petitioners of all ages, calling on the government to live up to its commitment on corporate social responsibility.

Its message to the Prime Minister is clear: “At the June 2007 G8 meeting, you stated that the implementation of the recommendations from the National Round Tables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries report would make Canada a leader in corporate social responsibility. One year later, more than 200,000 Canadians told you that they want to see these recommendations implemented. Little has changed. Farmland, forests and water resources are contaminated or destroyed by some Canadian mining operations. People are denied access to and control of the natural resources they need to live in the just, dignified manner to which all are entitled...Standing with the people of the Global South, we insist that you develop legal mechanisms to hold the Canadian mining companies accountable for their actions abroad”.

Here is the line that the Prime Minister really needs to hear: “We're not going away!” That is the real political message. Faith groups, labour groups, environmental groups, indigenous groups and human rights groups are all not going away, and neither are we in the NDP.

Let us look at some of the other concerns that are germane to this debate. As the labour critic for my party, let me go next to some of the issues raised by the Canadian Labour Congress when its president, Ken Georgetti, appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade on behalf of over three million workers from across our country.

In essence, he argued that the signature of a free trade agreement with Colombia would condone the country's deplorable human rights record and implicitly endorse the Colombian government. Rather than sullying its own image through its close relationship with Colombia, Canada should work to uphold its reputation as a human rights leader in the international sphere.

It is worth quoting Ken Georgetti at length, particularly since he addressed the question of whether the labour co-operation agreement provides for an open and robust dispute resolution process, which is the key to protecting labour rights. This is an excerpt of the CLC's submission. It states:

After close examination, we find no evidence to suggest that the Labour Cooperation Agreement, which accompanies the trade agreement, will increase protections for workers in Colombia. The CLC fully agrees with the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers' statement that:

“(T)rade agreements are not written to improve labour standards and there is little evidence that such agreements can become vehicles for the enforcement of labour rights.

While some improvements have been made in the Canada-Colombia agreement, the essential structure of the labour clauses found in previous trade agreements (the NAFTA, Canada-Chile and Canada-Costa Rica), FTAs remain largely unchanged”.

All of these labour side agreements exhibit the same deficiencies. First of all, provisions are found in side agreements rather than in the main text of the trade agreement. They focus on the enforcement of existing domestic labour laws rather than on raising labour standards. Enforcement mechanisms are slow and cumbersome. The dispute resolution mechanisms remain entirely at the discretion of the signatory governments. They are premised upon a model of political cooperation among the signatories and hence, the complaint process is not transparent as it should be and depends on bureaucracies of the parties rather than by independent or even quasi-judicial bodies.

The dispute resolution mechanism is in stark contrast to the rules established for disputes of investment in that the agreement offers no trade sanctions, such as the imposition of countervailing duties or the abrogation of preferential trade status in the event that one of the parties commits a violation regarding labour rights and standards.

Again, our long experience with NAFTA is instructive. Of all complaints submitted during the 15 years of NAFTA, all have ended with consultations among ministries of labour. Not one case has proceeded to an arbitration panel.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is different from previous labour provisions related to Canada's trade agreements in a number of respects. It contains a chapter on labour that is internal to the main agreement, as well as a separate labour cooperation agreement, LCA, or labour side deal. The substance of the labour rights and obligation is found in the side deal, not in the main text.

In less than 500 words, chapter 16 of the CCFTA sets out general statements and objectives with regard to labour. They recognize their obligations under the ILO and affirm that it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing protections afforded in domestic labour laws. Other than that, the labour chapter simply states that parties will obey their own labour laws and will administer the labour cooperation agreement.

In article 1 of the Canada-Colombia labour cooperation agreement, the parties agree to ensure their laws embody ILO principles. The LCA begins by affirming the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, while two commitments refer to the ILO's decent work provisions. This is an important improvement over previous LCAs. However, the obligations outlined in article 1 do not compel governments to make specific improvements in labour law. Rather these basic commitments are basically a statement of good intentions.

In acknowledging basic ILO obligations, the side agreement goes beyond the NAFTA generation of labour provisions. Because Canada and Colombia are already obliged to follow these principles due to their membership in the ILO, however, this is not a particularly laudatory advance. As described in the ILO's follow-up report:

[According to the declaration] all Members, even if they have not ratified the Conventions in question, have an obligation arising from the very fact of membership in the Organization, to respect, to promote and to realize, in good faith and in accordance with the Constitution, the principles concerning the fundamental rights which are the subject of those Conventions, namely: (a) freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; (b) the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour; (c) the effective abolition of child labour; and (d) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

The parties agree that they will not waive labour laws in order to encourage trade or investment. This is a positive step. The problem, however, is that the word investment is deleted in all subsequent references to this goal in the complaints process. In other words, the LCA will not pursue a complaint that the labour law was not applied in order to encourage international investment. As well, the article allows the parties to waive labour laws for any other reason.

Neither is an egregious one time violation of the commitment to enforce labour law subject to sanction. Even if a party is charged with not enforcing its labour law repeatedly, or in a systematic way, then it is acceptable for that party to defend itself by saying it simply decided to allocate resources to some other pressing labour need. Thus it shall not be considered in violation of the agreement and complaints can be dropped.

Articles of the LCA provide for submission, acceptance and review of public communications, which may lead to ministerial consultations between the parties. A review panel may be requested, not by the complainant but by the other party and then convened.

If it considers that the matter is trade related and the party under review has failed to comply with its obligations under the agreement a report is issued. If a party refuses to comply with the report, the panel may then impose a monetary assessment of not more than $15 million U.S. annually, which is paid into a fund to be expended on appropriate labour initiatives in the territory of the party that was subject of the review.

This is the only penalty for labour rights violations under the agreement. To paraphrase, the shocking reality is that in the event of the murder of a trade unionist in Colombia, labour protection simply means that the Colombian government would have to pay money into a development fund. Kill a trade unionist, pay a fine.

Over 2,200 labour activists have been murdered since 1991 and the hunt for trade unionists in Colombia will go on if the price is right. Such is the Conservative government's concept of labour protection.

The penalty for killing a trade unionist was capped at $15 million in any one year paid by the Colombian government into a development fund. To put this in perspective one year's maximum payment of $15 million equates to $5,628 per trade unionist already killed.

How would Canadians feel if the Prime Minister agreed to the same kind of treatment of those who intentionally set out to kill labour organizers within our own borders? This is an outrageous lack of appreciation of human life and it is no labour protection at all.

For all of those reasons the Canadian labour movement believes that the labour side deal will not guarantee labour rights and freedoms because even the weak laws that do exist are not enforced nor will they be enforced as a result of this labour co-operation agreement.

Labour rights are not respected. Workers are not protected. There is a lack of social dialogue and violence is being used deliberately against the trade union movement to eliminate it as an effective defender of workers' rights.

The labour side deal provides no enforceable rights for workers. It is subordinated to the main text of the agreement. There are no mechanisms for independent action by trade unionists and the offending governments have wide sway over what happens in any proceedings that are brought by the other party.

Simply issuing a fine when other trade and investment conflicts are dealt with in all seriousness through investor-state arbitrations, judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, and the party-to-party dispute resolution system, indicates the cynicism embedded in this agreement.

To the question of whether the labour co-operation agreement would be considered an historical advance in defence of workers' rights, the CLC clearly says that it is not.

I know that my time is winding up and I have not even had a chance to address the myriad of other well documented human rights abuses whose victims are primarily human rights advocates, journalists, indigenous people, Afro-Colombians and, as I said earlier, members of unions.

Such abuse is rampant in Colombia. Let me paint a quick picture of what is happening in Colombia. The Uribe Colombian government has one of the worse human rights records in the world. There are 3.8 million internally displaced people, 57% of which are women. The UN calls this the worst humanitarian disaster in the western hemisphere, and it is growing. Nine hundred and fifty-five cases of extrajudicial executions by the army over the last five years have been documented, and the numbers are rising.

Colombian soldiers are accused of executing peasants in rural areas and passing them off as leftist rebels killed in combat, a practice that is known there as false positives.

Sixty-two mafia-like ex-paramilitary, drug-trafficking criminal networks control economic activities and political institutions in 23 of the 31 provinces and are vying with guerrilla groups for control of the drug trade. Despite the demobilization of over 31,000 paramilitary death squad members, abuse and insecurity prevail in the countryside.

Over 60 lawmakers, including senators, governors and mayors representing the president's political coalition are under investigation by the country's attorney general and supreme court for alleged relationships with paramilitary chiefs and collusion and elections fraud. Seventeen are in jail together with Uribe's former head of secret services and campaign manager and high ranking military officials.

Given our knowledge of what is happening in Colombia, it is essential that Canada wield a stick to encourage improvement in Colombia rather than offering Colombia rewards. Rejecting the free trade deal would send a strong signal to the Colombian government that human rights are a vital key to gaining legitimacy in the international sphere.

At a minimum, before ratifying and implementing an agreement with Colombia, we must develop and implement a human rights impact assessment to ensure that there are binding and enforceable protections for labour and human rights within the framework of fair trade.

In fact, both the Canadian and Colombian governments should welcome such an independent and impartial assessment, after all, they claim that conditions have improved and human rights violations have decreased. However, in reality they know that the situation in Colombia would never pass such scrutiny and, if they know that, they must stand in the House and vote against the free trade deal between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question about something that was mentioned earlier and peaked my interest. Dr. Jorge Rojas Rodriguez is a civil society leader in Colombia and president of the Consultancy for Human Rights and Displacement. He says succinctly that “this proposal sends a strong political message to Colombia about Canada's interest in seeing the human rights situation improve in the coming year”.

He also points out on several occasions where a civil society in preparation for this innovative proposal, he calls it innovative, believes the amendments have the potential to set an important precedent for free trade agreements, but he also links that to the improving of human rights in this particular situation.

Dr. Leon Valencia says much the same thing. He says:

This will provide an important yearly forum to discuss the situation in Colombia, and will give Canadian citizens the opportunity to monitor human rights violations in our country.

I sincerely ask what is so wrong about what these people are saying that compels the member to shut down the negotiations and to call off this agreement, which many people feel could be the vanguard toward better relations with Colombia, in much the same way that some people will say that with China we have also improved the record there as well through initiatives around free trade?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really welcome this question because the plan that the member just asked me about is the Liberal amendment to the bill that is before the House. What that amendment suggests is that both parties need to table reports here in Parliament so we can debate whether the “conditions” of this trade agreement are being met.

I know that my Liberal colleague loves such reports but I also know that the Conservative members in the House love those report cards even more, because they laughed themselves silly when the Liberal leader said that he would issue a report card on the Prime Minister. Nobody in the House took those reports seriously, and that is what is wrong with the Liberal amendment.

We do not need report cards. We need action. We cannot say that we will let the abuses happen and then we will report on them after, then we will think about them and see how we can improve them. We need action now. The human rights abuses need to be stopped before they happen. This trade agreement is flawed because it exacerbates those tensions, those issues in Colombia, and we need to take action to stop them.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing that ridicule never killed anyone, because this House would sustain numerous losses.

I have heard the Liberals talk about an amendment to monitor the human rights situation in Colombia. Since we started talking about this agreement—over the past few years, three years at least—the human rights situation in Colombia has not improved, it has deteriorated. Now, they are saying they want to sign the agreement and monitor the human rights situation, as if monitoring the situation was going to make things better.

I find the amendment the Liberals are about to put forward completely ridiculous. As media reports and various situations show, increasing numbers of trade unionists are being murdered and entire populations are being displaced.

I would like to hear my colleague on that.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the hon. member. Either we believe in human rights or we do not, and to suggest, as my Liberal and Conservative colleagues have, that human rights are getting a little bit better is like saying that somebody is a little bit pregnant. Either we believe in human rights or we do not.

If the Liberal and Conservative members are so sure that their perspective on human rights in Colombia would stand up to scrutiny, then why would they not agree at the front end to implement a human rights impact assessment so that we know exactly what is happening in an objective way, instead of statistics that are being thrown about here with absolutely no validators to support an agreement that is seriously flawed.

It is not just the Bloc and New Democrats who are saying that. People who have been on the ground, like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and unions from across this country, including the CLC which represents over three million workers, have all arrived at the same conclusion. People might say that I am wrong but I would suggest that those groups are definitely not.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given that my colleague from Hamilton Mountain is our labour critic, I know we can depend on her to bring labour issues forward. She has talked about environmental and labour laws. She has talked about no trade sanctions for violations and for a waiver of labour laws.

She also talked about NAFTA, which is the one I want to touch base on. The results of what happened with NAFTA have created a lot of problems for Canadian industries and companies. I was at the Cattlemen's Association dinner reception last night. They indicated that they were not against trade deals but that they wanted to see fair trade deals. They did not want to see what happened with NAFTA.

Could my colleague advise us as to what the biggest import is from Colombia into Canada at this point?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed that reception last night with the cattlemen. I am really glad that my colleague had the opportunity to go. I am pleased that she is asking this question because much of the argument here, particularly on the government side, has been about the need for this improved trade relationship.

In reality, if we were to unravel the agreement, we would see that what is coming into Canada is beef and grain. Some Canadians who are watching today may think we have plenty of beef and grain of our own and that we do not need a free trade agreement with Colombia. What is really at stake is not trade at all. It is not about beef and grain. It is about Canadian corporations having the right to invest in mining operations in Colombia, which is why we are so worried about the displacement of indigenous people and Afro-Colombians, and about the degradation of the environment.

Canadians are profoundly worried about corporate social responsibility and the government's inaction on those important issues. People are rallying together around what is happening in the global south and this trade agreement does absolutely nothing to enhance those objectives.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in the past, the member and her colleagues have mentioned the labour agreements that have been agreed to here. Just yesterday I noticed that the government tabled a prospective free trade agreement with Jordan that also includes parallel agreements regarding labour.

Some of the things that interest me very much would be workers' compensation and the like. She takes specific aim at these measures, not just the specific measures but also outside of this agreement. Yesterday, one of her colleagues mentioned including this within the text of the free trade agreement.

I am assuming what she means is that it will have a far more beneficial effect, but does she know of a free trade agreement that does that? In essence, how would that be more powerful than the parallel agreements we speak of here?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the side agreement is completely inadequate on its own. Moving that inadequate side agreement into the main agreement would do absolutely nothing. If we are serious about protecting labour rights, we need to have that comprehensively addressed in any trade agreement that we sign.

More important, it is not just what we have on paper. As part of that, we need to set up a mechanism for enforcement, otherwise those rights are not worth the paper they are written on. From that perspective, as I just spent 20 minutes talking about, this agreement between Canada and Colombia is seriously flawed.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have spoken to Bill C-2.

I sat on the Standing Committee on International Trade, and before the agreement was signed I was also in Colombia as part of a delegation to meet with unions, various NGOs, women's groups, labour groups, businesses and members of the government, in order to assess whether this agreement was valid or not.

At the time, it was the Standing Committee on International Trade that was studying this agreement. The government sent us to Colombia at great expense to observe the situation. However, before we could issue our report and recommendations, following our meetings with members of the government, unions, labour representatives and various groups involved, the government signed the agreement. It is unbelievable.

I was truly shocked to see that a government could be so irresponsible and waste public money that way. Sending a delegation of members of Parliament to Colombia to meet with stakeholders costs money. If the government had any respect for the democratic process, it certainly would not have signed the agreement before reading the recommendations of the Standing Committee on International Trade. But it did sign the agreement and we made recommendations afterward. It is a nice file that probably ended up on a shelf somewhere in the Library of Parliament.

The government went ahead with this agreement. Everything the members who are against this agreement have said in the House is in the recommendations and the observations that were made during our visit to Colombia.

The Conservatives often complained about the debate being hijacked. According to them, too much importance was being placed on the issue of human rights, because this was a trade agreement.

In a recent comment, I thought I heard the Liberals say that they wanted to propose an amendment to the Standing Committee on International Trade, to monitor the evolution of the situation in Colombia.

For two or three years, Colombia has been negotiating different agreements with Canada, as well as the United States and European countries. For the most part, they are opposed to this agreement being signed, because of human rights violations in Colombia. The situation has not improved, and I do not see why it would change.

If I were a representative of the Colombian government and wanted to sign an agreement, I would have done everything I could to make my country more democratic and to solve the problems related to violence and crimes against unionized workers. At least 30 government representatives are currently under investigation for criminal offences.

I would have also taken action to avoid the number population displacements. Mining is the primary activity of some Canadian companies in Colombia, and their practices leave thousands of Colombians homeless. They currently live in ghettos outside of Bogota.

We saw these ghettos, and the situation has not improved. Many unionized workers and union representatives are still being assassinated. Since mining companies must mine in new areas, entire populations continue to be displaced, and they are not left with any resources or means to survive. Statistics show that Colombia is not doing enough to improve the situation.

The United States is, by and large, against signing this agreement, as is Belgium. A press release from Belgium said that the government in the Flemish region also refused to ratify the Belgium-Luxembourg investment agreement with Colombia. Colombia is known for its violations of human, social and environmental rights. Belgium will also oppose the signing of this agreement.

In Canada, however, the Conservatives plan to ratify the agreement with the help of the Liberals, who intend to propose a so-called amendment, but that does not mean much. They will not necessarily vote for that amendment in the House. As we have seen this week, they are perfectly capable of voting against their own amendment.

The Conservatives, with the help of the Liberals, are determined to sign an agreement with a country that does not respect human rights.

We do not support this bill. Our position has not changed since the last session despite the amendment that the Liberals plan to present to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

This amendment is absolutely ridiculous in light of the changing situation in Colombia as reported in the media. Furthermore, statistics show that the number of murdered unionized workers is rising sharply. Violence against workers defending their rights has not diminished. No new environmental standards have been adopted to make mining companies demonstrate greater respect for the environment.

The Liberal amendment will not change a thing because the measure will be overseen by both parties to the agreement. According to the amendment, the governments of Canada and Colombia will be the judges and the judged when it comes to assessing respect for human rights. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Everyone is aware of the situation in Colombia. For the past several years, the country has been struggling with the longest-lasting internal conflict South America has ever seen. This long, seemingly endless conflict has resulted in countless human rights violations, including kidnappings, targeted killings and massive internal displacements that have relegated entire populations to ghettos.

During the Standing Committee on International Trade's mission, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc and NDP members saw all of this for themselves.

I do not recall if my Liberal colleague was with us on that mission, but I am sure that if he was, he saw the situation for many displaced people who had been kicked out of their homes and off their land.

During free trade negotiations, the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are being forcibly displaced and that union leaders and union members are frequently the targets of violence and murder should be particularly worrisome. Yet this does not seem to bother the Conservative and Liberal members. They truly believe that we must enter into a free trade agreement that will have little impact on the Canadian economy, and this has been pointed out on many occasions. In fact, this will help protect the investments of mining companies in Colombia and the people who are making money there. The economic spinoffs for Quebec and Canada are often minimal. Furthermore, these numerous human rights violations are taking place with the complicity of the Colombian government.

I see a member of the Liberal Party is exiting the House. Perhaps he can no longer bear to hear such things, but this is the reality.

The Conservative government, with the support of the Liberals, is saying that the political situation and security have improved considerably in Colombia. I do not know where they are getting their facts and statistics. According to documents obtained by the Bloc Québécois, the situation does not appear to have improved. I also heard some of our NDP colleagues attest to the same documents and the same facts. They agree that the situation has not improved.

La Presse and other international newspapers have reported that many other countries did not want to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia for this very reason. The Conservatives and the Liberals are doing some reading, but I do not know where they are getting their facts.

The free trade agreement between Colombia and the United States was drafted a few years ago, in 2006. We have been talking about an agreement with Colombia for two or three years. The United States has been debating it for four years. However, it has been delayed because the Americans do not want to sign it. Americans are not the most progressive when it comes to social and labour conditions. And yet, they are saying that they cannot sign the agreement because of the lack of respect for human rights. Fair trade requires rules and respect for environmental as well as labour standards. Colombia does not currently respect these standards.

In a speech, the Liberals stated that signing an economic agreement would lead to an improvement in the human rights record, and would help Colombians raise their standard of living as well as improve their living conditions. Let us not be fooled. We know very well that the simple signing of a free trade agreement with this country will not lead to a better distribution of wealth or make the country take better care of the least fortunate, especially when about thirty members of the current government are facing criminal charges.

Will wealth be redistributed? Will they fight social inequality? Will they restore the livelihoods of those who have lost their land? No. We will not swallow it hook, line and sinker. Quebeckers will not believe all that. Quebeckers often say that something can always be done, but everything has its limits.

I think that this agreement has crossed the line. We are not complete imbeciles, yet that is what I am hearing in the House: skewed versions of the social, political, economic and cultural realities in Colombia and, above all, the reality of crime there. Neither the Liberal Party nor the people of Colombia seem to be taking the situation into consideration. They simply want to protect the investments of mining companies in that country. And those companies often undertake their activities without any respect for environmental standards.

In Canada and Quebec, 80% of imports have no tariffs. So this agreement would not significantly improve trade, given that 80% of imports are not even regulated by tariffs. We saw it in terms of international trade.

The President of the United States, Mr. Obama, repeated that he has no intention of signing this free-trade agreement with Colombia. He once again spoke of the terrible working conditions and the Colombian government's lack of respect for workers' rights. Add to that the fact that the government in Belgium's Flemish region does not want to ratify an agreement of this kind either. In Canada, however, the Conservatives and Liberals do not seem to be very preoccupied with or worried about respecting human rights.

It is disturbing to see political parties sign these kinds of agreements. These parties have governed in Canada and, unfortunately, they still have an impact on Quebec's economic development. We are still paying half of our taxes to Ottawa. These parties still have some influence on our social and economic policies. This goes against the values of Quebeckers. Working conditions, respecting the right to strike, respecting workers, unionized workers, women, democracy and justice, are all fundamental values in Quebec. However, this agreement seems to deny these values of solidarity and greater justice for citizens.

Human rights conditions have not really improved in Colombia. Last year, 49 union leaders were assassinated in that country, compared to 46 in 2008 and to 39 in 2007. Through their amendment, the Liberals want to keep track of what is going on in Colombia. I just provided a few figures. I hope that some Liberals will take note of them, because these numbers show what is happening.

Colombia wants to sign an agreement with Canada and with other countries, but the human rights situation is not improving at all.

According to a Human Rights Watch report released in February, illegal armed groups in Colombia have not been demobilized effectively and they continue their intimidation and violence campaigns.

We always get a little carried away because these are critical issues for the future.

In each bilateral trade agreement, it is important to know the reality in the county with which we are doing business. We should take the time to assess the consequences of our decisions, as much for us as for our partner country. Moreover, we should not take into consideration just the commercial aspects of the agreement, but also the human rights situation.

In the case of Colombia, I think that such an agreement—particularly because of the chapter on investment protection—is very worrisome and could affect even more Colombia's ability to protect its population's needs and interests.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nickel Belt, Industry; the hon. member for Labrador, Status of Women.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I will not make a comment at this point as I believe I covered this earlier.

Some of the complaints being brought up in the House today are obviously about the lack of attention being brought to bear on human rights, but more about labour standards, which some member contend are not as great as they should be.

In the future, let us say with the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement or even the comprehensive free trade agreement we are now negotiating with the European Union, which I am sure my hon. colleague from Bloc would not have too much concern about, how would he propose changing these free trade agreements to allow for stronger labour standards and a stronger record on human rights?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague's question is very interesting.

I remember during one debate in the last session, a member from the Liberal Party moved a motion on the corporate social responsibility of companies with economic activities in other countries, such as Colombia. I know the hon. member who moved that motion well. He is a good MP. Having these companies respect the environment while conducting their activities was really important to the Liberals, but we must also respect working conditions. We need to put an end to the exploitation of workers and unrelenting attacks against certain people. I am talking about murder. People are getting killed.

All these conditions should not factor into an agreement. This is not the type of thing we see in a free trade agreement with Europe. It is more about fairer trade. As far as I know, in Europe, in France and Belgium, unions are respected.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for our Bloc colleague.

Earlier we were talking about mining companies. In my riding of Nickel Belt, there is a mining company from Latin America. Last week, a demonstration was held by roughly 5,000 people including dozens and dozens of unionists. Obviously, if we were in Colombia, the demonstration never would have happened because the unionists would have been killed.

I would like to know the Bloc member's opinion on this. Why do the Conservative government and the Liberals want to do business with a country like Colombia, which has no respect for human life in its own country?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with our colleague who just asked the question.

As I said in my speech, human rights and union rights are not respected in that country. The problem is that Canadian companies are going to carry out their economic activities in these places and will often exploit the workers. It seems that there is a certain mentality in international trade. That could come back to haunt us, as we would say in Quebec, because companies become accustomed to not respecting unions and union members. They may condone abuse and violence to achieve their objectives when negotiating with workers.

I met with union leaders when I toured Colombia. These people have a great deal of courage. They are fighting to defend their rights. As we know, ties have been established between Canadian and Colombian unions. These ties should be maintained because important work is being accomplished.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a very good presentation. He has a very good understanding of the problems of Colombians. He is a former union leader and the citizens of Berthier—Maskinongé have a member who is well-informed.

The Liberals, together with the Conservatives, always try to minimize the impact of this agreement. They say everything is all right, that life is beautiful and that everyone in Colombia is doing their best to ensure that human rights are respected. That is simply not true.

Furthermore, they say that 114,000 Colombians were displaced last year in order to make more room for the mining industry. That is like moving an entire federal riding. They say that 114,000 is not a huge number because, before that, 400,000 people were displaced per year. Furthermore, Colombians are not displaced in a civilized manner. They are pressured, threatened, murdered or their land is flooded. That is how it is done in Colombia.

I would like to ask my colleague what does Canada stand to gain from signing a free trade agreement with Colombia?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Shefford, who did an excellent job for a number of years as a member of the FTQ union. He is still just as passionate about defending humanitarian causes and workers' rights.

Some 30 members of the Colombian congress are currently under arrest. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is a link between the members of the Colombian congress and the paramilitaries, who play a big role by murdering many unionized workers.

The number of crimes committed by government security forces increased by 9% last year. The situation is deplorable.

As for Canada and Quebec's interest in signing an agreement with Colombia, members of the Bloc Québécois who were on the Standing Committee on International Trade brought up a specific chapter of the agreement regarding protecting investments. That is the focal point of this agreement.

The mining companies can develop resources in Colombia without having to respect environmental standards and human rights. Furthermore, if lawsuits are filed against these companies, their investments in Colombia will be protected. Precedents are not taken into account.

That is important. I noted that 80% of current Canadian imports from Colombia are not subject to tariffs. That is the only thing of interest we see in this agreement.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-2, and I want to thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for his presentation. I did have a question for him.

A month ago, he and the member for Kings—Hants and I were on a congressional visit in Washington and this topic did come up in some of our meetings. Even though the U.S. bill has been before the United States Congress since 2006, as the member just indicated, it did not pass Congress while George Bush was president and has not passed Congress since Barack Obama has been president, and it will not pass Congress anytime soon. We were told in our meetings by Republicans who support President Uribe and the free trade agreement that they knew it was dead. We were not getting this from Democrats, but Republicans.

It makes one wonder about a group, the government and the Liberal opposition, that tends to follow the United States like little trained seals, like little puppy dogs who follow the Americans and do not do anything the Americans would not do. It seems rather strange that somehow they have quickly put together a little agreement here to get this deal on its way.

The question is, why? How does this deal made here benefit the Liberals? What do the Liberals have to gain from this? This whole agreement has caused them a lot of grief within their own party. Under the previous leader, they were onside asking for a human rights assessment. Then all of a sudden the leadership changed, the critics changed, and they flipped totally the other way and now support the government.

We managed to remove this bill by our efforts last year, and the only way it could possibly have been brought back was with the Liberals' compliance. The Liberals have now made an arrangement and put an amendment that is acceptable to the government.

The question is, for what? After all the grief they had put up with in their caucus, and we are promising them much more grief as the days progress, there must be a lot at stake here for the Liberals to be doing this. I do not know what the government had to promise them to get them onside. Perhaps it was nothing, but I just see a lot of effort being made here for very low returns.

It was pointed out by one of the speakers in the debate earlier today that this bill is nothing more than a red carpet for mining companies. Currently there is $1.3 billion in trade between the two countries. That trade will not be affected by a free trade deal. If we do not pass the free trade deal this year or next year, the $1.3 billion in trade will continue, so what is this trade deal supposed to accomplish?

Do we have projections? Has anyone seen any projections? I think I asked the question last year if anyone had seen any projections from the government of what two-way trade will be next year and the year afterward. We have not heard anything from the government on that. We have not heard any speeches from the government in the last two days. We have not heard much from the Liberals either.

It reminds me of that old song, I think by Peter, Paul and Mary, Where Have All The Flowers Gone? I just substitute the word “Liberals” there. I hear some comments from their bench, but the fact of the matter is that we have a lot of issues, a lot of bills, a lot of things to be addressed and done in this Parliament, and I have questions here.

The government talks about its tough on crime agenda incessantly, saying it is something that has to be done. It is, as Mulroney used to say, the sacred trust. What does the government do? It prorogues Parliaments and wipes out all the bills. So much for the sacred trust.

Now we get back into Parliament. Does the government bring back the crime bills? No. It wants to talk about free trade with Colombia.

Clearly, there is an agenda, one that certainly I do not understand. I do not know that we are really clear about it either. However, members of the Bloc, the previous speaker and others, have alluded to the fact that this is a red carpet for mining companies and big business, that this is all to support investment. They are presumably friends of the other two parties because I have not been lobbied lately by any big mining companies.

Most of the details of this agreement, in terms of why we should not sign it, have been spoken to by other members. For example, Colombia itself is not a significant trading partner with Canada. It is only our fifth-largest trading partner in Latin America. We have dealt with the whole issue of 2,690 trade unionist having been murdered in Colombia since 1986 and that the number in 2008 was up substantially the previous year. One Liberal said that it had been reduced so we were clear to go now.

However, I do want to talk about fair trade. Whenever the NDP opposes one of the Conservatives' free trade deals, they ask us what sort of deal we would support and what it would take to get the NDP to support a free trade deal. In response we say that it has to be a fair trade deal.

The fact is there are more people than the government thinks waking up to the possibilities of what could be in a fair trade deal. We only have to look at the co-operative movements. Even Starbucks sells fair trade coffee. I think the younger people growing up are getting a good education as to what fair trade is all about, as to opposed to “free trade”.

Free trade is all about exploitation, multinational exploitation, essentially flooding, for example, the Colombia agricultural market with cheap agricultural products, displacing farmers who have been on the land for hundreds of years, putting them out of work, forcing them to go to cities where more problems are created and then they become dependent on foreign food.

How could that possibly be a good idea? The whole idea is to develop products in one's own environment and not import things. Trading is great. We cannot grow bananas in Manitoba, so we have to import those from somewhere. However, if we could grow them there, we should grow them there. We should be self-sufficient. Communities should be self-sufficient wherever they are and they should always strive for that.

We are certainly in favour of trade, but we want to have fair trade. We do not want to be flooding markets with cheap products, putting people out of work and ruining the environment in the process. When the environment is ruined and all of the damage is done to the environment, the companies simply walk away and let the government clean up the mess. That is great for investors. If they can buy shares at $20.00, then they go up to $100 and they can pocket the gains, I am sure they will support that type of economic activity. However, we in the House are supposed to think a little more deeply about the matter than simply holus-bolus rolling over and accepting what some corporate group wants us to do.

On that basis, the question is this. What do we mean by fair trade? We mean new trade rules and agreements to promote sustainable practices, domestic job creation and healthy working conditions, while allowing us to manage the supply of goods, promote democratic rights abroad and maintain democratic sovereignty at home.

From my information, tomato farmers in Mexico were put out of work by the thousands when the free trade agreement was expanded to Mexico. Those workers are basically out of jobs. People are no longer able to support themselves on their farms, and they have to buy cheap imports.

How can we promote fair trade? We can promote it by making speeches in Parliament, but the best way is by educating the public to the elements of fair trade so they can in turn put pressure on their MPs and not grow up and develop the way government MPs have. To that extent, we will show some progress but it will take some time.

New trade agreements should encourage improvement in social, environmental and labour conditions rather than just minimize the damage of unrestricted trade. Federal and provincial procurement policies should stimulate Canadian industries by allowing governments to favour suppliers at home. Supply management boards and single desk marketers like the Canadian Wheat Board could help replace imports with domestic products and materials.

The Wheat Board has been under constant attack from the very beginnings of the Reform Party. The present government continues to take whacks at it. It seems the Wheat Board is one of the Conservatives' pet peeves, particularly if they get a majority government.

This is yet another reason why we should never allow the Conservatives to form a majority government. If the Conservatives had four years of a majority government, we would not recognize the country. That is why the public has not given them a majority government. The public will never give them a majority government because Canadians know, at the end of the day, that the Conservatives would do something they could not tolerate.

Another way to promote fair trade is by having local community and individual initiatives to buy fair trade imports and locally produced goods. We see local community and individual initiatives. People in my community are offering fair trade coffee. It causes people to think about this, and that is what we have to do.

If we cannot beat the Conservatives at the boardroom level, and I guess we will never be able to do that, or beat them in advertising, we will have to beat them on the streets. At the end of the day, that is what we will have to do.

Why fair trade and not free trade? Fair trade policies protect the environment by encouraging the use of domestically and locally produced goods. There is less freight, less fuel, less carbon. Why would we ship a product across the continent? It makes no sense to me to send truckloads of produce across the continent when the product can be produced locally.

The environment is a huge issue. Some companies hide behind free trade agreements. They can get into a jurisdiction and hide behind a structure that does not require them to take care of the environment. If they can use all sorts of pesticides without the proper controls, then they essentially gain in the long run because they make more money. At the end of the day, they pollute the environment and perhaps sell a product that is not as healthy as it should be.

Free trade policies, even those created with the environment in mind, do little to impede multinational corporations from polluting the environment, which I have already indicated.

The environmental side agreement of NAFTA, for example, has proven largely unenforceable, particularly when compared with other protections for industry and investors.

A system of fair trade can encourage the growth of Canadian jobs, both in quality and quantity. Fair competition rules and tougher labour standards will put Canadian industries on a level playing field with our trading partners and slow the international race to the bottom, which has resulted in the loss of Canadian manufacturing jobs. We have seen over and over again manufacturing jobs leaving North America and moving to other countries because of the “free trade” deals.

Free trade rules, on the other hand, have hurt Canadian job quality. Since 1989, most Canadian families have seen a decline in real income.

Fair trade can also protect labour rights by fostering the growth of workers' co-operatives and labour unions. Like the environmental side accord, the NAFTA labour agreement has gone mostly unenforced, giving industries that are willing to violate workers' rights incentives to relocate Canadian jobs. Fair trade policies which favour co-ops, unions and equitable pricing will protect workers in the developing world who might otherwise be exploited and take away reasons for Canadian producers to export the jobs. That is all part of rebalancing these agreements, making them more fair than where they are right now.

Fair trade rules will also protect societies and human rights around the globe. That is certainly the big issue we are dealing with in Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, although not the only issue.

Although some predicted a human rights benefit from unrestricted free trade, and we heard that from the member for Kings—Hants over and over again, this has yet to be seen. In contrast, conflicts between locals and multinational corporations in such places as Peru become violent. A fair trade policy that aims for benefits for all parties can protect the most vulnerable from human rights abuses.

That is what it is all about. We have already dealt with this issue, with many people saying that this is a minor trade agreement in the whole scheme of things. I do not know why the government would drive it to the top of its agenda and have the Liberals roll over the way they have, but I guess they are used to that. This is tantamount to putting lipstick on a pig.

The member for Kings—Hants has dressed it all up and he is happy to go along with this, but members in his caucus are not so happy. I do not know how members will vote because the other day we saw two or three Liberals, as a matter of conscience, vote against their own motion and a number of others skipped the vote.

I really do not know what will happen with this vote because several members in the Liberal caucus will proudly vote with us in the NDP. Some members in that caucus will probably miss the vote because there is more to be gained by not being here or voting against than standing up and voting for it.

The previous leader of the Liberal Party and the previous critic had it right two years ago when they were on the international relations committee. They opted for the review that we all wanted. What is wrong with a review? If there are no human rights abuses in Colombia, then why are they afraid of an independent human rights examination. If there are no abuses, it will pass with flying colours and we are on our way.

To have the Liberals simply change leaders and critics and flip their policy is very strange. It has certainly aided in the divisions that currently exist in the Liberal Party. The NDP Party will be happy to watch the drama unfold over the next few days and weeks to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my eloquent colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. I would like to ask him a question inspired by a press release from a coalition of Quebec organizations made up of the Comité pour les droits humains en Amérique latine, the Quebec Network on Continental Integration, the Conseil central du Montréal métropolitain CSN, the United Steelworkers, the Project Accompaniment and Solidarity Colombia, and Development and Peace, a Catholic organization.

These organizations commented on a recent report by the United Nations and Amnesty International about the escalating violence against indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities, including murder and forcible displacement from communal lands to open them to agro-industrial activities and natural resource extraction.

The report also mentions that corruption and fraud are widespread among Colombian authorities. It states that currently, more than 60 members of congress have been charged or convicted or are under investigation for connections with paramilitary groups.

My question is this: Why should we believe that the Colombian government will enforce human rights, the free trade agreement and the investor protection provisions respectfully?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. This is not just made up. It has been documented that the president and his family have been implicated in corruption and there have been charges. Why would the Liberals want to hop into bed to support a government like that?

The Uribe government is basically up for re-election right now. The president himself cannot run because he has finished two terms. The member for Kings—Hants says that the system works because the court decided that he could not run for the third term. The reality is that he simply got one of his henchmen in as his substitute. He has a replacement president that he supports.

The fact is that the Americans do not want to touch this. They are staying away. The Belgians and the Norwegians are staying away. Nobody wants to make the step, nobody except our government and the geniuses on the other side who are running the Liberal Party.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the collection of geniuses, otherwise known as the Mensa group over here, I would like to compliment the hon. member on his speech.

I do not want to raise some of the contentious issues that he raised but I do want to raise some of the points that he made about trade. Let us bear down on what is fundamental in a free trade agreement. It is to bring a nation in all aspects of labour and human rights on a course for economic opportunity and wealth.

He proposes that this particular situation does not fare well and, therefore, needs to be called off. However, many people here, and many experts would agree, and some from the country of Colombia are basically stating that this will bring them out of levels of poverty we have not seen before. They are saying that it will help them get above what they were before and will allow them to create a situation whereby the standards in their country will improve.

Is that not an example of fair trade to be pursued by this particular agreement?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals were on the right track in the beginning when, in 2008, the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that a human rights impact assessment be undertaken. That is all the committee was going to do and the Liberals supported that. That is all we are saying.

If there is an independent review being done and there are no abuses over there, as the member seems to suggest, then why are they afraid of the study? Why will they not let a human rights impact study be undertaken?

Nobody is saying that there will not be a trade agreement with Colombia in the future. We are just saying not now. We want Colombia to clean up the human rights abuses and let us have an independent body that says it is so.

I think, by all means, the United States, Canada and other countries will put them back on the list. However, there are a lot of other countries out there that are more worthy of a fair trade agreement right now than Colombia.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I like the idea that the bill is getting so much debate. I know the government is now hopping mad because it thinks it has had too much debate. These agreements are often dry and clinical because they are conceived by bureaucrats and put together in wordy documents. The fact that it is here in the House and that parliamentarians in Canada are fighting this bill in solidarity with the people of Colombia is something pretty important.

The member made some very good comments differentiating between free trade and fair trade. I think more and more people in Canada want to be proactive on the notion of fair trade and that we cannot separate trade from other issues of human rights, labour rights, environmental rights, social rights and social justice. Gone are the days when these trade agreements can just be rammed through as the government thinks it can do.

I would like the member to elaborate on the fact that we now live in a different world where people are much more proactive about these agreements and are saying that they will not go through.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish we could somehow teach this concept in the school system or have a way of getting the point across to Canadians because I know that Canadians watching the debates yesterday and today, by and large, would probably be well educated now in the bad human rights record of Colombia, but they might not be up to date about what constitutes a fair agreement.

I think people have an open mind and are willing to learn about this but it is a hard concept to explain in a media that is not receptive to the idea in the first place because we are always all about earning money. If it does not make top dollar, then it does not make top spot in the discussion.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government keeps telling us that this free trade agreement contains side agreements on labour and the environment that are not part of the agreement itself. Apparently, these side agreements state that failure to comply with government standards or respect human rights can result in fines of up to $15 million per year.

Once the maximum penalty has been reached, no further penalties can be imposed under the agreement. Companies will be able to flout environmental standards without risking their investments. The government will have no problem getting away with human rights violations. Fifteen million dollars is a drop in the bucket to mining companies that make billions of dollars in profits.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our critic has called that provision “kill a trade unionist, pay a fine” because that is basically what it is. The government has said that if people are killed then it will put money into this fund but only up to $15 million no matter how many people are killed. That is the wrong answer because the government should clean up the whole issue of human rights abuses in Colombia before it starts to promote and push an agreement like this.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in the House of Commons today to denounce Bill C-2, the implementation of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. There are many reasons why I disagree with this bill as it has been introduced by the Conservative government.

My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé made some good points about human rights and spoke about the ineffectiveness of parallel agreements. In my speech I will touch on these issues as well.

For Quebeckers and the citizens of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, certain arguments have come to the forefront of this debate: environmental protection, respect for workers' rights and respect for the most fundamental human rights of the Colombian people.

I would like to explain why I am worried that Bill C-2 will pass. The Canadian government's main motivation is not trade. It is looking to make life easier for the Canadian investors, particularly in mining, who will invest in Colombia. The desire to protect Canadian investments abroad is legitimate. However, it seems obvious to me that this must not be done at the expense of the fundamental rights of Colombians.

I am worried that this agreement would be detrimental to the development of the people of Colombia. We must understand that increased trade should not be the government's only motivation. An agreement such as this must also contain provisions that allow us to establish a position of strength and, through negotiations, to work toward both implementing social measures that would benefit Colombians and establishing rules that respect the environment and laws that improve the living conditions of workers.

Judging by all the investment protection agreements Canada has signed over the years, the one that would bind Canada and Colombia seems ill conceived. All these agreements contain clauses that enable foreign investors to sue the local government if it takes measures that reduce the return on their investment.

To be more specific, we feel that these provisions could be harmful for a country where labour laws, environmental laws and respect for the people are uncertain at best. While attempting to protect our investments, the Canadian government is putting itself in a situation where it could increase the risk of delaying social and environmental progress in a country in great need of such progress.

I would like to point out that my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher referred to some of the organizations that have reported on the situation in Colombia. I thank him for doing that. Colombia's human rights record is one of the worst in the world and certainly in Latin America.

The government of Colombia has the right to adopt, and should adopt, legislation to protect its environment and improve the quality of life of its people. We must determine whether it has the means to implement such measures and the means to fulfill its ambitions.

Yes, this regulation could cause companies that have invested in that country to lose some profits. We need to have some protection against nationalization without compensation, I do admit, but we also must include some provisions that will allow Canada to put pressure on the Colombian authorities.

The Bloc Québécois cannot support the implementation of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, as it stands.

Under no circumstances should the Canadian government swap its ability to pressure the Colombian government to respect human rights and protect the environment for guaranteed profits from investments by Canadian companies abroad.

I would point out that ratification of the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement is also being delayed, particularly because they are trying to clear up concerns over human rights abuses. It is a matter of justice.

I consulted a number of people in my riding of Vaudreuil-Soulanges. I cannot support the bill in its current form until Colombia brings in stricter legislation to protect minimum labour standards and the union movement, as well as stricter legislation to protect the environment.

The advantage of establishing a trade agreement with a country lies in the ability to develop a partnership with it. When economic barriers are reduced, trade between the two countries can increase. That is what one would hope to achieve with an agreement between Canada and Colombia. The likelihood of that happening in the near future is pretty low, though, considering the means being used.

When we look at the figures for imports and exports between Canada and Colombia, we can see that, not surprisingly, the vast majority of Canadian investments are in the excavating industry, specifically in mining. In 2007, imports in that sector accounted for nearly 31% of all imports from Colombia. In dollar figures, this represents almost $138 million. Canada buys only primary commodities from Colombia. We import $155 million worth of coffee, $72 million worth of bananas and $62 million worth of cut flowers. Adding agricultural and agri-food products brings the total to $387 million. Foreign direct investment in Canada is approximately $1 million, while Canadian investment in Colombia is approximately $1 billion.

Here are the aggregate trade data. In 2008, Canadian imports were rising and totalled $644 million, as were Canadian exports, which totalled $704 million. The pace of growth is quite varied, just as we predicted during the debate in the last session. In Quebec, imports amounted to $88 million. That is a 0.5% decrease from 2007. Quebec imports into Colombia represented about 14% of Canada's total imports. Exports amounted to $120 million in 2008 and accounted for about 17% of Canadian exports to Colombia. Quebec exports increased by a little less than 2% between 2007 and 2008.

Canada has other trading partners in Latin America and the Caribbean that rank higher than Colombia. In recent years, trade between Canada and the other Latin American countries has increased considerably, which has meant a smaller share of trade with Colombia than with other countries in the region.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) in Colombia is growing exponentially. To create a predictable environment and ensure that foreign investors will not be dispossessed of their property or have it nationalized without compensation, countries conclude treaties protecting investment. That is standard procedure and the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this kind of treaty.

The Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States had a chapter on protecting investment—chapter 16—and was the first agreement in the world to include a dispute settlement mechanism which both countries could use. The FTA worked very well. No cases of discriminatory measures against foreign investors were reported and none were taken to the arbitration panel. During the five years the FTA was in effect, the value of Canadian investments in the United States increased by 41%.

However, things went downhill with chapter 11 of NAFTA. By virtue of chapter 11 on investment, foreign investors can go directly to international courts, bypassing the filter of the public good that governments would apply. The concept of expropriation is so broad that any legislation that might have the effect of reducing an investor’s profits can be interpreted as expropriation and give rise to a lawsuit. In addition, the amount of the suit is not limited to the amount of the investment and includes all potential future profits. It is completely abusive.

This chapter has been decried by everyone. As soon as legislation, for example to protect the environment, is passed and reduces a foreign investor’s profits, the government is exposed to astronomical lawsuits. Over the years, Ottawa signed several bilateral agreements that basically copied chapter 11 of NAFTA. There was so much criticism, however, that the Liberals stopped signing these kinds of agreements. It is very hard to understand their about-face in this regard, and I hope they will review their position and vote against the present agreement.

Under the Conservatives, Ottawa returned to its old ways and negotiated many such agreements. In the case of Colombia, the Conservative government has ceded to multinationals the task of determining the common good.

The Bloc Québécois opposes the bill to implement the free trade agreement with Colombia because it contains clauses copied wholesale from chapter 11 of NAFTA. The Bloc wants the government to return to the previous approach used in treaties, which did not amount to a charter for the multinationals at the expense of the common good.

The displacement of communities is a serious problem in Colombia. There are several reasons for this human disaster, including internal conflicts within the government, paramilitary groups and guerrillas.

The arrival of extractive industries is also a major reason for forced migration.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, 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, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is once again an honour for me to speak about this proposed agreement between the Conservative government and Colombia.

One might initially wonder why anyone would oppose a free trade agreement with a country that could benefit from the economic growth such an agreement could bring. The answer is found in the details of the agreement, of what it does and does not do.

We feel that this discussion should be about fair trade as well as free trade. By definition, fair trade means fully respecting human rights as a precondition for all trade deals.

Tragically, the number of people executed in Colombia for working towards better human rights, particularly labour rights, has now reached the hundreds. These workers are executed in different ways, often by brigades that represent the state in some form or another.

Unfortunately, even though the Bloc Québécois and NDP both feel it is important to oppose this agreement, the Liberals—in keeping with their lack of principles and beliefs in anything—are saying one thing and then the very opposite, just as they did last week in response to a Bloc motion about the Quebec bridge.

We all remember that, instead of saying they wanted Canada to reclaim the Quebec bridge so that repair work could be completed in the interest of public safety, the Liberals said that maybe the government could split the bill with CN. But CN had already committed to doing the work. This is a bold new trend for the Liberals. They do not want to offend anyone. After all, they consider themselves the “natural governing party”. They are just sitting there, biding their time until it is their turn to govern again. It was interesting to hear the Liberal leader say that people are looking for an alternative. The mere fact that he said so suggests that he does not consider himself to be that alternative.

When it comes to issues like the free trade agreement with Colombia, the Bloc and the NDP have the political courage to speak out against an agreement with a country that does not respect human rights. This is a matter of principle, and human rights principles are non-negotiable.

By once again seeking the middle ground, the Liberals are showing their intellectual and moral weakness. Their latest tactic is to ask the government responsible for failing to respect human rights, the Colombian government, to self-assess. Imagine asking students to grade themselves. That is more or less what we are asking Colombia to do.

This agreement is an utter failure when it comes to human rights. Moreover, as a former environment minister, I can say that when it comes to the environment, the proposed agreement with Colombia has the same weakness, the same flaw as the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In the early days of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the United States was worried that maquiladoras—industrial parks, for want of a better word—would spring up all along the U.S. border. People were worried about poorly paid jobs. After all, that is the purpose of a free trade agreement: to pay workers as little as possible. In other words, because Mexico's environmental standards are inferior to those of the United States, people were worried that American jobs would be outsourced to jurisdictions with lower environmental standards to bring down production costs.

NAFTA was the first agreement in the world to take environmental considerations into account, albeit in a side agreement. As proof that these considerations are not an integral part of the free trade agreement, not a single case has been successfully prosecuted since NAFTA was signed. Nevertheless, this has opened up the possibility of doing better for the future.

What is tragic about this is that instead of learning from NAFTA, we are in the process of making the same mistake again. The wording in the agreement with Colombia has been lifted word for word from NAFTA.

Instead of learning from its mistakes, the Conservative government wants to repeat them. There is only one explanation for this: it does not want any environmental standards to apply to these agreements.

In any case, since the Conservatives came to power, they have been constantly doing things that are detrimental to the environment. In last year's budget, they scrapped the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In the budget implementation bill introduced yesterday, they confirmed their desire to scrap the environmental assessment process in Canada. It is appalling, but once again they are relying on the weakness of the Liberals who last year—it is always worth pointing these things out—sided with the Conservatives to scrap the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

This year, the budget implementation bill will pass because, as usual, enough Liberal members will go and hide behind the curtains to give a de facto majority to the Conservatives, despite their minority status. This is the sad reality in Canada at this time.

This is the Conservatives' fifth budget since coming to power and they are trashing all environmental laws. Not only are they leaving a fiscal and financial debt to future generations, but they are also leaving serious environmental liabilities that only future generations will be able to absorb. However, those future generations will not even have the money to do so because nothing will have been done to build the economy of the future, a green economy where jobs are created and clean and renewable energy infrastructure is established. There is no vision for this. The government only has eyes for the oil sands and that is starting to have devastating effects on our economy. It is therefore not surprising that the Conservatives are prepared to do even more damage with the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

I remember the first time I faced this issue. I was a law student at McGill University in the early 1970s. I was president of the McGill Law Students’ Association and Ralph Nader took part in a debate on multinationals, involving Eric Kierans, Ralph Nader and me. I remember Ralph Nader telling us to be careful because multinationals were becoming more powerful than nation-states. To be perfectly honest, I did not believe him. I thought nation-states were becoming a thing of the past and that the way of the future was globalization. Globalization of values, perhaps; globalization of cultures, perhaps; but when globalization is aimed at just one thing, namely making working people poorer, that is when everyone needs to start asking questions. When globalization seeks the lowest common denominator in terms of the environment and human rights, we must stand up and oppose it.

For that reason, I am pleased that the NDP and the Bloc, the progressive forces, are standing together to stop this agreement with Colombia. For the same reason, I am shocked that a party that has the gall to continue calling itself liberal is trying to find all imaginable and possible excuses to support an agreement that violates the environment and human rights, and that will only impoverish the people, particularly those working in Colombia's agricultural sector. It is inexcusable coming from those who call themselves progressive.

They are unmasked on a regular basis and it is worthwhile, each time, to point out that the Liberal Party of Canada, as Mr. Fowler stated at the weekend conference, has but one thing on its mind: telling people what they want to hear in the hope of being elected. Once elected, it does nothing. That is the sad reality of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Let us see what has happened since NAFTA was signed. The Ethyl Corporation was awarded tens of millions of dollars in damages from the Government of Canada because, in order to protect public health, we prohibited the use of a gasoline additive. Dow Chemical is taking Canada to court. We will be watching to see if Canada decides to defend itself because Quebec has decided to ban 2,4-D. That is tragic because it is a carcinogen. It is in the public's interest to prevent Dow Chemical from using it. However, under this agreement, the government will probably be weaker than Dow Chemical.

It is for such reasons that we must oppose these types of agreements. We in the NDP will stand up and oppose this agreement with Colombia.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the political nature that exists within the House, I would ask my colleague to subtract that for just a moment. Instead of the orange, red and blue teams playing a little game with each other, would he specifically respond to how, in this particular agreement, he personally would strengthen the labour agreements within it?

NDP members have mused openly about how they would include this within the text of the particular bill but I would like the member to be more specific. I would ask that he avoid the politics of the situation for just a moment and get to the gist of the matter. If he is claiming that the mistakes we learned from NAFTA should be applied here, could he tell us what those mistakes were? How would he fix this particular agreement when it comes to labour standards?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we hear a question like that, it is clear that the person asking the question has not read the agreement.

Believe it or not, there is a provision of up to $15 million for fines on people who kill labour activists. When someone kills a labour activist, they pay a fine. That is what the Liberals are supporting here.

We have obligations in terms of human and environmental rights, and towards future generations. But here we are, signing an agreement with a country that does not respect these rights and that will not respect them. Canada must at least set an example: if a country wants to trade with us, it must prove that it is able to respect human rights. The country cannot simply keep tabs on itself and pay fines when someone kills a labour activist.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed the speech by the member for Outremont. He certainly understands trade issues and is one of the foremost members in the House on trade issues.

I want him to comment on the incredible condemnation across the country of the Liberal backroom deal that has happened in the last few hours. The Liberals tried to spin this self-assessment of the Colombian government but the Council of Canadians is calling this amendment a Liberal sellout on human rights. The Canadian Union of Public Employees is saying that it is unconscionable that the Liberals plan to whitewash this deal. Various other organizations from across the country, such as the Canadian Labour Congress, are saying that the bad bill just gets worse. The British Columbia Teachers' Federation finds it incredible that Liberal MPs have proposed an amendment that would have the same government of Colombia make a report on whether there are human rights violations. The Canadian Auto Workers are calling for an immediate halt, as well as the United Church and the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Nobody agrees with this appalling Liberal sellout of human rights. As Robert Fowler said last weekend, the Liberals are in the process of losing their souls. Could the member for Outremont comment on that?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must take issue with the affirmation that the Liberals would be losing their souls because they do not have them to lose. That point needs to be made to begin with. They have none to lose because they have no principles. They do not believe in anything. The only thing they believe in is power and telling people what they want to hear in the hopes of winning the next election. That was Mr. Fowler's point.

With regard to this deal and the long list that my colleague from British Columbia has just read of groups across Canada that are denouncing the Liberal Party's sellout and its abject failure to stand up for human rights, we should remember the good words of someone else who was at the thinkers conference on the weekend, Eddie Goldenberg, former chief of staff to Jean Chrétien, who had the merit of being one of the only Liberals to ever tell the truth.

In a speech to the London Chamber of Commerce in the spring of 2007, Eddie Goldenberg mentioned, on an issue related to this treaty, that when the Liberals signed the Kyoto protocol they did it “to galvanize public opinion”. It was a public relations stunt. He admitted that they had no plan to respect the timing and the exigencies of the Kyoto protocol. They signed it to get votes and then went on to have the worst record in the world in terms of greenhouse gas production. That is what the Liberal Party is about.

Interestingly enough, once Eddie Goldenberg had finally let the cat out of the bag and told people what was going on—

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the member will want to correct the record. He would not want to infer that any member of the House does not speak the truth. In his statements he referred to all members of a particular political party not speaking the truth. I am sure he wants to correct that record.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am not sure that is what the hon. member for Outremont said. Could the hon. member for Outremont very quickly complete his comment?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for listening, unlike the Liberal member who does not like anybody saying anything negative against him. This is Parliament and it is a place for speaking and for debate.

The subject of debate is a free trade agreement with a country that does not respect human rights and does not respect the environment. The Liberals are in favour of it because they have no principles on either of these two issues.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again debating the bill on the implementation of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, which is now called BillC-2.

Today, just as when we dealt with it as Bill C-23, the Bloc Québécois is totally opposed to Bill C-2. The difference now is that the Liberals, like the Canadian government, will become accomplices to the many human rights violations in Colombia.

Just like their Conservative colleagues, the Liberals could not care less about all the recommendations made by the unions and human rights organizations opposed to the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia because that country has one of the worst track records in the world when it comes to human rights. We see that there are two parties and two views, but one and the same vision.

It is no secret that acts of violence and intimidation, as well as fearmongering against Colombian unionists and aboriginal and Afro-Colombian communities, are widespread in Colombia. While dozens of union activists are murdered each year and aboriginal people are evicted and expelled by force from their lands in order to attract foreign investors, Canada is preparing to sign an agreement with a government criticized for its involvement in corruption scandals.

And that is an understatement. The fact that the bill on the implementation of the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia is the first bill submitted to the House by the Conservative government confirms that party's desire to rush it through, in order to cut off debate on the agreement and to silence its opponents.

Why is the Conservative Party still insisting on implementing this agreement even before an assessment of its impacts on human rights is carried out? Such an assessment would help to measure the impact of policies, programs, projects and actions on human rights and would help to evaluate the repercussions of the legal obligations in the agreement.

The Liberals' proposed amendment to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, which the member for King's—Hants introduced last week in the House, is not enough for the Bloc Québécois to support Bill C-2. Any assessment of the agreement's human rights impact must be carried out by an independent agency. Otherwise, it will have no legitimacy.

It is vital that an independent, transparent, neutral assessment be conducted before the free trade agreement is implemented. Even the Public Service Alliance of Canada is calling for one:

—any human rights impact assessment must be carried out by credible third party, independent human rights experts, before the deal is implemented.

Recently, a delegation of 22 election observers, including four Canadians, took part in a two-week international election monitoring mission in Colombia. I would like to share some of the delegation's observations from the field. Speaking on behalf of the delegation, Ms. Pickard said this:

Our first-hand experience contradicts claims the free trade deal will strengthen Colombia's democracy. We found widespread evidence of human rights violations, corruption, resurgent paramilitary groups, and drug violence.

There's a climate of fear among the population, which makes basic democratic principles that Canadians take for granted—like open debate, freedom of political association and participation in the election process—extremely dangerous for Colombians to pursue.

The group's findings show that the free trade deal being pursued by Ottawa is not the way for Canada to be supporting democracy in Colombia. Instead, the Canadian government should be demanding an independent human rights assessment and fundamental reforms in that country before moving forward with the trade deal.

Why a free trade deal with Colombia?

The sole objective of the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia is to facilitate Canadian investment in that country, particularly in the mining sector.

The Bloc Québécois is not against treaties that relate to protecting investment. The Bloc is opposed to implementation of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement because it contains clauses copied from chapter 11 of NAFTA. That chapter has been criticized by many people. As soon as a law, for example on environmental protection, reduces the profits of foreign investors, the national government is exposed to huge lawsuits.

The provisions of the agreement will be prejudicial to small farmers and will lead to the expulsion of indigenous peoples, Afro-Colombians and rural communities to the benefit of the mining companies, which, on the strength of their investors’ rights, will be able to exploit the resources with no real constraint. The situation in Colombia is already unfavourable to these people. Armed groups and paramilitary groups are taking over millions of hectares and using violence to force the displacement of the local population and thus profiting from investments in the oil or mining sectors.

As was confirmed by a member of the Groupe de recherche sur les activités minières en Afrique, or GRAMA, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade, they could not find a mechanism of ensuring that a Canadian mining investment could be made with any sense of security that there was no previous violation of human rights, that the investment would not be potentially supporting people who had engaged in human rights violations, potentially encouraging them to continue that activity, and reinforcing their position, or that the land tenure of the leases, the mineral leases and so on, could be assured to be conflict-free.

This same person recommended that the free trade agreement be subject to a human rights impact assessment. The assessment would eventually lead to the establishment of mechanisms guaranteeing the right of the Colombian government to revoke an exploration concession on lands that were clearly identified as having been a place of forced displacement or massive human rights violations.

As has been mentioned, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement tends to grant greater protection to Canadian companies that invest in the mining sector and exploit its resources.

The Bloc Québécois fears that the investment protection measures provide disproportionate protection to Canadian investors to the detriment of local peoples and the environment.

The Colombian government may pass legislation governing the activities of mining companies, but the Bloc Québécois has always preferred the adoption of mandatory standards and accountability measures to govern the foreign operations of Canadian mining companies.

The Canadian government prefers to dismiss the recommendations of the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive industry in Developing Countries, which included the adoption of mandatory standards on social responsibility and the creation of an independent ombudsman position. The Canadian government prefers to please the mining lobby by proposing standards for voluntary social responsibility.

The serious concerns which led the Standing Committee on International Trade to request a study of the impact of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement on human rights have not disappeared. It is for this reason that implementation of an independent, impartial and complete study of the impact of this agreement on human rights is essential.

If the Conservatives and the Liberals insist on implementing the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, they will be sending a negative message to Quebeckers and Canadians. The Canadian population will become passive witnesses to the violation of human rights in Colombia. In fact, Canada will become complicit in human rights violations in Colombia.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this bill was dead. This was a dead deal until the government got an unexpected gift from the Liberal Party. The Liberal critic rode into town and made a deal with the Colombian government, and surprise. The government is probably still in a state of shock over this development. The Liberal Party is facilitating this deal that was effectively dead until a couple of weeks ago.

I would like to ask the member if she would like to comment on the Liberal role in this process?

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say something intelligent but it is very hard to know where the Liberals stand these days, as the New Democratic member mentioned. The Liberals say one thing and do another.

They reversed their position on the free trade agreement and I am hardly surprised to see them changing position again on Bill C-23, which has become Bill C-2.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the history of both the Bloc and the Parti Québécois is that they have been historically in favour of free trade agreements. Certainly, when the debate evolved back in the 1980s and the 1990s, they were certainly on board with the free trade agreement with the United States, which eventually evolved into NAFTA.

Now, her colleague from the NDP talked about the fact that we should learn from mistakes made in NAFTA and apply them in this particular free trade agreement, and perhaps the Canada-Jordan agreement coming up, and to others as well.

Specifically, what has changed from what was NAFTA and what is in this particular agreement that creates so much passion for her to be against it?

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen great problems with chapter 11 of NAFTA on investment. It enables foreign investors to appeal directly to international tribunals, bypassing the filter of the public good that governments would apply.

The concept of expropriation is so broad that any legislation that would have the effect of reducing an investor’s profits can be deemed expropriation and result in a lawsuit. The amount of the suit is not limited to the amount of the investment and includes all potential future profits. It is totally abusive.

This chapter has been condemned by everyone. As soon as a piece of legislation, for example to protect the environment, reduces a foreign investor’s profits, the government of the country that welcomed the investor is exposed to astronomical lawsuits. Under the Conservatives, now with Liberal support, Ottawa is turning up the heat and negotiating many such agreements.

The Bloc Québécois is opposed to the bill implementing the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia because of the provisions copied from chapter 11 of NAFTA.

That is my answer.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it was a pleasure to listen to my colleague. In listening to what she had to say, I realized something. More and more, the Liberals support Conservative Party positions, even though those positions, especially in regard to human rights, richly deserve our condemnation.

Last week, the Liberals supported the Conservatives again by voting against their own motion. Does my colleague see another worrisome development there? Are the Liberals and Conservatives basically the same?

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, everything my colleague just said is true. We have been wondering where the Liberals are going ever since Parliament resumed, and even before the House was prorogued.

I can only agree with what she said, which is all too true.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with members the details of the labour cooperation agreement that was negotiated in parallel with the Canada-Colombia free trade deal. Trade is the engine of economic growth around the world and Canada is a nation that derives its wealth from exports.

In 2008 the free trade agreement was signed between Canada and Colombia. When this bill is implemented, Canadian businesses and exporters will gain unprecedented open access to Colombia. We are not alone in our efforts.

The European Free Trade Association consisting of Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein has concluded free trade negotiations with Colombia, and so has the United States. The economic opportunities in Colombia are significant. This is an emerging market of 44 million people and an economy that is growing. Forecasts suggest that 4.7% growth in Colombia's GDP will occur over the next five years.

In 2009 two-way merchandise trade between Canada and Colombia totalled more than $1.3 billion with hundreds of Canadian companies doing business with Colombia. It is also an investment destination for over 50 Canadian companies, principally in mining, oil exploration and manufacturing, sectors that are vital to Canadian prosperity and innovation.

As the Prime Minister noted earlier this year in his address to the World Economic Forum, we need to embrace enlightened sovereignty in the context of international trade. He said:

Notions rooted in a narrow view of sovereignty and national self-interest must be reconsidered. We cannot do business as though for one to have more, another must have less.

In other words we need to grow and prosper together. That is the Canadian way of doing business and it is an idea that is worth bringing to international markets.

I would like to speak briefly about how this new agreement will be of benefit to citizens of both countries. Here in Canada, many of our citizens have been dealing with hardship caused by the global economic recession. Now there are many encouraging signs that a sustained recovery is underway and that is thanks to our sound financial system, our resilient private sector, and of course our government's decisive response through the economic action plan.

It is important that the Government of Canada and its citizens continue to stay focused on improving the economy and to do this we need to create opportunity by investing in long-term growth and competitiveness. However, it is just not enough to do this in a manner that only benefits Canadians. We take our international leadership obligations seriously and we want to help improve the lives of those with whom we do business.

Not only is trade responsible for generating much of the world's economic wealth, it also has lifted many people around the world out of poverty and despair. Under the terms of this agreement both parties are committed to ensuring that their laws respect the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

This means that both countries are committed to ensuring that their laws respect basic values including: the right to freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour, and the elimination of discrimination in the workplace.

However, the labour cooperation agreement that we have reached with Colombia does not stop there. To further protect the rights of workers we are also committed to ensuring acceptable protections for occupational health and safety and minimum employment standards such as minimum wage and hours of work.

Finally, the agreement helps to ensure that migrant workers receive the same legal protection as nationals with respect to working conditions. This labour cooperation agreement demonstrates that Canada is eager to share the values it cherishes with those who it engages as business partners.

It is worth noting that what we have achieved with this new agreement is part of a wider set of objectives that our government has established for engaging with other countries in the Americas.

In addition to building increased trade and investment linkages, we see to strengthen and promote our fundamental values of freedom, democracy and human rights.

I would like to take a moment now and address, specifically, the matter of human rights and of how this agreement will help to concretely make a difference in the lives of citizens of Colombia.

Progress on human rights will not happen by shunning Colombia. We need to engage it as a trading partner so we can talk about how to improve the lives of its citizens, and this is the right course of action.

Over the past four decades, Canada's development assistance program has invested $355 million in Colombia, with a pronounced focus on human rights. Over the last three years alone, we have provided $32 million in development assistance to Colombia. We are one of the largest supporters of the work of the Organization of American States to support peace and demobilize paramilitary forces in Colombia.

Our global peace and security fund is helping to promote peace, protect victims rights and strengthen Colombia's judicial system. Canada also enjoys a frank and open dialogue with Colombia's government at the most senior levels.

Engaging with foreign governments that have made significant gains in improving human rights is the most effective way to secure progress and development. We are committed to working with Colombia to ensure it is able to meet the obligations of the new agreement. To complement this agreement, Canada is providing Colombia with $1 million in labour-related technical assistance funding.

It would be a mistake for Canada to turn its back on Colombia and its people. To do so would risk undermining the will Colombia has shown with improving its track record on security and human rights. The labour provisions negotiated in the context of this FTA are some of the most comprehensive and robust ever negotiated by Canada with any of its trade partners.

The labour cooperation agreement commits both countries to enforce their domestic labour laws and to respect internationally recognized core labour standards.

It creates institutions and mechanisms for intergovernmental consultations and joint activities, as well as for independent evaluations and dispute settlement. Citizens can submit complaints to Canada and Colombia concerning any of the obligations found in the agreement.

It also sets out clearly that there are some very real financial consequences for those who fail to respect the obligations in this agreement, with penalties up to $15 million annually. These penalties will accrue in a special cooperation fund. This fund was negotiated to ensure the proper resources were available to improve fundamental human rights in the case where one partner was not living up to the obligations under the agreement.

This fund cannot be used without Canada's approval, ensuring that these key labour issues will be addressed in the most efficient and effective manner. Labour unions and other associations have called for those measures, and we have delivered.

The NDP has falsely claimed that this and other free trade agreements will allow foreign companies to commit serious crimes and to only pay a fine, and this could not be further from the truth. We expect that every country we sign a free trade agreement with will uphold the rule of law including prosecuting those who murder activists and trade unionists.

However, we also recognize that certain criminal acts are part of a larger campaign to undermine fundamental human rights. That is why we negotiated the establishment of this cooperation fund to ensure proper resources exist to tackle systemic challenges to fundamental human rights.

This is an important year for Canadian economic leadership on the world stage. Canada is hosting the meeting of G8 leaders as well as the G20 summit in June 2010. Engaging with foreign governments that have made significant gains in improving human rights is the most effective way to secure progress and development.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was astounded to hear what the minister had to say today, someone who has always described herself as the minister of natural resources. She basically did it again in this speech. The agreement before us is not a trade agreement but an agreement to protect investors.

The minister must admit that Colombia is especially rich in mineral resources. Gold, coal and nickel are often extracted using traditional methods with little concern for even minimal environmental standards.

Will the minister admit that this is not a trade agreement but an agreement to protect investors for the sole purpose of weakening international environmental rules?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, actually what the member says is completely erroneous, except for the fact that I was the minister of natural resources, and am fully aware of the importance of natural resources to a country's economy and prosperity.

However that being said, the important part of this aspect of the free trade agreement, the labour cooperation agreement, is to make sure that when one is investing in the country, one is also helping that country and its citizens to raise their labour agreements and their workplace conditions, to work with them and to ensure we have competitiveness of Canadian exporters and service providers in the sectors that are focused on here, including manufacturing, agriculture and agri-food, financial services, mining, oil and gas.

That is extremely important, but what is important as well is utilizing these tools of trade in order to lift the sustenance and the abilities of the citizens of Colombia, through something like a labour cooperation agreement. The two actually go quite well together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit I feel sorry for the minister, because the Prime Minister's office speaking notes are absolute rubbish.

The minister should know full well, if she read any American newspaper, that the U.S. Congress has refused to ratify any agreement with Colombia, that the European Union is refusing to participate and move forward, and that Norway in EFTA has pulled out of any agreement with Colombia as well. The United Kingdom has pulled out of its troop agreement with Colombia because of the massacres and the massive human rights violations taking place from the military arm of the Colombian regime.

Every single human rights organization and labour organization disagrees with the minister and disagrees with the government. The latest of so many reports indicates there are consistent and clear patterns and clear areas where companies risk benefiting from human rights violations and/or benefiting those responsible for human rights violations.

The government could prove its case by having an independent human rights assessment. Why has it not done that? Why has it not gone to human rights organizations and actually tested its theory on the practitioners of human rights?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated already, the Canada-Colombia labour cooperation agreement actually raises the bar for labour and human rights, while providing Canada with an opportunity to share its best practices in labour standards.

Our government is committed, as we indicated in the Speech from the Throne, to increasing economic development and labour rights to support Colombia in its efforts to improve the prosperity of its citizens. We have said before and will say again that engaging with foreign governments that have made significant gains in improving human rights is the most effective way to secure progress and development in these countries.

The question the member poses does not look at the bigger benefits that are available to the citizens of Colombia as well. We want to engage Colombia, and that is why this free trade agreement is so important. But more important is the fact that we are including within this free trade agreement a labour cooperation agreement that will allow us to share our best practices.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House today, and I hope there will be many more members who rise after me to debate this bill and to defeat this bill, because that is what we are aiming to do.

It was very interesting to hear the Minister of Labour just a few moments ago. I guess the Conservatives are feeling a bit vulnerable with respect to this bill now, feeling they have to send in more ministers to defend their very bad position on this Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

I want to begin my remarks by thanking the NDP trade critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who has done such an amazing job of bringing public awareness to this agreement and how devastating it will be for the people of Colombia.

We are the fourth party in the House, but I will say that we pack a lot of punch. With our friends in the Bloc, we have been holding up this bill for more than a year, and I know this is very troubling to the Conservative government. As with everything else, the Conservatives would just like to ram this bill through. They do not have any respect for this place. In fact, they are quite contemptuous of the House and its proceedings. Should we dare to actually debate something in depth and give analysis, they consider that to be very problematic. But I am really glad we are debating this bill and are shedding the full light of day on what this agreement is all about.

It strikes me that so often these terrible trade agreements are negotiated by nameless bureaucrats and appointees and representatives in backrooms. God knows where they meet; it is all done in secret. We know, in fact, that this particular deal took over one and a half years to negotiate.

There is so little we know about the process. There is so little vested in citizen participation. In fact, there is not any citizen engagement. More and more people, not only in Canada but around the world, are rejecting the whole notion of trade taking place through secret agreements done behind closed doors. This manifestation of globalization, this delegation of power to people who are not accountable and not elected, is something more and more people are disturbed about and are rejecting.

I am really glad we are taking this on in the House and are saying we will not put up with it. We will not allow this agreement to go through and we will do everything we can to stop this free trade agreement from being ratified by the House of Commons. As the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has pointed out, the U.S. Congress and the European parliaments have taken a similar stance. It is the present Conservative government and the Liberal Party that is supporting it who are way out of step and way out of line.

I have heard a number of the speeches in the House on this agreement. I remember when it came up a year ago. It was then Bill C-23. We debated this same bill and I heard many of the arguments.

I remember some comments that the member for Elmwood—Transcona made a few days ago in debating Bill C-2. He pointed out, and rightly so, that citizens, consumers themselves, are saying they want to see fair trade. People as consumers are rejecting products and services that are based on trading practices that they know to be exploitative and based on the whole ideology of the race to the bottom and the conferring of greater and greater rights on multinational corporations. The member's comments were just the tip of the iceberg in terms of reflecting that there is a change in society and that people are no longer willing to put up with these kinds of agreements.

We are being fed a line that somehow this agreement will be good for the people of Canada and for the people of Colombia. There is really no evidence to show that. We do know, however, that it will be very good for corporations that will benefit from this trade agreement. There lies the evidence of what is going on here.

As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility and a duty to examine these agreements from the point of view of the public interest, not from the point of view of private and corporate interests. That is what we are here to do, to defend the public interest and the rights and potential and the vision of what citizens in both countries want to see in terms of their own personal development, their community and their society at large. That is only one of the reasons this agreement should be rejected.

I read some of the background information to the bill and noted that information has been provided by the Canadian Labour Congress and Human Rights Watch in the Now magazine. They have compiled a lot of information about the bill and came up with 10 reasons why it should be rejected. They call it the Colombia count. Their number one reason is that more labour leaders are killed every year in Colombia than in the rest of the world combined: 474 since 2002 and 2,865 in the last 25 years. That is truly an appalling record and very disturbing when we couple that with the fact that Colombia has labour laws that actually shut down and stifle workers' rights, that its rate of unionization is less than 5%, the lowest of any country in the western hemisphere, and that we have had these paramilitaries, these deadly groups that have been murdering people and stifling rights. In 2008 alone, 27 high-ranking army officials were accused of kidnapping and executing civilians. The litany of the horrors goes on and on.

While we heard from the labour minister today that this side agreement is somehow lifting the bar and that we should be proud of it, members of the NDP reject the whole premise that there is some kind of side agreement which is not in the main body of the text. We are calling for an independent human rights assessment. That is the least that should be done in terms of any movement on the bill. We owe it to our brothers and sisters in Colombia. We owe it to the memory of all of the labour leaders and the community activists who have been murdered, harassed or imprisoned and prevented from doing the kinds of things that we would consider to be entirely legitimate and democratic here in Canada. We owe it in their memory to ensure that there is an independent human rights assessment.

I believe that if we had the courage to turn down this agreement, we would actually have support from people in Canada. In my own community in east Vancouver, we have businesses up and down Commercial Drive, which is a very well-known place in Vancouver and a wonderful place to visit. Many of the businesses are engaged in a program and a campaign to promote fair trade. We believe it is the first street in Canada to be named a fair trade street where businesses are encouraged to both sell and use products that are as a result of free trade. It is really remarkable that small, independent businesses are actually choosing to take that route. They are actually saying that they have made the choice not to buy products from suppliers, companies or corporations that have been engaged in the exploitation of workers and engaged in practices that degrade the environment.

It is a wonderful thing when we see that expression coming forward from the grassroots, the local communities. It tells us that there is another path, another vision, an alternative that is based on the notion of trade that supports the rights of people, and that is the fundamental test.

These trade agreements are about the privileges and the huge benefits that these multinational corporations get. We should completely reverse that and say that these agreements need to be about the rights of workers, of civil society, of the environment and of social standards. If we could base our agreements on that, we would see very different agreements in place. We would be prepared to look at that and negotiate those kinds of agreements.

I would like to see more people up in the House defeating Bill C-2. We do not want it to go ahead. This is a bad bill. Let the House of Commons speak for the people of Canada and say that we reject this free trade agreement because it is a bad trade agreement that will only hurt the people of Colombia.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, the member for Vancouver East touched on the human rights violations and specifically talked about trade unionists but I would like her to address another issue.

Canada's Coalition to End Global Poverty has put together a very good document dealing with the fact that Colombia's civil society organizations are concerned that the free trade agreement would not impact on the kinds of egregious human rights violations that we see. They point to very deep connections between human rights violations and commerce in their country. These range from systematic attacks on the trade unionists who resist the liberalization and deregulation of local industry to the dispossession and disappearance of peasants, Afro-Colombians and other indigenous populations. The indigenous populations often live on the lands where the mining and other economic activity is taking place.

Could the member for Vancouver East talk about the fact that indigenous populations are being forced off their lands and are losing access to their culture and language? What would she like to see done to protect those indigenous populations?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan has raised a whole other area of the trade agreement that is of deep concern to us and that is the impact on indigenous people.

When we look at this trade agreement we see that it has all kinds of benefits and luxuries. It is lined with profits for the huge multinational corporations that go into these resource-rich areas. Basically, indigenous people are taken off their land and their rights are trampled on. That is just another reason why this agreement should be rejected.

For an agreement to superimpose itself on traditional practices, take away people's land and destroy the land is something that is serious. It is something we have not fully understood the consequences and impacts of what that will mean in those local communities. I respect the member for raising this because it is another reason to reject this agreement.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Vancouver East for her presentation on an issue that is very important to our country and to the province of British Columbia for the opportunities for expanding trade and opening new markets.

As a member of the international trade committee, I had the privilege of travelling to Colombia a few years ago and meeting with the folks on the ground. I would be the first to agree that it is a very challenging situation but caring Conservatives in our country are looking at this issue through a different lens.

We heard from Connie Watson, the CBC reporter who travelled to Colombia and listened to the people on the ground. She said that a rising tide lifts all boats and that expanding opportunities for the Colombians will open new markets. How will the status quo help the folks from Colombia get out of the poverty that they are in today?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that is exactly what the CBC reporter said. I think her words have been taken out of context. What does expanding trade and opening new markets actually mean? It sounds good but I am concerned that the primary purpose of government has become more new markets, more goods and more consumerism, and I think we need to question that.

I think a lot of people are questioning both the use of resources and how natural resources are being exploited but are also questioning how that exploitation is also an exploitation of human beings, human rights and labour rights. This agreement is flawed because it does not address what is taking place in Colombia. It does not give protection to people. While it might create new markets, the consequences of that are devastating on local communities in Colombia.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am just delighted and very distressed at the same time to speak today to the bill to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

It is quite something to see the government decide, unlike its neighbour to the south—which it often emulates—to negotiate and sign an agreement with a country that fails to respect a number of fundamental rights. Workers' and human rights, in particular, come to mind. Colombia also does not honour certain environmental regulations and standards that, elsewhere in the world, are a given.

I can already hear the government opposite claiming that the members on this side of the House oppose all international trade agreements. That is totally false.That is what the government is claiming, but it is not true. We do not oppose international trade agreements, but we think they should come with regulations and standards. In addition, agreements ensuring human rights must be an integral part of the agreement. This is not about adding side agreements such as those the government is claiming it negotiated in the wake of previous agreements or of the Canada-Colombia agreement. We must have agreements that will truly change behaviour and practices nationally and internationally.

We cannot support this agreement because it is not a trade agreement. It aims first off to protect investors. There are provisions allowing certain investors to take to court any foreign government that would take measures resulting in a reduction in investment or profits. It is clear that this allows certain multinationals to take national governments to court because they chose to implement the best environment and labour practices.

This agreement will have the counterproductive effect of weakening the social safety net and environmental protection measures. All international agreements should raise standards and promote fair and responsible trade.

One of Colombia's greatest assets are its natural heritage and its extraordinary ecosystems. Colombia is the second richest country in the world in its biological, animal and plant diversity—10% of the world's animal and plant species are found there. Given this natural heritage and biodiversity, we must protect these resources essential to the survival of the people in order to build long lasting societies.

So, what does the government do? It decides to sign an agreement that will weaken environmental protection. In Colombia, there are considerable mining resources—gold, emeralds, carbon and nickel—which, unfortunately are still being mined using methods considered rudimentary in the rest of the world.

This means there are many rivers and lakes in Colombia that are now polluted. We see populations displaced within Colombia, particularly among the indigenous people, precisely because these water resources are threatened by mineral exploration and extraction methods that are archaic and worthy of the stone age. It undermines local communities, particularly indigenous populations.

In addition, these mineral resources that are being extracted with these old-fashioned methods use a vulnerable labour force. I am not the one saying this. In 2005, the International Labour Organization estimated that on the Latin American continent, Colombia was one of the countries that unfortunately had the largest proportion of children working in mineral resource exploitation and extraction. This means that 400,000 children in Colombia work extracting its mineral resources. That is completely unacceptable.

We are not talking about workers’ rights, we are talking about social rights, human rights. If we believe that our children should not be cheap labour to be used for making profits, we cannot accept this.

During this time we have a government opposite that is negotiating international agreements and telling us this agreement is a trade agreement, when fundamentally it is an agreement that protects investors. Protects them at whose expense? At the expense of the 400,000 young people working in the mines and extracting the resources? At the expense of union organizers and workers who do not even have a legal framework for collective bargaining? At the expense of the ecosystems that are threatened?

We must never allow international trade agreements designed to protect investors at the expense of natural resources and human rights to flout human rights and children’s rights. We cannot agree to that. Canada decided to sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child at the United Nations, and it specifically provides that we must fight against child labour and defend these young people and children being used as cheap labour in the mines. Canada must fight that.

But it gets worse. This government, which often follows the lead of the United States, should now follow its lead before implementing the Canada-Colombia agreement. In 2006, the Americans called a halt to it. They put their foot on the brake when it came time to implement the agreement with Colombia they had signed in 2006. They said they would go no further and would not ratify the agreement if minimum labour standards and protection for union activity were not guaranteed.

I will conclude with this. What we expect from the government is that it honour its international human rights commitments and that it not try to sell us an agreement that includes side agreements on the pretext that human rights and environmental protection are guaranteed.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague made a great speech.

The NDP has been pushing for progressive fair trade and fair trade agreements that look at the things the member was talking about, such as promoting human rights, a win-win on jobs, raising the quality of jobs and raising Canadians' standard of living, and respecting and enhancing environmental stewardship.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement does the contrary. It clearly fails the human rights test and has only marginal positive economic impact for Canada, and of course destroys the environment.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments as to what this is actually going to do in terms of the environment and human rights.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will have a disastrous effect. We will basically be agreeing to rules which are already unacceptable. The government should draw inspiration from the June 2008 report of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

What did this House of Commons committee recommend? It recommended that the agreement include legislated provisions requiring Canadian companies and businesses to act responsibly where human rights and environmental law are concerned. This goes to show that Canada and the members of this House who are the majority on the committee, in other words opposition members, approved this June 2008 report. We are not against international trade or free trade agreements. We want legislated provisions to be included to ensure that Canadian companies will act responsibly in terms of human rights and environmental law.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie on his remarks.

There is a saying that goes: Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are. I would like to hear the member on this coming together of the Canadian government and the Liberals concerning the Colombian regime, when we know that this is a regime that actually violates human rights and labour rights. There is also the issue of tolerance toward paramilitaries, the almost incestuous ties between the government and these paramilitary groups committing crimes. We can see that the Liberals are siding with the Conservatives to ensure that this free trade deal can be closed. This goes beyond trade.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is completely unacceptable and it goes beyond the issue of trade.

I was talking about the fact that we know entire populations are being displaced in Colombia because natural resources are disappearing, among other things. Take farmers, for example, who are threatened by these armed groups. Entire populations of farmers are being displaced, and the threat is always there. It is nothing new. It is also nothing new in the labour world. More than 2,600 union activists have been killed since 2006. The Liberals knew about this. They were in power. They knew about the situation these people were facing. In 2007 alone, 39 union activists were murdered, and 46 were murdered in 2008, an increase of 18% in one year. The Liberals were aware and are aware of the situation. By supporting the government, they are condoning these actions.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to join other members of the House, my caucus and our party's international trade critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, to once again voice my strong opposition to Bill C-2.

It would be extremely irresponsible for the government to push for the passage of this free trade agreement with Colombia, a country that by far has the worst human rights record in the western hemisphere and is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for trade unionists.

The Conservatives' claims that trade will bring human rights improvements to Colombia are entirely contradicted not just by the facts that I will raise in my address today, but also by the text of the agreement.

The latest in this debate is the proposal by the member for Kings—Hants to allow the Colombian government to assess its own human rights record. The Liberals are joining forces with the Conservatives vis-à-vis letting the Colombian government report on itself. This proposal is lacking in all forms. Could members imagine allowing elementary school kids to give themselves their own grades or allowing criminals to choose their own punishments?

Recently another government added its voice to the growing chorus against this trade deal. The Flanders government, another European government, rejected investment trade between Colombia and Belgium. What were its reasons for doing so? The Flanders government stated that in Colombia there is a huge gulf between the human rights rhetoric and the reality. The Belgian government at least understood that full respect for fundamental human rights must be a precondition for any trade agreement.

It is disappointing that the Liberal Party has backtracked from its earlier position that a full and independent human rights impact assessment should be carried out before a final free trade agreement is ratified with Colombia, especially considering the fact that nothing has changed in Colombia.

Recent UN and Amnesty International reports show escalating violence against indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities, including murder and forcible displacement from communal lands.

The National Labor School of Colombia reported that 45 trade unionists were murdered in 2009. These reports and unacceptably high impunity rates have in the past been enough to stall and even stop similar free trade agreements in allied countries, including Belgium and the United States.

During recent legislative elections in Colombia in which President Uribe's allies were the big winners, polling stations in one-third of the country's municipalities were at risk of violence, corruption or fraud according to the ombudsman's office and election observers who reported vote buying and pressure on voters.

A pre-election observation mission to Colombia in February predicted this would happen based on a tour of the country. The mission's Canadian members concluded that entering into a free trade agreement with Colombia now would not only send the wrong message to Canadians and the Colombian regime, it also may make Canada and Canadian companies passive supporters of continued violence in Colombia.

The reality is there is no chance that rights assessments could fairly be carried out after ratification of the free trade agreement and then by the Colombian government.

The Liberals need to respect the June 2008 recommendation by the Standing Committee on International Trade that an impartial human rights impact assessment be carried out by a competent body which is subject to independent levels of scrutiny and validation before Canada considers ratifying and implementing an agreement with Colombia.

Now that I have talked about the most fundamental flaw in the updated bill, let us go over the main flaws in the agreement and some facts about the current situation in Colombia. The three most appalling aspects of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement are the following.

First and foremost, this agreement fails due to its lack of labour rights protection. Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for trade unionists. They are victims of violence, intimidation and assassination from paramilitary groups linked to the Colombian president. In fact, 2,690 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia since 1986. In 2008, the number of murders was up by 18% over the previous year.

There are some important facts about the Colombian government and President Uribe. Uribe's government has been accused by international human rights organizations of corruption, electoral fraud, complicity in extrajudicial killings by the army, links to paramilitary and right-wing death squads and the use its security forces to spy on the supreme court of Colombia, opposition politicians, government politicians and journalists.

With this type of reality in Colombia, it is clear that in its current form the agreement does not include strong enough labour standards. The division of labour provisions from the main text of the agreement, in addition to the absence of any substantial enforcement mechanism, will do nothing to encourage Colombia to improve its horrendous human rights situation for workers. In fact, in its current form, the agreement could, in many cases, justify the use of violence.

For example, in the agreement the penalty for non-compliance is currently determined by a review panel, one that has the power to require the offending country to pay up to $15 million annually into a co-operation fund, which means basically money is taken from one pot and put into another.

Unfortunately, this type of enforcement measure will do little to encourage the government to change its current approach to trade unionists. If and when a trade unionist is killed, under the provision, all the government would be required to do is pay into this development fund capped at $15 million per year, essentially equating the murder of a trade unionist to paying a fine.

The second way in which the agreement fails is its lack of environmental protection. Environmental issues are addressed in a side agreement, this time with no enforcement mechanism to force Canada or Colombia to respect environmental rights. One fact is nearly 200,000 hectares of natural forest are lost in Colombia every year due to agriculture, logging, mining, energy development and construction.

Another fact is almost four million people in Colombia are internally displaced persons. Sixty per cent of this displacement has been from regions where there is a rich supply of mineral, agricultural or economic resources. In these areas, private companies, their government and paramilitary supporters have come in and, in turn, forced local communities and individuals from their homes.

The side agreement process has serious flaws. In the past, we have witnessed how these side examples are unenforceable. For example, in the case of NAFTA, not a single successful suit has been brought forward under the labour side agreement.

The third major flaw in the agreement is found in the investor chapter. Copied from NAFTA's chapter 11 investor rights, the CCFTA provides powerful rights to private companies. The provision in this chapter gives private companies the ability to sue governments, enforceable through investor state arbitration panels. The arbitration system set up by the investor chapter gives foreign companies the ability to challenge legitimate Canadian environment, labour and social protections.

Canada needs to set the example. It would be highly irresponsible to turn a blind eye to the Colombian situation. We cannot allow Canada to abandon its values and its support of internationally recognized human rights in order to gain economic advantage for its companies at the expense of millions of displaced impoverished Colombians.

The proposed amendment by the member for Kings—Hants will do nothing to stop many instances of human rights violations and will not hold the Colombian government accountable to anyone but itself. I call on all parliamentarians to join me and my caucus in our strong opposition to Bill C-2.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have not seen either Conservatives or Liberals stand to defend their position. It is very simple why they have not. It is because their position is fundamentally indefensible. I would like the member for Sudbury, who spoke very eloquently on this issue, to comment on the flood of national organizations that have condemned the Liberal sellout on human rights.

Every group from the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the United Church, Canadian Auto Workers, British Columbia Teachers' Federation, Canadian Labour Congress, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Council of Canadians, and it goes on and on, all see this as a massive sellout to the Colombian government. It is a government whose president grew in his political career through his connections with the Medellin Cartel. It has been continually connected with paramilitary groups, murderous thugs who have killed dozens of human rights advocates and labour activists in Colombia, as well as the brutal Colombian military that regularly kills innocent Afro-Colombians and aboriginal Colombians.

Given all that, why does the member think the Liberals and Conservatives are concocting this sellout of fundamental Canadian values, of Canadians' fundamental concerns for human rights?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his constant work on this issue. He spoke a bit about the organizations that have come out against this trade deal, from many of the local unions, to our church groups, right across our great country. I had the opportunity to sit down and talk with a local farmer from my riding who heard my speech on this bill prior to prorogation, Bill C-23. As a farmer, he asked me why the Conservatives thought he truly want to sell his product with blood on his hands at the expense of trade unionists, at the expense of the environment. No one wants to see this and that is what the trade deal would do.

The New Democrats want to ensure we bring forward fair trade. We have been talking about fair trade. That is what we need to bring forward when we look at trade agreements with other countries.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I admire the passion with which my colleagues have advocated their position.

As a lawyer, I have been in the courts on human rights matters. I was the former chair of Canadian Food for the Hungry and a member of the B.C. Bar Association. I remember a letter from a Colombian jurist who asked for help. The individual needed the assistance, support and the encouragement of the legal world in other countries. It is personal relationships that will break the cycle of violence. It is not abandoning countries like Colombia, but it is embracing it, getting to know the people, working with them and sharing our values. We do that not only through the commerce of ideas but the commerce of goods and services.

That is what our government advocates. We will break that cycle of violence. We will help the people in Colombia and we will do it by working with them, not by walking away.

Could I hear my friend's response to that?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone is saying that we should walk away from Colombia. What we have said, as I mentioned earlier, is we would like to see a fair trade agreement.

In relation to the relationships, it is important to recognize that when a fund is set up and money has to be paid into that fund if a trade unionist is killed is not what we want to see in a free trade agreement. We want to see fair trade. We would be more than happy to discuss what we could put into a fair trade agreement with Colombia, but as it stands right now, this free trade agreement is not something New Democrats can support.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also rising for the second time to speak to this issue, which is particularly important to me.

I am responsible for status of women issues, and the last time I rose in the House to speak to this bill, which was then Bill C-23, I did not have enough time to make an eloquent speech, because all I did was read out the names of the women who worked in unions and who had been killed because they were union activists. Naming the women killed in 2008 took up all of my time.

Despite what the Minister of Labour had the audacity to say this morning, things have unfortunately not changed, and it is wrong to believe that other countries are working with Colombia and have signed free trade agreements with Colombia, fully aware of the human rights issues.

That is all very easy for us because we are far from Colombia. We are very far from the people who are suffering. We are very far from the people who are being killed. It is easy for us to say we can use human relations to improve the fate of people who have only known suffering so far and whose rights have been denied. It is very easy to say.

It is easy as well to think that a free trade agreement can improve the living conditions of Colombians. It is easy to think such a thing, but we are not that naïve. On this side of the House—at least in this party because I should not speak for the other one—we are not naïve. Our eyes are wide open.

The government is agreeing to sign an accord with a country whose government is widely known to be shot through with corruption, a country that engages in international drug trafficking, a country that still commits acts of violence and even murder on a regular basis. It is taken for granted. People there are afraid to walk down the street because they never know when they might die.

There is a very surprising fact that I would like my Conservative and Liberal colleagues to ponder. Why do they think the countries that have a common border with Colombia refrain from signing any free trade deals with it when they would be the most likely to do so, given their shared border? Have my colleagues ever wondered about that?

It is only natural that these countries do not sign any such agreements because the people there are very close to what goes on every day in Colombia. They see and hear what we in this House choose not to see and hear.

It is very sad that the government refuses to listen to all the requests we have received from unions, groups that take an interest in humanity, and all the groups that defend rights here in Quebec and Canada. All these groups are begging us not to pass this bill without ensuring it has iron-clad guarantees, because Colombia is continuing to do what it always does.

Instead of that, the government imposes constraints as easy as putting a price on someone’s heads. The head of an employee, a worker or a union member is currently worth $200,000. That is what they say. But what is $200,000 to a drug trafficker or a hired gun? That is the question they need to ask themselves.

There are fines for committing murder. Can someone tell me where are we headed? Where are we headed as human beings?

It is confusing sitting in this House when we see what goes on. Does the government over there not have anyone who thinks for themselves? Can it not make decisions without CFAC? Is that the problem? It always needs someone to tell it what to do and then it does so with blinkers and with no thought and no consideration for the consequences.

As I was saying, it is easy not to think of the consequences when one lives far away, when one is not there every day with the people who are suffering and the people who are dying. It is very easy, but for the love of heaven, at some point in time the ministers of this government will have to start talking to each other, read more and look at what is happening in the world. Rather than read L'Osservatore Romano, which only covers religious matters, let them look at what is going on in Colombia and get on with the job that should have been done long ago.

We do not ask a country to sign a free trade agreement and ignore the workers. That is not done. What the government has tried to have us believe this morning, though its Minister of Labour, is that everything was just fine in the best of worlds, that every country wants a free trade agreement with Colombia, perfect country that it is. Once we get there after concluding our free trade agreement with Colombia, it will become perfect. The government will no longer be corrupt. There will be no more murders. Employees and workers will have decent working conditions. Everyone will have a roof over their head. No one will be worried, and no one will be selling cocaine. That might upset some of them.

I think we have to be serious when we talk about people's lives. The government is refusing to bring back home people who are accused and risk getting killed in other countries, like the two young men from Montreal who had an unfortunate accident in a schoolyard in Kuwait. It refuses to bring them back home. Nothing is being done for them, but now prices are being put on the heads of union leaders in a country we know nothing about.

We were in Argentina last week. My colleagues and I had discussions with people who look after trade among South American countries. Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay have agreements together and work together because it is a good thing to have free trade agreements, but these agreements take into account the needs of each as well as human rights, unlike the free trade agreement the government wants us to approve here in this House. How is it that Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay, which have a lot to offer and need a lot, have not concluded a free trade agreement with Colombia?

Who are we to think that we are better than others and will succeed where others have failed? Colombia has to clean up its yard, it must clean up its human rights record, recognize its errors and implement the practices and procedures that will ensure respect for human rights and protect the lives of individuals, even if they are union workers. Let Colombia do that, and then we will reconsider. So long as this does not happen, we are not going to ask the fox to tend the henhouse. That is what we are doing at the moment.

So, we will continue to say no to this agreement, as we have done in the past. My only regret is that the Liberal Party changed its mind on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thoroughly enjoyed the speech by the hon. member for Laval, who has a very good understanding of the situation in Colombia.

I would like her to comment on all the national organizations which have been denouncing for the past few days the Liberal Party's flip-flop on human right issues in Colombia.

Under its previous leader, the Liberal Party expressed concern about the human rights situation in Colombia and said it did not want to proceed with the agreement until an independent, impartial assessment of the situation had been carried out and the impact of this agreement, which raises many concerns with those involved with human rights, were known.

The Liberal Party's flip-flop drew an outcry from many national organizations. Its new leader seems to have little concern for human rights.

I would like to hear the member for Laval on that.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party, the only other party in this House besides the Bloc Québécois that refuses to sign on to this agreement.

Why is he surprised? The Liberal Party has become unrecognizable. It is now voting against its own motions and voting with the government while contending to vote against it. How can this flip-flop by the Liberal Party surprise him? Personally, I do not find it surprising. The leader of that party condoned torture, under certain conditions, and the war in Iraq, under certain conditions.

What I find surprising is that the Liberal Party is holding on to its leader. If the members of that party no longer wish to be Liberals, all they have to do is cross the floor.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is it is even worse than that. The current government had essentially given up on this deal because the opposition members had stalled it now for a year. The government was walking away from this deal. Then, all of a sudden, the new Liberal critic took the initiative on his own to usurp the power of the government and met the president of Colombia. He came up with an amendment and then came to the government and saved it with this bill.

So, we are here solely because of the Liberals, at this stage. It had nothing to do with the government.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. He is right, of course.

This situation is inexplicable. Life is full of such mysteries. The mayor of Quebec City, who was misled over the past few weeks, would agree that we have the right to be angry because we were misled by people whom we believed were as liberal as they claimed to be. Unfortunately, the opposite has turned out to be true. Today, it is clear that the Liberal Party will do whatever it takes to maintain the status quo and avoid an election, just as the Conservative Party is prepared to do and say whatever it takes, to stoop to new lows just to keep its hold on power for a little longer before going to the polls because it is not ready. I think that what is going on here now is deplorable. This is a very sad day for democracy. I hope that they will have the courage to do something different.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in opposition to Bill C-2.

I want to acknowledge the tireless work that our trade critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, has undertaken in trying to raise some of the important issues about what is wrong with this agreement.

It has been over a year that the member and my colleagues, both from the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois, have managed to hold up this piece of legislation. I hope that our arguments in the House will convince other members to vote against it.

We have heard from the government that New Democrats oppose trade. That is actually not correct. What New Democrats consistently speak about in and outside the House is the need for fair trade.

New Democrats have outlined some elements of what a fair trade agreement would look like. A fair trade agreement would promote human rights, be a win-win situation on jobs, raise the quality of jobs, raise Canadians' standard of living, respect and enhance environmental stewardship, and preserve Canada's ability to legislate in areas vital to its interests. It is these kinds of elements of a fair trade agreement that the people of Nanaimo--Cowichan and throughout Canada would be interested in.

The member for Vancouver East talked about a fair trade zone on Commercial Drive in her riding. In my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan many businesses and organizations are very interested in fair trade. They would like to see the elements of fair trade agreements promoted not only internationally but in Canada as well because sometimes our projects do not respect environmental stewardship, for example,

People have talked about this trip to Colombia. My understanding is that the trade committee, after it came back from Colombia, made a number of recommendations. One of them included the following:

The Committee recommends that an independent, impartial, and comprehensive human rights impact assessment should be carried out by a competent body, which is subject to levels of independent scrutiny and validation; the recommendations of this assessment should be addressed before Canada considers signing, ratifying and implementing an agreement with Colombia.

I am going to focus my speech on human rights. I am going to be quoting extensively from the February 2010 Amnesty International report entitled “Colombia: The struggle for survival and dignity: Human rights abuses against indigenous peoples in Colombia”. Because this is such a recent report, I believe it reflects the reality on the ground in Colombia.

We have heard the arguments that we need this trade agreement in order to deal with human rights. That is not what the labour activists and the indigenous people of Colombia are saying. They are concerned that this type of agreement will actually make the conditions in their communities worse.

I want to begin with this quote because the indigenous people of Colombia have consistently refused to get involved with any of the violent factions, no matter which side they are on. This is a quote from the Cauca Regional Indigenous Council, February 12, 2007. It states:

In each moment of tragedy we have relied on our roots and our word, each time they beat us we respond with reason and the strength of unity, each time it is necessary, the mobilization of thought and peaceful action is our tool to live.

The indigenous people of Colombia have seen some of the most egregious acts of violence. To be able to stand and still promote peace as a way to resolve the difficulties that they are facing requires a tremendous amount of courage. I want to cover a few points in this report. Under a section on the internal armed conflict, the report states:

There is little agreement on the underlying causes of the long-running conflict in Colombia. However, the fighting has provided a useful cover for those seeking to expand and protect economic interests. More than 60% of displaced people in Colombia have been forced from their homes and lands in areas of mineral, agricultural or other economic importance.

That statement raises all kinds of concerns because there is no protection in this agreement. The recommendation that the trade committee put forward has not been incorporated. There is no protection to have indigenous people not removed from their land.

Again, quoting from the report:

The impact of Colombia’s long-running internal armed conflict on Indigenous Peoples has been profound and destructive. They have been killed, harassed and driven from their lands by all the parties to the conflict. Despite their determined refusal to be drawn into the hostilities, the threats facing Indigenous Peoples are intensifying.

They give an example:

The Awá Indigenous People were particularly hard hit in 2009 and, according to ONIC, accounted for more than half of all killings of Indigenous people during the year. The catalogue of human rights abuses inflicted on the Awá is emblematic of the dangers facing Indigenous Peoples in Colombia today.

In 2009, at least two massacres were carried out against the Awá in Nariño Department. The first, on 4 February, was carried out by the FARC and resulted in the deaths of 15 people, including two pregnant women, in Barbacoas Municipality. On 26 August 2009, 12 Awá, including six children and an eight-month old baby, were killed and several more injured in El Gran Rosario by gunmen wearing military uniforms and hoods who attacked the community at 5 a.m.

That is just one example. This was in 2009. I have heard government members opposite talk about how much better things have become. Clearly, in 2009, that was simply not the case for the people of Awá.

In case people in the House think only New Democrats, the Bloc and Amnesty International are raising the issue, in July 2009, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people visited Colombia and expressed concern at the grave, critical and profoundly worrying situation facing indigenous peoples in the country.

The report goes on to say:

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in its concluding observations on Colombia published in August 2009, expressed concern “over the continuation of acts of violations of human rights against Afro-Colombians and indigenous peoples, including killings, extra-judicial executions, forced recruitment and enforced disappearances in the context of the armed conflict”. It also noted that “while illegal armed groups bear significant responsibility for violations, reports continue to indicate the direct involvement or collusion of State agents in such acts and that members of the armed forces have publicly stigmatised Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities”.

The report continues:

According to ONIC, the survival of 32 Indigenous groups is at grave risk as a result of the armed conflict, large-scale economic projects, and a lack of state support. The risks faced by these Indigenous Peoples are so serious that in his January 2010 report on Colombia, the Special Rapporteur on indigenous people called on the Colombian state to invite the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide to monitor the situation faced by these communities.

In terms of the prevention of genocide, Indigenous peoples in Colombia are so seriously threatened that the United Nations has been called upon to intervene.

Another section, “Caught in the Conflict”, says:

Killings, kidnappings, enforced disappearances, threats and forced displacement—all continue to ravage Indigenous communities in Colombia. ONIC has estimated that more than 1,400 Indigenous men, women and children were killed as a result of the conflict between 2002 and 2009. They also recorded more than 4,700 collective threats against Indigenous communities during this period, as well as 90 kidnappings and 195 enforced disappearances. Those responsible for these abuses, be they members of guerrilla groups, paramilitaries or members of the security forces, are rarely held to account.

I am not equating our own country to Colombia by any stretch of the imagination, but we have seen the tragedy of displacement for the indigenous peoples of Canada through residential schools and forced relocations. We have seen loss of language and loss of culture.

That is essentially what the section entitled “The Tragedy of Displacement” is dealing with. It says:

Displacement is one of the greatest threats facing Indigenous communities. Often living in areas of intense military conflict and rich in biodiversity, minerals and oil, Indigenous Peoples are at particular risk of forced displacement. Although Indigenous Peoples make up only around 3.4% of the population, they account for 7% of Colombia’s total displaced population, according to the Director of the Office in Colombia of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

A quotation by the Constitutional Court says:

We are haunted by the images of the anguish when we had to leave, running with what little we had or could carry in order to outrun death and desolation. Amidst this anguish, we are in charge of our families, accepting activities that are not traditional in our cultures, such as getting jobs as domestic servants or, in the worst of cases, even selling our bodies…As Indigenous women we have to fight for recognition as displaced people, fight for access to [a] health and education [system] that is not ours, prepare meals with food that is alien to our culture and body; fight so that our families don’t disintegrate and our sons and daughters don’t lose our culture.

The report goes on to say:

This fracturing can result in a breakdown of cultural continuity as young people find themselves in alien environments and deprived of the social and cultural networks and practices necessary for the survival of their communities.

The section, “A Question of Land, Consultation and Consent”, says:

A critical issue for Indigenous peoples is their right not to be removed from their traditional lands without their free, prior and informed consent—one of the core rights contained in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Economic development on their traditional lands must also be subject to the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples. Consent must be given freely without manipulation, threat, or fear of reprisal.

Recently in the throne speech, we heard the Conservative government indicate that it was now prepared to take the next steps around the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We have a situation in Colombia where clearly there has not been that free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples. Why would the Conservative government sign an agreement that was not supportive of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan has done a terrific service to the House of Commons by speaking about the impact on aboriginal peoples.

The Assembly of First Nations has raised major concerns about this agreement, ignored by both the Liberal and Conservative Parties. Concerns have been raised by other human rights organizations. I would like to just cite one report, from MiningWatch Canada and CENSAT/Agua Viva, which said:

Testimony gathered in the course of this study suggests consistent and clear patterns in key areas where companies risk benefiting from human rights violations and/or benefiting those responsible for human rights violations. Under these circumstances, increased investment in the extractive sector is at risk of entrenching and even expanding the already astonishing toll on the human rights of Colombians.

Every Conservative and Liberal member is aware of this. They know about the impact on aboriginal peoples, because it is primarily aboriginal peoples in Colombia who are impacted by this violent forced displacement from land. Why are the Conservatives and Liberals ignoring aboriginal people?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.

I want to come back to the Amnesty International report just for one moment, because there had been a number of recommendations made that would actually protect indigenous peoples in Colombia. One of them is that the free, prior and informed consent as outlined in the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples must be implemented.

In addition, they have asked that the trade agreement comply with the January 2009 Constitutional Court ruling on indigenous peoples and displacement, which calls on the government to devise and implement a plan to guarantee the rights of displaced and endangered indigenous peoples.

If the Conservative government and their Liberal colleagues were truly concerned about the rights of indigenous peoples in Colombia, there are a number of key recommendations that they would see were entrenched within this agreement to absolutely protect those rights.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan for her comments. Coming from British Columbia, I know we have some leaders in the first nations communities right in our own backyard, Westbank First Nation and Osoyoos First Nation, and we are concerned about rights of all Canadians and people around the world.

As a member of the trade committee, as I mentioned, I had an opportunity to go to Colombia. We are concerned about the situation and we want to reach out and help them, so the status quo will not help. We want to find ways to lift up both economies.

I heard the member comment about free and fair trade. Canada is a trading nation. Over two-thirds of our GDP relies on trade. We continue to grow and have the best country in the world. Our quality of life is the envy of folks around the world.

My hon. colleague talks about free and fair trade, but her protectionist party is not the positive way. Could she elaborate on one trade agreement in the history of Canada that the New Democratic Party has supported?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question. I am actually going to flip it the other way around.

My riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan has been directly impacted by the softwood lumber agreement and we have seen job after job leave my community. So when I talk about a fair trade agreement, I want an agreement that protects my community, that makes sure that jobs stay in my community, that there is environmental stewardship, that when we contract with another country in the world, we actually make sure that we are not dragging down the standards in our own country.

That is what a responsible member of Parliament should do.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would have liked my learned colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue to ask a question, but that will come, I am sure.

This morning the member for Outremont also talked about his knowledge of environmental matters, because he was an environment minister. My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie came next and talked about his ideas on that. They have experience in this area.

I had the great honour of being minister of industry, trade and commerce in Quebec for a time. And so I am going to try to talk a little more about the commercial, industrial and investment variables that an agreement of this nature should include.

To begin, I think that, as a matter of principle, what we must not flout are the principles themselves. A principle cannot be negotiated. A principle is not something we adopt if it suits us and change later when the wind changes. That is not how it works. People on the government side, in the Conservative Party, have somewhat hard heads, as we know, and they are digging their heels in. They say they want to sell this bill as a matter of principle. That is fine, they are entitled to do that. And we are entitled to oppose it. Our principles are not the same.

From time to time, the official opposition is, on principle, with us and with the NDP, which stands by its principles. But I am wondering how it is that the official opposition has decided, for somewhat nebulous reasons and on principle, to change sides.

The purpose of a government is to propose things. The purpose of opposition members and the House is to improve them, or to oppose them if the necessary improvements cannot be made.

The government has introduced a bill that, in our opinion, must be widely denounced. Even Human Rights Watch, in February 2010, said that the social situation in Colombia was out of the ordinary and was not improving. If it is not improving, can we, as a government and as parliamentarians, bring pressure to bear to improve it, at the same time as this government wants Canada to sign an agreement with which we are in complete disagreement?

We know very well that the agreement in front of us is not a trade agreement because there is very little trade between Canada and Colombia. It is not the same volume of trade that there is between Canada and the United States, for example. It is an agreement for investments. When we look at it more closely, we see that these investments will be made by corporations from here in mines down there. The investments are not in the urban core and not part of the urban fabric. They will be made in remote areas, where the people live off the land and where the natural resources are, ready to be exploited. So there will be investments.

In a former life, people often hired me to make investments for them. There are some standard provisions. For example, it is normal to have provisions so that if something happens, the business plan cannot be followed as originally laid out. In business speak, those provisions are called covenants, or obligations to do or not do something. I sign a contract and say that if A happens, A being something that will decrease the value or profitability of my investment, I have various avenues of recourse. The final recourse is a refund because of a given situation. Unfortunately, it has happened that an investment was made and it was not profitable. The investor is then reimbursed.

There is still one thing in this agreement that I do not understand. If events were to diminish the profitability of their projects, the companies—and not the state—could basically take justice into their own hands. They could sue the government because their expected production was not met. They could ask for a full reimbursement of their investments and the profits that were not made. That is rather odd. That clause makes no sense in terms of trade.

What types of events could decrease the expected profitability laid out in an investor's business plan? Almost anything, really. If, in order to protect the environment, equipment needed to be added to purify the air, treat waste and improve extraction methods, the expected profitability would obviously decrease.

All environmental aspects would be excluded because, in the short term, they are costly. They might be lucrative in the long term—we see this more and more—but in the short term, for a private investor, they involve costs. The same is true concerning how the labour force is treated. Countries like this use child labour. People there are forced to work, and the working conditions are not like ours. If we want to improve working conditions and reduce the number of children working in mines, what will happen? Salaries will increase, profitability will decrease and businesses would then be able to sue the government. This kind of argument makes no sense.

It goes too far. The concept of expropriation is too broad. Legal proceedings can be far too onerous. We are told that if we invest in a country and expropriation takes place, there will be compensation.

I do not understand why this government is about to give compensation to Canadian businesses and investors in Colombia, yet it refuses to give Quebec any compensation for harmonizing its sales tax. Zero. Nada. Niet. Nothing. What a double standard.

As a final point, I would like to talk about the impact of this agreement, which goes only one way, since it will be Canadian investors who will invest in Colombia. How will this affect Colombia? It will perpetuate the current system. In Canada, it will mean unfair competition for Canadian companies that do not invest in that country, but must compete with other companies that invest there. Workers will no longer be allowed to organize themselves or execute business plans. The only executions will be of those who organize workers and a number of union leaders, as some members have already mentioned.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, out of respect for our principles, will vote against this bill.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments. I am not going to refer back to his vast experience. He sort of reminds me of my former colleague Réal Ménard, whom he replaced very effectively in the riding of Hochelaga, when he used to make his speeches. The hon. member's comments are accurate, they focus on the main issue and they are straight to the point.

As I usually do, I am going to ask a direct question on something that is of interest to me personally. I would like my colleague to elaborate on the possibility of getting compensation. I read the agreement, and this issue is not clear. The possibility of using NAFTA's chapter 11 would allow businesses to be compensated by the Canadian government for losses incurred in Colombia. If this is indeed the case, this agreement not only does not make sense, but it is also very bad.

I have another question. Can the hon. member think of companies that might be interested in doing business with Colombia, other than mining and mineral exploration companies?

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be compared to my predecessor, Réal Ménard, who, I am told, was a great orator here. To have succeeded him, both in Hochelaga and in this House, is an honour that I share with the constituents of Hochelaga.

I did have the opportunity to travel to Colombia to assess investments that were not made at the time. We tried to look at the issue of risk management. Indeed, investing implies the management of risks. We put money down and we may end up getting more or less than our investment. In particular, when we invest abroad, there may be various ways to get compensated when events that are out of our control occur such as, for example, the full nationalization of a specific mineral. The decision is made by the country. I have nothing against compensation, but not huge compensation on an investment and on the expected return.

So, what is going to happen? Mining companies, but also other types of businesses are going to invest in Colombia. A former NDP leader used to talk about corporate bums. These people will invest there, and if things do not work out, they are going to get a refund that will even include a return. This does not make sense. It does not make any sense.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems to have significant interest in the aspect of this free trade agreement that is related to investor confidence, fairness between countries and fairness for Canadian investors.

I am a small-business person myself and have been for decades. I am a Spanish speaker, and I am the kind of potential investor who would be interested in investing in a Colombia that is fair and sustainable, and I could capitalize on the biodiversity and interesting cultures there.

I would ask whether the hon. member has considered that the shift from traditional agriculture and traditional cultures and the rainforest to large plantations by large multinationals would be the kind of concern he would have, as we shift and put pressure upon those economies.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Of course, we cannot give the whole picture in ten minutes. I focused on investments, but if we take agriculture, for example, the situation is clear and there is no need to travel to Colombia to see it. We can see it in Quebec right now. Some entrepreneurs and investors come from China, for example, and buy our farmland. We see it in Quebec. We are fighting against that. We think it does not make sense. The food that feeds people comes from the land. Therefore, it is very important to own our land. So, if this is happening here, one can well imagine that it can easily happen in Colombia.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to take the floor on this matter of the possible free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

After hearing my brilliant colleague from Hochelaga, I am flabbergasted to think that Canada might possibly sign a free trade agreement with Colombia. This cannot be.

I am even more flabbergasted to learn that the Liberal Party, which established the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will be supporting this proposed agreement. I can understand why the Conservatives’ belief in the charter might be questionable. Their focus is more on prison than anything else. But can we be seeing this from the Liberals, who created the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? One woman, Ms. Betancourt, has been detained inside her country by the guerrillas for more than 22 months. At the moment, over 130 persons all over Colombia are being held by guerrillas.

I went to Colombia in 1995 for the world road cycling championships. I can assure my colleagues that the situation has definitely not changed, because Colombia has tried to get other international competitions and been refused. Fortunately the army was there, but four trucks full of cycling equipment were stolen all the same.

There is no security in Colombia for persons who want to invest there. The proof of this is that they have stopped counting the number of murders by Colombian paramilitary groups. If only for that, we should vote against this proposed free trade agreement. It makes no sense.

We in Abitibi—Témiscamingue are now host to the head of the Colombian postal union. I will not say where he lives, because I might have the misfortune to be heard by certain paramilitary forces, who could then come and kill him. This person was threatened to such a degree—two of his brothers and his sister were murdered and his wife threatened with death—that in the end he managed to obtain refuge in Canada. He has found shelter, let us hope, with us, in the north.

Will a country such as Canada sanction the displacement of communities? It is not we who claim this: Amnesty International says that 305,000 people were displaced in that country in 2007 alone. In 2008, 380,000 persons had to flee their home or their workplace because of the violence. Generally speaking, this does not happen in Bogota or Cali, but rather in the small villages or small remote regions, because the land is wanted to operate a mine there, or to engage in farming on some long stretch of property.

In Quebec there is probably unanimous support for this position, apart from a few members of the Liberal Party, who will, I hope, be absent for the vote. At least I hope those members will be absent when the vote is held. In Quebec we are against this free trade agreement, because it flouts the most basic rights of the individuals who live in that country. Down there, it is not “my way or the highway”, it is “my way or you die”.

I invite my colleagues opposite who are preparing to vote in favour of this Canada-Colombia free trade agreement to go and see the film called The Coca-Cola Case.

Once they have seen The Coca-Cola Case, I hope that, first, they will stop drinking Coca-Cola and, second, they will decide not to vote for this free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

This agreement has only one purpose, and that is to help mining companies make more money. All the Xstratas, the Rio Tintos and the Algomas of this world are already in Colombia or will set up operations there. Colombia does not treat its people very well. In my riding, which is a mining area, we know that people in Colombia are not only displaced, but threatened and even murdered to clear the way for a mine.

We believe that this House must take a stand, and I appeal to my Liberal colleagues. You can say what you like about the Liberals, but they were the ones who brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I hold the belief, the hope and the deep conviction that Canada is still a highly democratic country where all forms of expression are possible, even though sometimes not everyone is happy with what is said. The same cannot be said of Colombia, and this free trade agreement will not make any difference.

Coca is and will remain the raw material most widely cultivated and sold in Colombia. I would say that if we approve the free trade agreement, we will be sending a signal that we agree with the virtually non-existent fight Colombia is waging to do away with all the coca plantations.

Today, a great many people in Colombia are being kidnapped and held by Maoist and Trotskyist guerrillas. Colombia currently does not have the sort of democracy we enjoy here. I have a hard time believing that members are going to approve this supposed free trade agreement, whose sole purpose is to help certain mining companies go ahead with more mineral exploration and mining.

Since 1985, 4.6 million people in Colombia have been forced out of their homes and off their land. This figure alone should give pause to my Conservative and Liberal colleagues across the way and convince them to vote against this deal. We must vote against this free trade agreement. It is unacceptable, and we should not allow it to go ahead.

I will close by saying that I hope we will all take a stand. I can say that the Bloc Québécois will never agree to this free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, in the days since the Liberals breathed new life into what was a dead agreement and a dead deal, basically allowing the Colombian government to self-assess, numerous Canadian organizations have responded against what the Liberals are doing here. The Council of Canadians, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the CLC, the Canadian Auto Workers, the United Church of Canada, the Public Service Alliance and many other organizations have responded against what the Liberals are doing to help the government get this agreement through.

Does the member understand what the interests of the Liberal Party and Liberal caucus are in supporting the Conservatives to get this very bad agreement through this House?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I had forgotten to mention this, but the hon. member from Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine correctly drew my attention to it and wanted me to point it out; because I am a lawyer, I am very familiar with this matter.

In reply to the hon. member's question, I do not know why the Liberals are going to support this agreement. I hope at least that Liberals from Quebec will not do so and will be absent or abstain from voting. That is the least that Quebec is asking. If they do otherwise, they will have to live with their consciences.

When I look at it, in fact, members of this House are not the only ones who are opposed to this agreement. We all represent associations in our constituencies. In mine, it is unanimous: the mayors, the municipalities, the associations and the unions in Abitibi-Témiscamingue are all opposed, be it the FTQ, the CSN, the Canadian Labour Congress' representatives in our area, and every other association, such as Development and Peace.

People from Development and Peace have met with me on a number of occasions. The government should meet with them as well. This agreement does not benefit Canada; the benefits will go to Canadian corporations. No citizen of Canada will benefit, because citizens of Canada even have a hard time going to Colombia to work, and do not want to, especially not in the union movement.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will not dare to ask my learned colleague why lawyers feel obliged to say that they are lawyers. Every time we hear them, it seems that they feel some need to do so. So I will not ask him about the bicycle race he entered in Colombia either. We might like to know the results of the competition, but we can talk about them later between ourselves.

A little more seriously, Madam Speaker, I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about workers' rights. I have been a union member, a trade unionist; I was proud to be one and am proud to declare it again. So when workers' rights are mentioned in the context of a trade agreement, we have to make sure that trade can take place, of course, but also that rights are respected in the country with which the trade is to take place.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member. I will quickly answer the first part of his question. Clara Hughes, who just won a medal at the Olympic games, made her first appearance at the World Championships in Colombia, and she won a silver medal.

To answer the rather obvious questions that the hon. members did not ask, I did not participate in the World Championships. I was the Canadian cycling association president at the time and the international president of mountain biking, and I went to check out a possible site. I assure you that we never went back to Colombia.

That being said, to answer the question so cleverly asked by the hon. member, I do not think that, if I were a trade unionist, Colombia is the place where I would choose or want to choose to go to and help workers. I had a chance to meet the president of the Colombian postal union, who has now found refuge with us. He told me that he was lucky to have found refuge outside his country, as he would be dead otherwise. So I do not think that working as a trade unionist in Colombia is a very good idea.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to speak to this issue. Perhaps I will speak somewhat longer this time so I can add a little more to what the hon. members for Hochelaga, Abitibi—Témiscamingue and others have said on this subject.

The first questions I had upon seeing the Canada-Colombia free-trade agreement file were the following: Who is it for? Why? What does it mean? It is much more easily understood from Canada's perspective. But, as for Colombia, it is a country that people rarely visit except to watch biking competitions or to attend conferences. Personally, I have never been to Colombia. I have heard about it, and I am well aware that it is a country in South America.

Recently, I read that Colombia has around 50 million inhabitants. So it is relatively populous. It is situated very close to the equator. It is quite mountainous and even has glaciers. A population of 50 million is fairly large. But, according to figures, that population is mostly poor. It is very unfortunate. The country is so poor that 48% of its people, according to statistics for 2006 or 2007, live below the poverty line. That shows just how rampant poverty is in Colombia.

What kind of trade do we have with Colombia? Our imports amount to $644 million, according to the 2008 figures, and our exports to $704 million. That gives us a better idea of our imports and exports. Canada exports mainly motor vehicles and automotive parts, as well as grain. These exports accounted respectively for 23% and 19% of the total in 2007.

Most Canadian investment in Colombia is in the mining sector. This is where we start to understand a little better what the agreement is all about. A country like Canada has an interest in signing a free trade agreement. We already have one with the United States and one with Mexico. We are busy negotiating another with Europe. I could come back to that another time. The Europeans lecture us about the seal hunt, but we overlook that entirely. They call us barbarians. That is more or less what they did last June by voting—not just at the Council of Europe but in the European Union—to ban all products derived from seals. This only shows that when we are considering doing business with someone, it is important that the other country involved be careful about expressing opinions on our way of doing things.

Getting back to the agreement between Canada and Colombia, this is not a mere hockey game or soccer match. Who will benefit? What interests do they want to protect? Why are they so interested in Colombia? Is it to help Colombians emerge from extreme poverty? Is it to ensure we get a military base there? That is not it at all. But there are Canadian interests in Colombia, and they have to do with mines. That is where the real interest lies. It all becomes obvious why they are suddenly so interested in Colombia and in doing business there. It is not really about doing business as such, because free trade agreements are generally intended to improve trade and to increase Canadian exports and Colombian imports. In this agreement, they want to protect investors, or actually those who invest in mines.

In view of the way in which these infamous mines are exploited, the word exploited is well chosen. The people who work there are exploited. That is why our colleagues in the Liberal Party, who are supposedly very concerned about workers’ rights, should take a closer look at the agreement.

That is not even mentioning human rights. The mere fact that children work in these mines and we are completely closing our eyes to the situation is reason enough to object to the free trade agreement. Colombia exploits children for purely speculative reasons and to serve a system in which more and more profits are made at the lowest possible cost. That is the real situation and it should lead us to refuse to sign agreements like this.

Other reasons that my colleagues raised during the recent debates explain quite eloquently why we object to this free trade agreement.

As a native pure laine Quebecker, I am interested in doing business with other countries in order to increase my wealth or to share the wealth. However, I want the parties to be equal and to treat each other with respect. There can be no doubt that foreign investors, some of them Canadian, exploit children in Colombian mines. That is crux of the matter. That is where problems can arise.

I am hearing some comments. I am well aware that my Liberal friends would rather talk about something else. Where I come from, folks would refer to the peanut gallery. Seems they have less to say now. They understand that it is easier to get a message across when it is relatively quiet than when every person in the peanut gallery wants to put in their two cents' worth.

When seriously considering a free trade agreement, we should be guided by respect. We have to assess trade volumes and make sure we have the numbers to back us up. Trade volumes could be higher, but it is not necessarily “le Pérou” as we say in French, it's not Peru, which is not far away, meaning that it is not very significant.

If the purpose of this agreement were to boost trade volumes, then fine. But when we dig a little deeper, we discover that the true purpose of this agreement is to enable unscrupulous investors to make money. One would have to be truly unscrupulous to invest in companies that do whatever they please. Fortunately, we live in a democracy, so we have access to that information. The more informed people are, the better they understand the consequences of making various decisions, such as this decision about the free trade agreement.

Canada buys only raw materials from Colombia. That is why a free trade agreement with Colombia just to benefit the mining sector is not justified.

In 2007, energy products accounted for 31% of imports and agricultural and agri-food products for 58%. In dollars, Canada buys $138 million worth of coal and related products, $115 million worth of coffee, $72 million worth of bananas and $62 million worth of cut flowers.

Regardless, we have to re-examine the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. As things stand, shame on Canada and parliamentarians if they support this agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, I greatly enjoyed the speech by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois.

I am very pleased to see that, like the NDP, the Bloc Québécois stands for key values in Canada, values which are shared by the Quebec nation as well as the people of British Columbia, Ontario and the Prairies. All Canadians across the country share these fundamental values of human rights.

There seems, however, to be a contradiction. The Conservatives and Liberals have chosen not to bother with human rights. They want to dismiss them. They want to endorse, or more specifically give a blank cheque and a merit award to this regime that has the blood of the trade unionists killed in Colombia on its hands, not to mention the violent forced displacement of people, mostly Aboriginals and Afro-Colombians. This merit award was nonetheless given to the Colombian regime by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

I would like the member to tell me how come these two parties do not grasp the importance of human rights, which are essential. How should members of all stripes defend human rights in this House?

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not here to explain the inexplicable or defend the indefensible.

However, I can understand certain aspects without getting into his criticism of the Liberals and the Conservatives. I do not want to compare the Canada-Colombia debate to another debate. Nonetheless, I would appreciate it if our NDP colleagues were as respectful of the principle of self-determination for the people of Quebec. That is also a principle worth fighting harder for.

I completely understand what my NDP colleague was saying. Self-determination for the people of Quebec should also be respected by all parliamentarians in this House.

It is indeed difficult to explain, but we see that it is like a system that protects a system. The Liberal-Conservative or Conservative-Liberal system—because in the end it amounts to the same thing—literally protects a system represented by investors. These same investors, regardless of where they are and where they want to invest, want things to be as deregulated as possible. That is precisely what the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement offers.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand that the hon. member does not want to make comparisons. However, will he not admit that supporting such a free trade agreement sets a dangerous precedent for a democracy like ours, which respects human rights—or certainly makes every effort to do so?

Does this not pose a strong threat to Canada and Quebec's tradition of respecting human rights?

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, with the current Conservative government, principles have been tossed out the window at a staggering rate over the past five years. Indeed, the very least that a government should do when preparing to sign a free trade agreement with another country is to ensure that human rights will be respected. That includes not only labour rights, but also the humane treatment of all members of the human race.

This is a situation where a country and certain interests are casting that aside. That is why, yet again, we must say loud and clear that we oppose the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the government's proposed legislation on a free trade deal between Canada and Colombia.

Despite what we hear repeatedly from the other side, the NDP is not against trade. We are not against fair trade. We are not against good trade. In fact, we are all for it, but it has to be fair and it has to be sustainable. This trade deal is not that.

This is a troubled bill. There are many problems with it. I will not go into them all. My colleagues have done a good job in talking about such concerns as workers, labour abuses, human rights and outright murders in Colombia, just to mention a few. One of the things I want to talk about is how this deal offers no real protection for the environment.

As we know, Colombia is one of the countries in South America that is especially blessed in parts of the country with productive rainforests, especially in the southeastern lowlands near the Amazon.

Tropical rainforests are disappearing from the face of the globe. Around the world more than 32,000 hectares per day are being cut down. Rainforests are down to only 5% of the world's land surface presently, and much of this remaining area has been impacted by human activities and no longer retains its full original and rich biodiversity. Worse, rainforests are so rich in plant and animal life that we do not even know most of what we are losing, such as countless undiscovered species, renewable botanical and animal resources, and a pharmacopoeia of potential new drugs.

Aside from species extinction, deforestation means that we are losing something else: the lungs of our planet and one of the world's great carbon sinks. It is not just the oxygen they produce, it is also the carbon they store in biomass. When forests are destroyed, the carbon they contain is released into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, which most of us realize leads to a greater probability of dangerous climate change.

Much of the rainforest in Colombia is currently being slashed and burned. Why? Because of rapidly expanding agribusiness plantations for fruit and other crops.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has said that over the last 20 years over four million Colombians have been forcefully displaced by plantation companies and paramilitaries in order to take the land and destroy the forest for new agri-business agriculture. In 2007 alone there were more than 300,000 refugees, mostly Afro-Colombians and indigenous communities.

Is that the type of production we want to help expand and accelerate with a flawed free trade deal? As the evidence submitted to the Standing Committee on International Trade in 2008 showed, this trade deal is primarily centred on agribusiness-type agriculture.

This deal offers no protection whatsoever for the environment. There is no effective method of enforcement. The only thing in it is a complaint mechanism, which would be simply to file a complaint with a bureaucrat with no independent review and no rigorous analysis.

The environmental playing field is totally uneven with this deal. Expert witnesses before the international trade committee confirmed the weaknesses of the environmental provisions side agreements. The standards for environmental protection are lower than the already very weak statutes of NAFTA.

There are no effective proactive measures for environmental monitoring or for preventive enforcement. The lackluster enforcement of environmental laws in Colombia would only make this situation even worse.

If that is not bad enough, it goes even further.

This deal is exporting NAFTA's chapter 11 mistakes, which we in northern Ontario suffer daily, to new countries. Chapter 11 allows multinational corporations to sue governments when actions taken have impacted their bottom lines, actions like passing laws to protect the environment or biodiversity.

Instead of helping to encourage conservation of South America's valuable rainforest, we will be tying their hands. As soon as they try, if they ever try, to pass conservation legislation that may affect the profits of investors, they will open themselves up to a tidal wave of litigation and liability. Talk about putting profits before people, and profits before the planet.

From an environmental point of view, the trade deal with Colombia is very troubling. It must be renegotiated to take into account environmental and human rights considerations, among others.

Sure, there is some lip service paid to accountability on human rights. The Liberals, the Conservatives and the Uribe government have agreed to produce and table in both Parliaments an annual report on the human rights situation in Colombia and amend the deal. However, in effect, the Colombian government will be forced to police itself, the very same government associated with various right-wing paramilitaries to start with. This amendment is like putting lipstick and a dress on a pig so the Liberals can feel better about taking Bill C-2 to the prom.

There is nothing in the amendment about the rules of trade, which will be the underlying cause of environmental problems, and no clear mechanism for the ongoing monitoring of the effects of free trade, for instance investment provisions, on the human rights of the population as well as on the environment.

I am not sure why the Liberals seem to be supporting this bad trade deal. They were opposed to it in 2008. The only things that have changed since then are the Liberal critic for this went down to Colombia to get a small but unfortunately ineffective amendment to this bad trade deal. And the environment as an issue seems to have dropped off the back of their platform in general. It is interesting that they would do such an about-face on human rights and the environment for the sake of a relatively minor trade deal.

Colombia ranks fairly low on the market for Canadian exports out of Latin America and the Caribbean and that has actually been falling in comparison to our trade with other countries in the region. The majority of Canadian investment in Colombia is in the mining sector. Perhaps that is really what this trade deal is about, as the previous member has pointed out.

Gauri Sreenivasan of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation said:

Beyond that issue [of free trade], in Colombia, Canadian oil and mining companies are active in some of the most conflict-ridden zones of the country, even beyond the issue of royalties. These zones are characterized by high levels of military and paramilitary control. The overlap between the two is sobering. Colombian regions that are rich in minerals and oils have been marked by violence. They are the source of 87% of forced displacements, 82% of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and 83% of assassinations of trade union leaders in the country.

I do not see how this flawed trade deal will improve the situation. In fact, it seems to me it will make it worse. Certainly all human rights organizations agree that it will.

The Conservative government is negotiating a number of bilateral trade deals like this one. Its intention seems to be to hand over as much oversight and responsibility over multinational companies as possible under the guise of free trade, and there is little to no accountability. This is totally unacceptable as a basis for trade deals in general. It is especially unacceptable in the context of Colombia, the country with just about the worst human rights record in all of South America and one with so much biodiversity and tropical rainforest at stake. The United States would not even agree to a trade deal with Colombia.

This debate is about a lot more than just trade. It is about our values as a country. The government is asking us to go against our basic fundamental values as Canadians to uphold basic human rights and to conserve the planet's natural heritage for the sake of investment profits.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North has a bill on the table presently concerning the environment. I would like to know what this trade agreement with Colombia would do to the environment not only in Canada but especially in Colombia?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, we must protect our forests around the world. We know that every acre, hectare, square kilometre or mile of forest is going to be increasingly precious and hanging on to the carbon sinks that most of us and most scientists would agree we need to do if we are to have any hope of preventing dangerous climate change.

Not only are there huge carbon sinks in this area in Colombia, they are also one of the richest storehouses of biodiversity on the planet. The losses will be priceless not just in terms of biodiversity but in the products and pharmaceuticals that we will need in future decades to help our sick and unhealthy stay alive.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member dealt with the effects of this agreement on climate change in Colombia. However, I would like to expand that to include the effects of the agreement on farmers.

A great number of farmers have been displaced because of mining interests. They have been surviving for many years self-sufficiently and now they are being forced off the land into cities and they are entering a life of poverty because of agreements such as this.

Could the member comment on that?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I had this career in the House of Commons one of my past careers was to be involved in agriculture and pesticides.

I have watched a disturbing trend over many decades. We are displacing aboriginal hunters and gatherers and aboriginal and mestizo farmers who have been using a Sweden kind of agriculture in these very sensitive soils and ecosystems throughout the tropical rain forests in the world. It is the only kind of agriculture which is sustainable in the long term. We cannot go to intensive agribusinesses as we have in other places and use those in tropical soils without disastrous results, not only on the short-term biodiversity but on the long-term productivity of those rain forest ecosystems.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, this free trade agreement of course sets out investment rights and investment protection, but there is nothing on the face of it that ensures the protection of human rights as such. I would like to hear some of the hon. member's thoughts on that. Is there not something altogether disturbing in all this when we see what the mining industry is doing in other countries, especially in South Africa, which also wants to exploit deposits in Colombia? I would like to hear some of his thoughts on this.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have focused primarily on the ecosystems and the environment in my talk because many of my fellow NDP members have done a very effective job of talking about the human rights issue. I was struck by what one of the members of my colleague's party said about an hour ago. If I understood him correctly, he commented that we were initiating trade with a country that would not even come close to meeting the terms of our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It really resonated with me.

A simple criterion and one of our main criterion for how we deal with trade issues in other countries should be this. Does that country meet even close to the Canadian standard in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects our rights? How can we be trading with countries that treat either the environment or humans less well than we do ourselves?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me say right off that I strongly agree with my colleagues in the Bloc who have spoken on this important matter since this morning and over a number of sitting days. We in the Bloc are strongly opposed to this bill to implement a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

I listened earlier to the remarks of my colleague from Chambly—Borduas, who raised the whole question of human rights. I intend to get back to that, if time allows.

We know that the main motivation behind the government's desire to conclude this free trade agreement has nothing to do with trade. It has to do with investments, because this agreement contains a chapter on investment protection and aims to make life easier for Canadians investing in Colombia and especially in the mining sector.

If all the agreements protecting investment that Canada has signed over the years are anything to go on, the agreement between Canada and Colombia is ill planned. All of these agreements contain provisions allowing investors to take a foreign government to court when it adopts measures reducing the returns on their investment. Such provisions are especially dangerous in a country where laws governing labour and the protection of the environment are, at best, haphazard.

Such an agreement, by protecting a Canadian investor against any improvement in the living conditions in Colombia, increases the risk of delaying social and environmental progress in a country that we all agree is in great need of such progress. Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in the world and certainly in Latin America.

In order to promote human rights in the world, governments usually use the carrot and stick approach. They support efforts to improve respect for human rights and reserve the right to withdraw benefits should the situation worsen. With this free trade agreement, Canada would forego any ability to bring pressure to bear on the Government of Colombia. Heaven knows that this is not a government we can blindly put our faith in. Not only is the Canadian government giving up the carrot and the stick, but it is handing them over to the Colombian government.

The government keeps telling us that this agreement would come with a side agreement on labour and another on the environment. It has been shown time and time again that these agreements are notoriously ineffective. They are not part of the free trade agreement, which means that investors can with impunity destroy Colombia's rich environment, displace people to facilitate mine development and continue to murder trade unionists. My examples are not science fiction. There have been real and clear cases in various countries in the world and on various continents.

As for the free trade agreement itself, 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.

In December 2009, before prorogation, of course, this bill was debated at second reading. But after prorogation, the bill died on the order paper. The Conservatives were very critical of the fact that the debate was focused on human rights, when we were talking about a trade agreement. With all due respect, I must say that these two aspects go hand in hand. We cannot just look at money as a means to acquire goods and property. We are talking about a population, about the Colombian people.

A subamendment to express the strong opposition to this agreement by a number of human rights organizations was rejected by the Conservatives, with the support of the Liberals, on October 7, 2009. The free trade agreement between the United States and Colombia, signed in 2006, is also stalled because of the issue of human rights. This agreement will not be ratified by Congress before Colombia strengthens its legislation to protect minimum labour standards and union activities. This Conservative government, which likes to compare itself to the United States, should pay attention to how the Americans are approaching this situation. For once, it should pay attention.

I would like to consider this agreement in context. We will recall that in 2002 Canada held talks with the Andean countries, Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia, about the possibility of signing a free trade agreement. Ultimately, Canada decided to negotiate bilateral agreements with Colombia and Peru, and possibly to resume negotiations with the two other missing countries later.

On June 7, 2007, Canada’s Minister of International Trade officially announced that Canada was going to enter into negotiations with Colombia and Peru regarding a free trade agreement. There were four rounds of negotiations between the three countries, the last of which took place in Lima from November 26 to 30, 2007. On January 28, Canada and Peru announced that they had concluded their negotiations. On June 7, 2008, Canada and Colombia announced that their negotiations were finished. On November 21, the two countries signed the free trade agreement, and on March 24 of this year we learned that the government had put the bill to implement the free trade agreement with Colombia on the Order Paper.

To conclude, I would like to say that with these figures about trade between Canada and Quebec and Colombia, it is hard to understand why Canada would want to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia. When two countries sign free trade agreements, it is because they are major trading partners and the volume of trade between them makes lowering trade barriers attractive.

That being said, let us be candid. The Colombian market is not particularly attractive for Canada. Trade between the two countries is very limited. The main products that Canada sells there, like grain from western Canada, have no difficulty finding a buyer in any event, anywhere on the planet in these times of food crises. Exporters in Quebec and Canada would see limited benefits, at best, from signing this agreement. We imagine that some Canadian companies might be attracted, but we find it hard to see how the public in Quebec or Canada will benefit at all from this.

In fact, the government’s primary motivation for signing this free trade agreement has nothing to do with trade, as I said when I first began speaking; it is about investment. And because the agreement contains an investment protection chapter, it will make life easier for Canadian investors who invest in Colombia, particularly in the mining sector.

For all these reasons, and particularly because of the silence about the absence of minimum labour and environmental protection standards, the Bloc Québécois cannot support this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I very much enjoyed the speech by the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, who has a great deal of experience in this House. He made his point about this agreement with a government that has blood on its hands.

Based on his experience in the House, I would like to know whether the member believes that the Conservatives and the Liberals are truly interested in human rights or if they are more interested in talking about them rather than really wanting to put in place agreements and elements that require other governments to respect human rights.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words.

I have been an MP since 1993. It came to the fore when a prime minister went to China as part of a delegation. I remember that the opposition parties asked former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to raise the issue of human rights during his face-to face meetings with Chinese leaders. That was the Liberal Party. We have had the opportunity to confirm this.

With regard to the Conservatives, it is evident that they are strictly interested in investments. All aspects of international co-operation, among other things, are not part of Conservative values. They are solely interested in making investments profitable and determining what the return on the investment will be without concerning themselves with the issues of human rights, minimum labour standards and the environmental conditions that prevail in those countries. At any rate, one need only examine the Conservatives' attitude on the environment here, in Quebec and Canada, to know that. They do not even wish to take responsibility for our environment. Do you believe that they will want to impose, in a free trade agreement, respect for the Colombia's environment? That is pure abstraction.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, along the same lines, the hon. member's answer is inspiring and I would like to know more. I am relatively new and his experience is helpful for us. I feel that it can be helpful for the people who are listening to us right now. We get the impression that we are increasingly faced with the phenomenon that is only too clear, that being Liberal or Conservative is one and the same thing. Could the hon. member provide me with additional information or clarification?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, having seen Liberal and Conservative governments, we have come to realize that the approach of the two parties is the same in a number of ways. They are Tweedledum and Tweedledee. When they are in opposition, the Liberals champion certain areas. I will give you an example. Perhaps an hon. member will rise to question the relevance. The best example is the situation of unemployed and seasonal workers. As long as they are in opposition, the Liberals are the first to say that there should be real employment insurance reform. When they return to power, they do absolutely nothing. This is the end of my aside.

I will return specifically to this issue. The Liberals can say what they like. If they return to power, we will see how they behave. We saw what they did from 1993 to 2004. With the Conservatives it is more of the same thing. That is why Quebeckers have decided to be represented by the Bloc Québécois, the only party that stands up for the interests of Quebec.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start my speech by reading an email that all members of Parliament received, but more specifically it was addressed to the member for Kings—Hants. I cannot mention the member's name in the House of Commons, but I would like to read a letter that was addressed to him. The member has more or less been the spokesman for the Liberal Party in this debate. I know he is in favour of this trade agreement with Colombia.

Dear [member for Kings—Hants],

By means of this letter I would like to express my point of view concerning the legislation recently tabled in the Canadian House of Commons to implement Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CCFTA). As I am a citizen of both countries I am proud of my origins, but also of my immensely proud of belonging to my adoptive country, which you represent in the Canadian Parliament. Canada and Colombia have many differences in their cultural, social, political and economic aspects, and also very different in their systems of justice. I am not opposed to commercial exchanges between Canada and any other country in the world. But I wish for those relationships to be just and equitable. And I certainly object to unequal commercial relations which could help destabilize the Colombian economy and contribute to further to the deterioration of social climate in the country where, I trust you will well agree, there exists a grievous situation of generalized violence.

I urge you, [member for Kings—Hants] to consider the fact of the profound level of violence that afflicts the people of Colombia and which is a manifestation of extreme social inequality and of marked economic inequities. I am certain that if you were to direct all the necessary attention to the tragic situation presently endured by the people of Colombia, neither you nor any other deputy representing the Liberal Party of Canada would support the ratification of the CCFTA or would collaborate with the Conservative Party's will to push the implementation of this commercial accord by the Parliament of Canada.

I ask you to immediately consider the ethical stakes and the political responsibilities associated with international commerce. I am well aware that the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Accord has as its objectives to favour Canadian investments in Colombia, particularly in the mines and minerals sector. I have no doubt that Canadian mining companies are keenly interested in exploiting, to their advantage, the many mineral resources that are present in Colombia, natural resources that belong, by right, to the people of Colombia. Gold deposits, carbon and coal mines, and petroleum resources are of great value and are highly coveted, and access to these precious resources requires the cooperation and complicity of the government of Colombia.

I would like to stop right now. I will read the rest of this letter later on. However, because this paragraph speaks about Canadian mining companies, I would like to talk a little bit about a company from South America that is presently operating in my community of Nickel Belt. That company is Vale Inco.

Can members imagine if this company were allowed to invest in Colombia, this company that has absolutely no moral values, this company that is trying to suppress the workers of Nickel Belt and Sudbury, this company that is firing employees and trade unionists at will? They would not have to fire them in Colombia; they would just shoot them, as many others have done in the last few years in Colombia.

I just wanted to stop at that paragraph to talk a little bit about Vale Inco and what it is doing in my community and what it would do in Colombia.

I am going to carry on with this letter:

The regime presently in power in Colombia can, with little hesitation, be qualified as extremely unjust, immoral and corrupt. It has been alleged and proven that human rights are systemically violated by the regime and by paramilitary actors complicit with the country's government.

I am going to stop again here. Can members just imagine if Vale Inco had the backing of the Canadian army in Sudbury? Can members imagine what they are going to do in Colombia when the corrupt government is going to do everything it can to suppress the Colombians?

I will go back to the letter, which reads:

Please believe me that inequitable commercial exchanges will not help to improve the situation of the people of Colombia. The inequality in the distribution of wealth in Colombia is a glaring reality that no one can, in good conscience, ignore. The implementation of the CCFTA will only lead to Canadian complicity with the unjust economic and social policies upheld by the right-wing government of president Alvaro Uribe. This leader, now at the tail end of his mandate, has always backed the interests of a tiny minority of the Colombian population, always pushing policies that have favoured the meanest interests of rural and urban elites who favour their own interests above a real will for peace with social and economic justice.

Can we have trust and confidence in a government that has been widely seen as complicit in atrocities that have cost the lives of thousands of its citizens, and that have caused millions of Colombians to be forced to flee their homes for foreign or internal displacement?

Are you aware, [member for King--Hants] that hundreds of thousands of well-informed members of civil society, in Colombia and throughout Canada, are vigorously opposed to the Free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia? Have you and your colleagues in the Liberal Party of Canada listened to and heard our voices?

We are asking you and the Liberal Party of Canada to NOT support the implementation of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CCFTA). We are asking that you NOT conclude an agreement with a Colombian government whose hands are stained with the blood of many thousands of its citizens.

In Canada, we are millions of workers, farmers, Union members, students, and citizens who loudly and strongly raise our voices to oppose the ratification and implementation of the CCFTA. Do you hear us, [member for King--Hants]?

Yours sincerely,

Jorge Parra

Colombo-Canadian citizen

It is not only members of the NDP and the Bloc who are against this trade agreement. There are many others. I do not know how much time I have left, but I would like to read from another letter. It states:

Dear Members of Parliament

I was shocked to learn that after prorogation the first bill to be reintroduced after the budget was the Colombian free trade agreement, now this is one bill that was better left dead on the floor. Death and Colombia are two unfortunate words that seem to have disturbing history together whether it's the dozens of union organizers at such companies as Coca Cola who have been murdered in cold blood at the hands of hired guns just to keep the labour suppressed and the profit margins in place.

I will stop there because I will not have time to finish the letter but it just goes to prove that we are not the only ones who are against this free trade agreement.

I want to go back to this company from South America in my community that is firing employees at will and is refusing to negotiate with the workers. It wants to take away their pension rights and their bonuses. It wants to prevent them from transferring from plant to plant. Can anyone imagine what a company like this would do in Colombia? There would be so many murders in that country that we would not be able to keep up.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kings—Hants must be starting to feel the heat on this issue.

The Council of Canadians, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the B.C. Teachers' Federation, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Auto Workers, the United Church, the Public Service Alliance and many more organizations have been paying attention to the debates in the House over the last few days and have been sending letters condemning the Liberal critic and the Liberal Party for supporting the Conservatives. They are resurrecting what essentially was dead legislation until two weeks ago and making an amendment to allow the Colombian government to essentially police itself and self-assess its human rights record on an annual basis.

I find the whole situation appalling. The fact that the Liberal members have been very quiet during this whole debate speaks volumes about where their party is going.

Would the member like to make any further comments about the role of the Liberal Party in resurrecting what was dead legislation only two weeks ago?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party is thinking along the same lines as the Conservative Party as far as Colombia is concerned and it is being led by the member for Kings—Hants who must be feeling the pressure right now.

I want to remind my colleague that the member for Kings--Hants used to sit on that side of the House but he was kicked over here. Perhaps the Liberal Party should consider punting him back because he is dragging the Liberal Party into an extreme right-wing party with an extreme right-wing agenda.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Nickel Belt spoke extremely well. He is part of the strongest representation northern Ontario has ever had in the House of Commons. I am thinking of the member for Nickel Belt, the member for Sudbury, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North who spoke just a few minutes ago, and the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River. They join long-time parliamentarians, the member for Sault Ste. Marie and the member for Timmins—James Bay, as the by far strongest representation we have ever had from northern Ontario in the House.

Northern Ontario MPs are speaking out because they have seen some of the abuses that are taking place, as the member for Nickel Belt mentioned. In the Sudbury region are the kinds of abuses magnified 100 times that could well arrive with this free trade blank cheque that would be given to multinational companies to work in Colombia.

Report after report of every human rights organization that is independent and impartial has said that there are strong concerns about the kind of corporate rights that this agreement would give to Canadian companies and that they may be complicit in human rights violations that are taking place now in Colombia. Three million people have been forcibly displaced and their land stolen by paramilitaries connected with the government.

Could the member for Nickel Belt tell the House why the Conservatives are trying to push this complicity with a government that has its hands stained with blood?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member asked me why the Conservatives are pushing this free trade deal but I would remind the member that without the help of the Liberals this free trade agreement would be dead. If memory serves me right, they initiated this free trade agreement.

The member also mentioned the MPs from across northern Ontario. I can assure my colleague that most of us from northern Ontario, at one time or another, belonged to a trade union. If we lived in Colombia, we would not be here today. We probably would be dead. This is the type of agenda that the Conservatives and the Liberals want to push on the people of Colombia.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of emotion that I rise today in the debate on BillC-2. In all my political career, I did not believe that I would one day have to speak about this kind of agreement.

I feel the strong emotion because, in 1974 and 1976, 36 and 34 years ago, the World Confederation of Labour and the Latin-American Confederation of Workers, or the Central Latinoamericana de Trabajadores (CLAT), asked me to spend several months in Colombia to help to establish agricultural and food cooperatives.

At that time, we were closely watched for our own protection because we were trade unionists. In a way, we were protected by world opinion. If a foreign trade unionist was harassed, it made international headlines. But local unionists could suffer almost any kind of unimaginable atrocity. To keep us safe, the unions in Colombia at the time provided us with double protection. If one person lost sight of us, there always had to be a second person who could see us, so that, if we disappeared, it could be immediately made public.

People my age will remember Marcel Pépin, who was kidnapped in Argentina in 1976. I was in Colombia at the same time. What saved Marcel Pépin, who was president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, was precisely international opinion. I say that because, as soon as I became aware of this proposed agreement for the first time, and having watched how things have evolved in Latin America, and especially in Colombia, I said to myself that not much progress has been made on human rights or the basic rights of the people there.

I have watched the current situation very closely, and, in fact, very little has changed. Back then, paramilitaries committed murder with the complicity of the state. Paramilitaries still commit murder with the complicity of the state. International organizations are well aware that 30 people who are very close to the president of Colombia, members of the Congress of Colombia, are also very close to the paramilitaries. In the Congress, 60 people have close ties to the paramilitaries, and the crimes that they commit are well known.

In the past 20 years, 4,800 trade unionists have been killed and thousands have disappeared. In this country, killing unionists and those in charge of agricultural cooperatives and agrarian organizations has become a trivial matter. I know that for some people here in the House it is trivial, simply because it is happening elsewhere.

Turning a blind eye to these types of things, even from afar, also means that you are endangering your own values. The two major parties that are contending for power and government status here are not only suggesting that this is acceptable elsewhere, but also that we will sign a trade agreement with them. But today's assessment, recognized by international experts, is that this is a rogue state when it comes to human rights. Let me say that again: this is a rogue state when it comes to human rights. I am at a loss when I see how quickly they can get on board to support such a bill.

There are still child labourers in this country. There are still workers who have no rights in this country. They definitely do not have the right to unionize. It is no coincidence that only 5% of workers in this country are unionized. Those who choose to unionize risk their lives in doing so. The only recognized labour organizations are the ones that support the Colombian government's claim that there is a right to unionize, when, in reality, that does not exist.

I think that it is important to consider the following proverb: A man is known by the company he keeps.

I encourage our Conservative and Liberal colleagues to think about this proverb as well as what they are about to do. It is not just about a relationship. It is about an agreement, about associating ourselves with something, thereby approving it, even though it is at odds with our values regarding the development of natural resources.

When companies have the right to invest, when their investments are protected and when there are no measures to protect human rights, that creates a situation that is not worthy of what we claim to stand for. We claim to stand for a society that is not only democratic, but willing to fight for democracy to uphold human rights. This is what our Liberal and Conservative colleagues are giving up on.

It is easy to sit out the debate. Personally, I find it disconcerting that our Liberal and Conservative friends have been missing from the debate for a few hours. It is embarrassing. They support a bill that would implement a free trade deal with a country that tramples on human rights, yet they do not have the backbone to stand up, say why they support this agreement and argue against what we are saying in this House.

We are abdicating our responsibility when we claim that what we are proposing is good not only for our own people, but for the people we are going to trade with. Even our own people disagree. Even Canadians and particularly Quebeckers do not support the idea that this bill promotes investment and protects only investments by companies that often behave badly abroad. We are talking about mining companies, for one.

We know what happened to two writers who wrote about what mining companies were doing in African countries. They were sued for millions of dollars because they dared to describe what was happening.

I call on our colleagues to reconsider and think about what Mr. Fowler said on the weekend at the event organized by the Liberals. He said that they should not make so many compromises in order to achieve power. They are not trying to achieve power with compromises anymore, but with cowardice, and we will not stand for it. That is why we are going to vote against Bill C-2.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to note that the speech we just heard was inspired by experience, but at the same time, it was also very inspiring.

I do not believe it is because of a lack of understanding on their part. The Liberals, like the Conservatives, know very well what this is all about. The question I would like to ask is an extension of his speech.

Ultimately, when it comes to supporting this free trade agreement with Colombia, is that not simply encouraging and supporting the fact that there are people in that country who use their power to completely ignore human rights? That is the situation before us.

What my colleague from Chambly—Borduas experienced when he went to Colombia—I did not have the opportunity or privilege of going—is what allows him to dot the i's and cross the t's. He was there for several weeks, so he was able to see the situation first hand. That is very inspiring. I think our Liberal and Conservative colleagues should also draw inspiration from him when it comes time to vote on this.

I would like him to comment further on the fact that supporting such a treaty would be tantamount to encouraging the violation of human rights.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his question. He does magnificent work.

On a city block in Bogota, Colombia, there is a huge house with armed guards. Inside there are extraordinary works of art that the conquistadors collected, that is, stole from the Mayan people. When you enter this site, you are searched in every room to make sure you do not take anything.

While works of art are being so carefully protected, in the streets outside there are children and elderly people dying from disease. You see them. They are there. Children who are only three or four years old are often looking after smaller ones.

That is the regime seeking our support. It is a regime that worships the golden calf and does not respect human rights.

To support Bill C-2, as the Liberals and Conservatives do, is to protect the golden calf at the expense of human existence.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member will have two minutes left for questions and comments after oral question period.

Statements by members. The hon. member for Crowfoot.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, 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, and of the motion that this question be now put.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When Bill C-2 was debated in the House, before oral question period, the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas had the floor. There are two minutes left for questions and comments regarding his speech.

The hon. member for Mississauga South has the floor.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in debating this bill, much of the debate has been based on whether there is an implication of trade with regard to improving the human rights situation in Colombia. I wonder if the member has any evidence or information regarding the experience of other countries where human rights questions were brought to bear and whether improvement in trade relations had some impact on the human rights situation.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for that very fundamental question.

In the past, when it came to signing agreements with other countries, we took into account their human rights track record, with respect to both labour and the rights of men, women and children. Those are things we considered in the past.

This time, we are going about it differently. We are trivializing the human rights situation. In the comments I made earlier, before oral question period, I said that Colombia could be classified as a rogue state on the human rights front. The proximity between the government and paramilitaries who engage in violence and commit murders is so obvious that it is shocking and despicable to want to conclude an agreement with a state that behaves in such a manner.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the House who have taken a principled stand against the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, in particular the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his consistent efforts to challenge the ethics of this free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

I have been aware of the situation in Colombia for a number of years and have had the privilege to speak directly to Colombians from all walks of life in regard to the situation they face in their homeland under the Uribe government. In fact, I have many constituents who have fled to Canada because they no longer felt safe in their home country.

In the last session of Parliament, I spoke about the CCFTA and undertook to talk about the lack of environmental protection and labour rights in the agreement, violations of labour rights, violence committed against unionized workers and the anti-trade union atmosphere of Colombia, as well as the murders of trade unionists. These are the norms.

At that time, my colleagues and I took note of the fact that Colombia was the most dangerous place in the world for trade unionists. More than 2,700 Colombian trade unionists have been murdered since 1986 and, tragically, they have been murdered with impunity. There is only a 3% conviction rate for those who murder and, even worse, the agreement that Canada proposes to sign with Colombia has a system of fines for companies that murder their workers.

How can we be party to any agreement that has a provision for killing a trade unionist and paying a fine? It is unspeakable and I believe that once Canadians understand what the proposed Canada-Colombia free trade agreement contains they will reject it.

Today I would like to speak about crimes currently being committed by the Uribe government against indigenous Colombians.

In a recent report released on February 23, Amnesty International called for immediate international action to ensure the survival of indigenous peoples in Colombia. The organization says that guerrilla groups, state security forces and paramilitaries are responsible for grave human rights abuses against indigenous peoples. These abuses include killings, enforced disappearances and kidnappings, sexual abuse of women, recruitment of child soldiers, persecution of indigenous leaders and forced displacement of communities from land that is rich in economic potential. People are forced from their land because these areas are valued for natural resources, including oil and minerals.

Amnesty International has stated that the situation of indigenous peoples in Colombia is nothing short of an emergency. Until countries like Canada recognize the gravity of the situation and exert much needed pressure on the Colombian government, there is a real risk that entire indigenous cultures may be eradicated.

According to the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia, ONIC, the survival of 32 different indigenous peoples in Colombia are at risk as a result of the armed conflict, the impacts of large-scale economic projects and a lack of state support. According to ONIC, at least 114 indigenous women, men and children were killed, many others threatened and thousands driven from their land in 2009 alone.

In its latest report, Amnesty International says that the threats facing indigenous peoples are intensifying and is calling upon guerrilla groups and state security forces to respect the rights of indigenous people not to be dragged into hostilities, and equally important, the right of indigenous peoples to own and control the lands upon which they depend for their cultures and livelihoods. Tragically, indigenous leaders and communities who try to defend their land rights, commonly experience threats, killings and mass displacement.

Colombia's ongoing armed conflict has affected millions across the country and left tens of thousands dead, tortured and forcibly disappeared. The vast majority of victims are civilians. In the last seven years, more than 1,595 indigenous people were killed or forcibly disappeared as a result of the armed conflict, and 4,700 collective threats were reported. In the vast majority of cases, these crimes have not been properly investigated, nor have the perpetrators ever been brought to justice.

Just as with trade unionists, the death toll is rising and still the Conservative government is determined to pursue a trade agreement with a highly questionable regime.

As Amnesty International testified to the House of Commons committee on international trade in November 2009, one of the most worrying trends is a dramatic increase in the number of Colombians forced to flee from their homes. As many as 380,000 in 2008. That brings the total number of internally displaced people in Colombia to between three and four million, among the highest in the world, and growing.

Forced displacement has paved the way for misappropriation of lands, mostly by paramilitaries but also by guerrilla groups. It is estimated that more than four million hectares of land may have been stolen by paramilitaries in this way.

Displacement is one of the greatest threats facing indigenous communities, as in the case of Colombia. I do not believe that it is a coincidence that this happens in areas where oil, rich minerals and remarkable biodiversity is in evidence. International mining, agribusiness and the extractors of oil have a vested interest in these territories, all at the expense of the people who have a right to live on these lands.

We know that multinationals, including Canadian business interests, are in Colombia and are participating in the exploitation of resources.

According to the Colombian director of the UN High Commission for Human Rights, when this displacement to urban centres occurs it becomes very complicated since most of the indigenous women do not know Spanish very well. The immensity of the city frightens them with its anonymity and the lack of solidarity among residents. The women face new problems in raising their children and relating to their partners because the city is not a customary environment. In addition to this uncomfortable environment is the anguish of leaving their homes, running with what little they had or could carry in order to outrun death and desolation.

Accepting new, unfamiliar realities and activities not traditional to indigenous cultures, results in culture shock and disorientation. People experience a way of life and language radically different from their own. This fracturing can result in a breakdown of cultural continuity as young people find themselves in alien environments and deprived of the social and cultural networks and practices necessary for the survival of their communities.

Displaced people are at a heightened risk of destitution, sexual violence, exploitation by criminal gangs, armed groups and discrimination. Even in places in which they seek refuge, they may face further intimidation or violence and have to flee again. The inadequate state response to the needs of internally displaced communities means that some people return to the dangerous situations they fled, and without support or safeguards that should be provided by the state.

The right to traditional lands is crucial to indigenous peoples in Colombia, as elsewhere. It is a vital element in their sense of identity, livelihood and way of life and is crucial for their future.

This of course brings me to the motion put forward by the Liberal Party that it claims would protect human rights in Colombia. This motion would allow Colombia to monitor its own human rights and report on this monitoring if the Colombian government chooses to do that. This is completely inadequate. When one considers the murders, torture and displacement of people, this motion is a sham.

It is clear that the official opposition wants nothing more than to sign onto the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement despite the human, environmental and ethical cost.

I wonder what Canadians would say if they knew that in this month's legislative elections, independent observers were there and reported vote-buying and fraud that allowed narco-paramilitary candidates to maintain influence over the Colombian congress, or about the plea to the Canadian Council for International Co-operation from the Colombian Methodist Church bishop, Juan Alberto Cardona, during his visit to Canada in 2007. The Bishop said, “we know from other places, like Mexico, that these agreements might create more wealth for wealthy people but they make inequities worse. Whatever wealth is created, it does not reach poor people”.

The Colombia-Canada free trade agreement was signed behind the backs of the Colombian people, without any real participation from civil society and without any study on its impact. This is something that must be made clear to this Parliament and the people of Canada. The stage is set for further and increased human rights violations.

Colombians have asked Canadian society and this Parliament to demonstrate solidarity with the Colombian people by mobilizing against and refusing to sign the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

For the sake of humanity, we need to listen. When will the current government and the official opposition finally listen?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the questions raised had to do with other jurisdictions and what they were doing. The U.K., Australia, the U.S. and the EU have all had some discussions and activity with regard to trade arrangements with Colombia.

However, I do understand that there has been disagreement. President Obama is very ambitious to improve foreign exports but in his last speech did not mention Colombia as being one of the sources. It would appear that the Congress has one view and the president has another. I wonder if the member has any information on the current status of the trade discussion in the United States.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised that there is confusion. As we look around this Parliament, all we see is mass confusion. One of the things I did want to touch on, apart from saying that the Belgian government is absolutely against this trade agreement, is the reality that multinationals have interests in Colombia. There are all kinds of important resources there, including oil and gold.

I do not think that it is at all a coincidence that when the Americans built their military bases in Colombia, they built them over oil fields. I wonder who they were protecting and exactly what they were protecting. In the case of Canadian mineral companies, I know that Canadians were involved in the extraction of gold. If one knows anything about the extraction of gold in Colombia, one would know that it used to be done by villagers and the community. They would extract the gold and sell it.

Some years ago, at the insistence of multinationals, the Colombian government nationalized these gold fields and cut them away from the villagers. When the villagers tried to reclaim their homes and their way of life, they were faced with paramilitaries and slaughter. It would seem to me that, in light of this kind of reality, we should be questioning what any government supporting a free trade agreement with Colombia has as its motive.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech has certainly had the effect of stirring up some Liberal reaction. At least the Liberals are now asking questions about the deal. Groups across Canada such as the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the B.C. teachers, the CLC and many other groups have been sending letters and reacting to what the Liberal Party and its critic are doing in terms of propping up and promoting this particular piece of legislation.

The amendment by the member for Kings—Hants and accepted by the government, which resurrects this basically dead agreement, allows Colombian authorities to self-assess their human rights record on an annual basis. This is not a good sign.

What effect does the member think this amendment is going to have on the overall agreement and the implementation of the agreement as far as Canada and Colombia are concerned? How does she think the Liberals believe this amendment is going to help solve this problem?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this amendment is just too cozy by half. We know that a Liberal government brought forward the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement initially and was desperate to see it go through the House of Commons and become law. Now, the Conservative government has taken up its clarion call.

I would be very suspicious of any kind of so-called amendment that allows the government of Colombia to monitor things like human rights violations and the deprivation of indigenous people based on its record. It has allowed state-sponsored terror. It is the state that has failed to protect the trade unionists and indigenous people. As often as not, we have seen the state as perpetrator and coordinator of the nationalization of resources that deprives the people of the country their due.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make some comments with regard to Bill C-2 concerning a free trade deal with Colombia.

I spoke to the bill when it was before us in the last session. Listening to the debate, it is quite clear that there are sincere concerns regarding human rights impacts and the free trade deal with Colombia. The history certainly has been put on the table and the impacts on labour and other matters. There also have been numerous references to other countries that have considered trade deals with the country of Colombia.

I want to simply put on the record that I will be supporting the bill at second reading to go to committee because quite frankly there has been a lot of contradiction in the debate, although the issues that are being addressed are very relevant. For some the issue of human rights priorities and trade priorities are incompatible in terms of considering them at one point.

There are some very interesting statistics. In looking at the web today I noted that the number of convictions, those who were tried for murder, has gone up dramatically in the last three years. The number of incidences of attacks on people related to business related activity, in fact, has done down, but it is not zero, and it would not be zero in any country I am sure.

However, it would appear, at least from the statistical information coming out that it is better today than it was 10 years ago, but the point still remains that there are huge concerns. If I look at the Brussels press, March 24, the headline says that in Colombia there is a gulf between human rights rhetoric and reality.

Therefore, there is some question. In fact, the Belgian chamber of representatives, representing trade unionists and Amnesty International heard denunciations of human rights violations, especially the murder of trade unionists and indigenous people, forced displacement and extrajudicial executions, as well as DAS's surveillance of Belgian NGOs. Belgian politicians currently oppose a trade agreement with Colombia over violations of human and labour rights.

Therefore, there is certainly one country that has taken this to a level of concern where it is not supporting a trade deal with Colombia.

In The Washington Times of March 4, 2010, interestingly I found that President Obama has been very aggressive in terms of promoting new export trade as part of his economic action plan, if I could borrow the words from across the way. One thing is what the president wishes, the other thing is what Congress is going to do. In this article of March 4, The Washington Times, entitled “Kirk gets pressure on trade deals” the policy makers indicate that they are facing political timing issues. The article states:

Unless Congress considers one of the agreements before the Memorial Day break, he doesn't expect any to come into play until after the November elections.

Therefore, technically I suppose it is fair to say that most of the work in terms of trade deals in the United States may not be dealt with until 2011 or later. So, we have time to consider this. It also says:

Mr. Obama's first major trade initiative in his own right will focus on his proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Negotiators from the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Peru, Vietnam, Chile, Singapore and Brunei will convene in Melbourne, Australia.

But there is no talk of Colombia.

In the The Washington Times of Friday, March 12, the headline states, “Trade deficit dips; exports, imports fall”. It states at the end:

On Thursday, the president issued an executive order formalizing the National Export Initiative to further his goal of doubling U.S. exports over the next five years in part “by working to remove trade barriers abroad”. The executive order did not mention the pending free-trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia--

It would appear that the U.S. government is not considering a Colombia trade deal to be a priority at this time. In The Washington Times of March 11, it stated:

President Obama on Thursday ordered an all-out effort by the U.S. government to increase exports--

Again, this confirms that Democrats are opposed to free trade deals in part because of South Korea's imposition of restrictions on U.S. imports and the attacks on Colombian labour leaders. This is in the United States. It has been raised in this place, as well.

It is not irrelevant to talk about the impact of trade on human rights and vice versa the impact of human rights on viable trade. These are very valid questions.

I raise these because we are at second reading, and the members are scouring some of the latest media and some of the things we received while we were dealing with this at second reading in the last session. There are some messages here from Colombian legislators who say that trade is going to be an important element of improving the human rights conditions of the people. This is the scenario.

Is this a wish and a hope, or is this a reality? That is a very important question. It is a very important question for us to consider, whether or not there is clear evidence that improved trade relations with other countries and having that ability to have that dialogue with them is going to have some benefit to countries where human rights issues have become a problem.

Last week when the debate commenced, the member for Kings—Hants spoke very eloquently about some of the issues. Also, in recognition of the concerns regarding human rights, he indicated to the House, in fact, in a question to the minister, that an arrangement had been reached with Colombia with regard to a reciprocal or bilateral approach to dealing with reports on the impact of this free trade agreement on the human rights situation.

I would like to read into the record and remind members of the points that the government has accepted in terms of amendments to the bill that are related, to try to address this. This is from Hansard of March 24, page 887, where the member for Kings—Hants said:

First, there must be a prior written agreement between the governments of Canada and Colombia, where each country provides annual reports to their respective parliaments on the impact of this FTA on human rights in both Canada and Colombia.

Second, Bill C-2 must be amended at committee by adding, “The Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament by March 31 of each year or, if that House is not then sitting, on any of the thirty days next thereafter that it is sitting, a report of operations for the previous calendar year, containing a general summary of all actions taken under the authority of this Act, and an analysis of the impact of these actions on human rights in Canada and Colombia”.

It would appear that there is some openness to considering the merits of entering into a trade relationship, a free trade deal, with Colombia, and that there is this understanding that there will be an annual assessment of the impacts on human rights of the trade deal that is taking place.

Members will know that bilateral trade between our two countries is not very large. It is in the range of about $1 billion. I am very hopeful that the committee will be open to having any and all expert witnesses to advise it on the facts because there have been some contradictions in debate.

I think it is extremely important that if hon. members are to make an informed decision, they will have to receive those facts and it will have to happen at committee.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for the member for Mississauga South. He has been literally whipsawed by his caucus over the last year on this very issue.

Last year, at the Standing Committee on International Trade, his party supported an independent human rights assessment, and that honestly was the correct position to take. In the meantime, that party changed leaders and critics, and now the new critic is headed off in a different direction.

The member for Kings—Hants knows what the American position is because we were in Washington recently, meeting with congressional representatives. We were told by republicans that regardless of what Obama said in the State of the Union Address, Congress in no way would deal with this issue. While all this was happening, the member for Kings—Hants was making arrangements with the Colombian government to introduce this amendment.

As the member has rightly pointed out, the amendment talks about allowing the Colombians to self-assess. This is in no way on any sort of scale with the idea of having an independent human rights assessment. I do not think anybody would disagree with that.

I do not understand why the member is now willing to compromise and accept this amendment when he should support the Liberal Party's previous position at committee.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to this bill, as I have in the past, because constituents in my riding have raised the matter with me and I want to let them know I am taking an interest in trying to inform myself. I certainly reject the member's suggestion that somehow I am doing something. I am here representing my constituents.

Let me conclude simply by referring to this quote:

Much of Canadian investment will be in the extractive industry; it is in regions of the country where the extractive industry operates where 75% of human rights violations and displacements occur. There are no guarantees that...companies will not be indirectly affecting the well-being of local communities in such an environment.

I agree with that. Canadians deserve some assurances that all appropriate steps will be taken to ensure there are no unintended negative consequences with regard to entering into this deal.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Liberal member.

First, let us review the facts. When the committee report was tabled, it had a specific recommendation. I will not quote it, but I hope to get the idea across. It recommended that we not sign this free trade agreement until someone had examined the human rights situation, this situation had improved, and the improvements were maintained.

In committee, the opposition, or the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, needed the support of the Liberals. At the time, the Liberals agreed. They are now saying they would be happy with a yearly study or analysis. But what will that change if there are no changes made to human rights? The agreement will be signed and there will be no way to encourage Colombia to improve its human and environmental rights.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the committee reported back to the House and recommended that there be an independent human rights assessment done. I did not just take it at face value. I wanted to find out who would do this. Therefore, I spoke with Amnesty International and asked if it would conduct an independent human rights assessment for Colombia, and the answer was no.

That is a problem. It is one thing to ask for something; it is another thing to deliver it. It would appear that no one has come forward to say that there would be any benefit in trying to do some sort of an assessment.

I believe the question the member has raised has to be brought up at committee to find out whether there is a credible independent organization that even would be prepared to do such a study.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I take my turn in joining the hon. members of the Bloc Québécois who have spoken in large numbers today regarding BillC-2 on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

This debate has been going on for nearly two years in the House of Commons. So many things have been said. We know that the Bloc Québécois will resolutely oppose this agreement so long as it contains no guarantees on the protection of human rights. But we are seeing more and more examples. Every day we learn that, in many situations in Colombia, workers’ rights are not respected. The failure to respect the rights of individuals is also decried.

What we know is that the Canadian government wants to conclude a free trade agreement which is basically more about investment than trade. It is thought that this agreement, as drafted, will make life easier for Canadian investors, and in particular, it must be said, those who want to invest in mining in Colombia.

If we look closely at this agreement, we see that it contains provisions allowing investors to take a foreign government to court when that government adopts measures that reduce the returns on their investments. Such provisions are especially dangerous in a country where laws governing labour and the protection of the environment are, at best, haphazard.

The Bloc Québécois feels that by protecting a Canadian investor against any improvement in the living conditions in Colombia, such an agreement increases the risk of delaying social and environmental progress in that country, even though it is in great need of such progress.

We know—and I think there is no lack of evidence—that Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in the world, and certainly in Latin America. With the signing of this free trade agreement, Canada would forego any ability to bring pressure to bear on this country to get things changed and bring about more respect for human rights.

The government repeats that the agreement comes with a side agreement on labour and another on the environment. However we believe that these agreements are completely ineffective. As I was saying earlier, the Bloc is against trading away the government's ability to press for human rights to provide Canadian corporations with foreign investment opportunities.

The members of the Bloc and the NDP have spoken out loud and clear against this bill. It is sad to hear the Liberals so easily abandoning their tradition of human rights advocacy. They are prepared to drop their opposition to this bill for an amendment which, in our view, is not acceptable either. Numerous groups and associations are critical of this agreement. I will name a few of them. These are not small organizations: they are large organizations representing many members.

I listened to the Liberal member who spoke before me saying that he listens to the people in his riding. It is true, that is important. The people in my riding are loud and clear in asking me to oppose this agreement as well as the amendment, or the idea that one Liberal member came up with to try and see if it were possible to get this agreement adopted.

The person advising me is someone very much committed to the defence of human rights, who works with a major labour confederation in Quebec and the FTQ, which represents over 800,000 workers. I was saying earlier that our thinking and our decisions are supported by the people we represent in Quebec. I can say that certain pressures are coming from them as well.

We are also talking with the following organizations: the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, Amnesty International, the FTQ, Development & Peace, KAIROS, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Lawyers Without Borders Canada, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the CSN and the National Union of Public and General Employees.

These groups, associations and unions are begging the Bloc Québécois to stay the course and to oppose this bill. This is about respecting human rights, but it is also about protecting trade unionists. Since 2006, more than 2,400 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia, and the murders continue. The Liberals may say that the situation has improved, but they will have to show me concrete examples that prove that the change is substantial and not merely a minor adjustment. If that were the case, the Bloc could change its position on the bill, as the Liberals have done.

A newspaper article caught my eye and I think it is worthwhile to quote some passages from it, because it affected me greatly. Le Figaro of last March 20, contained the following article:

A veteran Colombian journalist, Clodomiro Castillo, was murdered by a hired killer in Monteria, a city in the department of Cordoba, in the north of Colombia...

Clodomiro Castillo, who ran the magazine El Pulso del Tiempo and the radio station La Voz, was shot yesterday by a man on a motorcycle...the journalist had focused on exposing corruption...and had received threats that led authorities to provide him with special protection, which was recently withdrawn.

The journalist had also testified for the prosecution in a number of cases that exposed links between politicians, local businessmen and ultra-right paramilitary groups, said Ivan Cepeda, director of the NGO National Movement of Victims of State Crimes.

“His death is an attack on those in the department of Cordoba who have demanded an investigation into the links between the paramilitary and factions in political and economic life,” said Ivan Cepeda, speaking on the private radio station Caracol.

The situation shows no sign of improving. Even with the amendment that could be introduced, and even with an agreement to report annually on the human rights record, by signing this agreement, Canada will lose its leverage and its ability to exert pressure on Colombia to end its unacceptable human rights practices.

As I have already mentioned, there are many examples. The Conservatives have taken their position and will not change their minds. But I hope that the Liberals will do the right thing by refusing to support this bill.

In its June 2008 report, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development refused to approve the bill without an independent assessment of the impact of the agreement on human rights. I hope that the Liberals will review their position and will oppose Bill C-2.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the member's position. I can assure her that in my riding I have not heard anyone say that he or she is in favour of the free trade agreement with Colombia. I want to reflect in this place that the people who have communicated with me are more concerned about human rights than they are about incremental trade with Colombia.

I want to ask the member if she is aware that the U.S. Department of State on September 8, 2009 certified to Congress that the Colombian government and armed forces were meeting statutory criteria to human rights and paramilitary groups. It also indicated, “There is no question that improvement must be made in certain areas; however, the Colombian government has made significant efforts to increase the security of its people and to promote respect for human rights”.

It would appear that the United States is not blindly going into this. I wonder if the member is aware of any other information about the considerations that other jurisdictions are making prior to entering into a free trade agreement with Colombia.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. Actually, we have to get to the bottom of things. The hon. member is very experienced. He is a veteran parliamentarian with a lot of experience, and he knows we must also look at what is behind this bill.

It is hard to understand why Canada would want to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia. In fact, the purpose of signing a free trade agreement is trade. But we do not see the attraction that this trade would provide. How is it worth the trouble when the people and the workers of Colombia have to be abandoned?

So I have a hard time understanding why the Liberals are still supporting Bill C-2.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up to what the member for Mississauga South said.

It is very clear to me that he is one of the members of the Liberal caucus who does not support this agreement. He really does not like it at all. As a matter of fact, he is practically the only caucus member who has shown up in the House to make a speech on this bill, but he does not have a lot of good ground to work with.

He indicated that he had tried to find an independent human rights impact assessment group that would actually carry out this independent assessment. He said that Amnesty International would not do it. He left it there and said that now the member for Kings—Hants has proposed an amendment and the solution is that we are going to let the Colombians do it themselves.

If he is not really sure about where he was before, clearly he does not agree with the member for Kings—Hants that it is acceptable to allow Colombians to do their own human rights assessment.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the NDP member.

I hope to be able to influence the Liberals on this side and explain to them that, basically, for trade to be mutually beneficial, it must first be fair. That is where everything starts.

A trading system that results in the exploitation of the poorest countries and dumping in the richest countries is not viable. The Bloc Québécois cannot trade viability for an agreement that allows exploitation in Colombia.

So we should look at what is behind this agreement, and see in whose interest it is that the agreement be signed and who will benefit from it.

When we engage in trade, it must be fair, but that is not the case with this agreement, which is completely unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to join in this debate, but it seems an unfortunate circumstance that again we have to engage the government and its very loyal official opposition in respect to trade deals. The bill we are speaking to today, Bill C-2, was Bill C-23 in the previous Parliament before the government undemocratically shut down the House, thereby killing its own legislation. That is an ironic way to run government. For a government that claims to be in such a hurry to open up trade deals like this, the question is whether this trade deal meets the standard of morality and ethics that most Canadians hold.

Let us quickly go through aspects of the bill. There are two central concerns.

One is if we believe the press releases from the member for Kings—Hants, the bill was first negotiated on a dance floor over a couple of rum and Cokes in Colombia with a foreign trade minister. If this story is true, and we have to take it with a grain of salt when it comes to the member for Kings--Hants and how he enters into the media, this is a strange way for the government to have trade relations with a foreign government. An opposition member goes dancing with the other country's trade minister and at the end of the night they decide why not have a trade deal together but they will not put in any uncomfortable conditions as to how to treat the environment or how to deal with human rights complaints because that would be cumbersome for trade.

When we boil this down, the question before the House and before Canadians is, will the Government of Canada finally take the evolutionary step of moving from blanket carte blanche free trade deals to fair trade deals? Will it move to deals between this country and its democratically elected representatives and foreign nations that lift up both countries and in particular address aspects of trade, such as the environment, human rights and labour codes? Clearly in Bill C-2, formerly Bill C-23, there is little or no mention of these important concerns. These are concerns that everyday Canadians have.

A second aspect is the net benefit, the true benefit to Canada. All of us were elected to this place and came here seeking to make lives better for those whom we represent. We would want any trade deal put forward by the government to enhance the quality of life not just in the other country, but also in Canada. We have seen time and time again that when regulations and the values of this country are not placed in those trade deals, they go awry.

My riding in northwestern British Columbia has been an unfortunate victim of trade deals signed by previous Liberal and Conservative governments. We know all too well what happens when a trade deal is signed. So-called foreign investment comes in, but it is simply a foreign takeover. The jobs go away. The investment is not investment; it is simply a robbing of Canadians' greatest crown jewels, and corporate entities that used to provide jobs in this country now provide them somewhere else and the interests of Canadians are no longer represented.

For members who have not spent time in Latin America this can be difficult to understand. Democratically elected governments in places like Colombia, Peru or Ecuador will institute what are called paramilitary death squads or groups that go out and simply take care of any opposition to the sitting government. This is an abhorrent practice which unfortunately is all too common in some of the countries in the south; not all and not all the time, but it exists. To ignore the existence of such practices is either naive or outright ignorant. Particularly with the Uribe government in Colombia it is well documented, and all members in this place should be concerned, that it is a government that presents itself to the world as diplomatic and democratic, yet at home treats trade union officials and groups that dare to raise dissent to the sitting government with the utmost of severe and punishing violence.

The proposals the New Democrats have put forward in order to encourage this Parliament along, in order to entice the government toward fair trade, have been rather precise and simple. A review of human rights abuses in the trading country, in the partner that we seek to sign this agreement with, should be done independently by a group not associated with the said government.

We are saying that if this trade deal were to go ahead, there should be an independent commission to look at the complaints raised against Colombia, identify them and report to both elected houses. That commission would tell us what happened in the last year, the allegations, the ones it thinks are true, and the concerns that we should be raising.

The suggestion that we have an independent human rights council, which already exists by the way, able to report to both houses of each country, seems to us to be a most reasonable suggestion, a push toward something that all Canadians would agree with. We want trade to enhance the quality of life of our trading partners. We do not want our trade to facilitate the opposite effect.

This addresses an ideology within some members of the House that trade automatically equals democratic improvement, that anywhere there has been a notion of a free trade agreement or a new, enhanced trading practice, a sweeping wave, the invisible hand of the market will step in and lift up the voices of the independents in that country, allowing people independent thought and expression in the political sphere.

Some of the strongest trading partnerships we have are with countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and the list goes on. We have been trading with Saudi Arabia for 70 or 80 years. Has there been the democratic improvement that is always promised with these trade negotiations? Has the plight of women in Saudi Arabia improved because we continue to buy its oil and services?

It is not implicit. There is nothing implicit in trade that says democratic reforms will come to that place, that human rights conditions will improve. There is nothing in trading with another country that says that as soon as we start to trade with them, things will automatically get better with respect to the environment, labour laws, and the basic reforms of social democracy.

There is nothing in this agreement that enables that either. That is the concern New Democrats have put forward to the government. We have pleaded with the government and the Liberals at committee and in the House. We are not standing against the notion of trade with Colombia, but if we are going to trade with Colombia, we should do it in such a way that Canadians will be proud. We should do it in such a way that will enhance the lives of the Colombians who will be affected by our trade relationship.

Is that unreasonable? No. Yet time and time again we run into this brick wall of ideology that says to trade at all costs with no conditions. We see what the practices lead to. Undemocratic countries around the world that we have traded with for generations have not improved any of these things. Why? Because we do not ask for it. We have never asked to evolve our trade practices. We have never said let us seek to define and understand what fair trade would be like, so at the end of the day we would see those improvements. That seems reasonable to us.

I mentioned Skeena--Bulkley Valley earlier because the place that I represent has seen two distinct so-called instances of foreign investment, which the government somewhat rightly will laud whenever it has an increase in foreign investment numbers, money coming into the country, theoretically investing in Canada, to make our economy stronger.

Skeena Cellulose Inc., a multi-tiered forestry firm in northwestern British Columbia with some 3,500 employees, went through a bankruptcy. The foreign protection laws were erased by a previous Conservative government. A Chinese firm owned wholly by the Chinese government, not a subsidiary, not a subcontractor, with no record and no compunction whatsoever, came in and shut down the mill. It made promises to the people of Prince Rupert where the main mill had been situated and six years later nothing has been done. It has not opened a thing, and the 3,500 workers have had to find other work.

Rio Tinto Alcan, formerly Alcan, formerly a crown gem in Canada's industrial sector, was taken over by a firm from outside, again with no conditions from the government. In Kitimat, one of the communities where Alcan used to operate but now it is Rio Tinto, a promise of a future mill expansion has not come and it is killing the community. This is a story that unfortunately exists across this country.

All we are asking for is a reasonable trade policy. All we are asking for is a fair trade policy from the government, one that we can all stand behind and support, one that Colombians will congratulate us for, one that will truly lift up the lives of all those concerned, not one as has been presented by the government with false promises and no hope for renewal.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a large number of members have made representations during this debate about the number of unionist homicides. For the public information, they should know what the facts are as reported by the ministry of social protection and the attorney general in Colombia.

Between 1986 and 1990, there were 336 homicides, no sentences proffered.

Between 1991 to 1994, there were 509 homicides, no sentences, no prosecutions.

Between 1995 to 1998, there were 720 homicides, no prosecutions.

Between 1999 to 2001, there were 603 homicides, 7 prosecutions.

Between 2002 to 2006, there were 315 homicides, 47 prosecutions.

Between 2007 to December 20, 2009, there were 109 homicides, 185 sentences proffered.

I think the figures speak for themselves. This is a very serious problem. The members who have raised the issue are warranted to raise these concerns. I simply offer this as a comment. This matter has to be dealt with thoroughly at committee.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the tragic listing of numbers that mean so much. We can list so many hundreds and no prosecutions. We can list another so many hundreds and no prosecutions.

However, the implication is twofold, not only to the lives of those lost through persecution, sometimes at the hands of their own government, as in the case of Colombia, not only to their families that have lost those people who dared raise their voices, in many cases, to provide criticism to government, something that we try to honour every day in the House, and fought and died for, but it speaks to the effects of people in the future who seek to raise their voices, who seek to express concerns for their families or their communities for something that the government has done to them, for something that outside companies, which do not obey the laws and rules of the land, do to them.

If the people do not have their government on their side, how can we possibly sign a deal with such a government? How can we possibly sign a deal with false hope of any protection for those very families, communities and workers? It is abhorrent. We need to take a step back, look at this and make it better.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we know farmers have been dispossessed by mining companies in Colombia and in other countries for many years and that the environment has been degraded by those same companies for many years. Our free trade agreements should allow us to improve on these conditions with those countries.

How is the negotiation of this agreement and the amendment that the member for Kings—Hants has cooked up with the president and minister from Colombia, in any way, shape or form, going to improve the lives of the displaced farmers in Colombia and how is going to improve on the environmental conditions in that country?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment put forward by the Liberal member is more than an insult. It pretends to do something it knows it will not. It pretends to provide some sort of security with respect to human rights in Colombia, yet the amendment asks the Colombia government to do that. It proposes that the Colombian government review its own human rights record, decide whether it is good enough and then tell Canadians and Colombians about it.

I do not want to be cynical, but my suspicion is this. If the Colombian government continues to break human rights, continues to assassinate trade union leaders, it will not report on it. That is just a guess.

The fact that the Liberal member proposes this as some sort of fix or cure is an insult to everyone's intelligence in this place. Worse, it has the tragic consequence of continuing a practice that simply must not be allowed to continue.

It seems to me that in order to facilitate the things that Canada wishes, which is a better world for all, to raise all ships to better environmental standards, the first thing we should do is practise that type of integrity in this place. The amendment is a waste of time and paper. We should move to a real fair trade deal with Colombia and Canada. That would be true progress.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the NDP member's speech, I remembered that it might be useful to do a run through of the debates we have had in the House on this bill. I am not necessarily referring to the bill before us today, because there was prorogation, but I am referring to the similar bill introduced in the previous session regarding a Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

In September 2009, debates were underway in the House. The NDP member for Nanaimo—Cowichan urged the government to refuse to adopt Bill C-23—as it was called at the time—and to take into account the strong opposition of human rights organizations.

Speaking of human rights, my NDP colleague reminded me that last fall, the human rights situation was an important issue for the NDP members and for my colleagues from Sherbrooke and Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who also sat on the Standing Committee on International Trade.

The NDP's subamendment was defeated on October 7, 2009, by the Liberals and the Conservatives. We might have expected that from the Conservatives, but not from the Liberals. The Liberals, who rant and rave about how Canada has lost its lustre, that it is nothing but a pale imitation of itself on the international scene, decided to ignore the strong criticisms or concerns expressed by a number of witnesses. They decided to move forward, like a bulldozer, and to blindly follow the Conservatives.

The Bloc Québécois has taken to referring to the Conservatives and Liberals as two faces with one vision. And here is even more concrete proof.

During debate on the subamendment, the Conservative members were saying that we were shifting the debate to human rights issues when it was about a trade agreement. Today, we do not hear them say that because they are literally absent from the debate. All afternoon I have been listening to hon. members from the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, but the Conservatives have made themselves scarce.

At the time, they were adamant that this made no sense and that we should not be shifting the focus of the debate. It is completely unacceptable for a parliamentarian to say that we should study only one aspect of a bill and not study it more globally and assess all its repercussions. According to Conservative logic, when we study a bill, we should close our eyes to some aspects, but keep them wide open for others.

In my opinion, that is not the right approach. We have to study a bill seriously and assess all its consequences before determining whether we are in favour of it or not.

In this case, we must not consider the bill before us in isolation, independently of some of our concerns or the impact it might have. In fact, it is important to get clarifications and assurances, especially when it comes to human rights issues.

These same Conservatives told us that we have to do this because the Americans, our neighbours the south, are as well, but, in fact, the Americans were also a bit reluctant to move forward with their free trade plans with Colombia. What is more, they were reluctant for the same reasons we are. Their bill will not become law until Congress receives some assurances.

I think everyone here in this House should call for such assurances so that this agreement is consistent with the values we uphold, values that Quebeckers stand for, as do, I imagine, a good number of Canadians as well.

Let me continue my chronology. After the New Democrat subamendment was defeated on October 7, 2009, we debated the bill on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement in this House and we studied an amendment introduced by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, who, at the time, sat on the Standing Committee on International Trade. He has also become an expert on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. He pointed out to members of the House that it was not at all appropriate to support the bill because the government had decided to force it down the throats of hon. members while the Standing Committee on International Trade was still in the process of studying it. The hon. member for Sherbrooke pointed out at that time that the government was doing so in contempt of our democratic institutions.

Can we be surprised that this government, in some respects, is in contempt of our democratic institutions?

I always like to remind the House that, when all opposition members vote with one voice in favour of motions or bills, the government always gives thought to its own preferences before implementing measures that have been supported by a majority of hon. members of this House. The democracy that the government practices operates on a sliding scale. If the Conservatives are in favour, things move forward; if the Conservatives are not in favour, even though the majority of hon. members of this House are, things are set aside, things are forgotten and they act as if nothing had happened and as if the democratically held vote in the House was worth nothing.

Despite that very legitimate appeal by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, nothing was done. Hon. members know, as I do, that the session was then prorogued and we were unable to continue the debate. We are resuming it today with BillC-2, a bill, let us not forget, that puts much more stock on protecting investors than on trade agreements.

For example, how can we allow companies to sue governments simply because those governments decide to implement measures designed to foster the development of their people?

That is the question I ask as I conclude my remarks.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member summarized some of the key elements that have come forward in this debate with regard to why we should not proceed with a FTA with Colombia. It raises a question, though, and maybe the member has some comments.

Could he imagine what the scenario would have to be in order for all hon. members to support a FTA with Colombia? What do the numbers have to show? What is the position? Is it a total absence of any violence whatsoever in Colombia as it relates to the trade activity? It is an important question from this standpoint. What is the threshold of tolerance? Maybe the member has some comments.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member for Mississauga South is of great importance since, in fact, we are always asking ourselves that question. Is there a threshold of tolerance? Is there a magic number? My answer to him would be that, first and foremost, we must ensure that there are mechanisms, that there is also a degree of security, that everyone is comfortable, that they are not silenced and that bad practices can be talked about, put on the table and analyzed. I feel that, beyond the numbers, we must consider the climate and the context.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member neglected to point out that no Liberal who has spoken on this bill has actually supported what the Liberals are doing, neither the amendment nor the bill itself. There are people in the Liberal caucus who actually do not like this agreement. The question is whether they are going to miss the vote or change their position on the issue.

Clearly, based on what he has said so far, the member for Mississauga South is not comfortable with this agreement. The question is whether the Liberal Party will continue to support the Conservatives through its presentation of this amendment or whether enough of its members will not vote for it and therefore defeat this bill.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the hon. member just said, and I believe he expressed a point of view, or made a comment. I did not really hear a question.

I will simply return to what I was saying a little earlier. He said he noticed that the hon. member for Mississauga South was not comfortable, and he was probably right. In fact, the Liberal Party surely wants to show Canada's actions abroad in a positive light. But, in its current form, the bill likely does not allow Canada to shine that positive light abroad. It is clear that the hon. member for Mississauga South, by supporting Bill C-2, goes against his party's natural stance, even though, on a number of issues, we see that the Conservatives and the Liberals share the same vision.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-2, 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.

We have been here before, as is evident to anybody watching. We in this corner, sharing with folks in the Bloc, are doing our best to put up the strongest fight possible against this very objectionable legislation. When I have been listening to the debate, a phrase has come to me a number of times. That phrase is, “selling our soul for a mess of pottage”. It is a phrase and idiom that has been in common usage for hundreds of years in the English language.

I think that phrase has its roots in the Biblical story of Esau, who sold his birthright for a bowl of stew, essentially, a bowl of soup. He sold his connection to the patriarchy in his day for something very ordinary. I think the expression means giving up something very fundamental to our humanity for something very ordinary. Some people describe it as giving up something important for a questionable benefit. That phrase, that idiom, has been going over and over in my head as we talk about this agreement with Colombia, selling our soul for a mess of pottage.

It seems to me in this case that we are talking about making a deal with Colombia and that this phrase perfectly describes the situation. This deal with Colombia, which has a very questionable history and current situation, is in conflict with things Canadians hold very dearly. I believe that, in entering into this agreement and negotiating this agreement, we are giving up on important Canadian values for something much less.

We are giving up on important Canadian values such as clear commitments to human rights, labour rights, the environment, land rights, the rights of indigenous people and democratic rights. What are we getting in exchange? We are getting the possibility of new economic opportunities with Colombia, primarily it seems for Canadian multinational mining corporations.

Is that a reasonable trade-off? Is compromising Canadian values when it comes to important rights worth the possibilities, not even the sure thing, of increased investment for Canadian multinational mining corporations? I think a lot of Canadians would have real trouble with that. Hence, I think it is apt to say that we are considering selling our soul for a mess of pottage.

We have heard a lot about what the serious issues are in Colombia. I am going to repeat a few of them because they certainly bear repeating, given the gravity of what we are entering. The whole situation with regard to labour rights in Colombia is absolutely disastrous. I think the Canadian Labour Congress was absolutely correct and clear when it said Colombia was the most dangerous country in the world to be a trade unionist.

We know that, since 1986, 2,700 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia and 45 in 2009 alone. We have a list of those 45 Colombian trade unionists who were killed in 2009. Those people were trying to make the lives of their fellow workers better and were murdered for those efforts. How do we explain to their families that Canada would enter into an agreement with a regime that allows that to happen?

It does allow it to happen. Not only has this gone on year after year but the conviction rate for these murders is incredibly small. It is a 3% conviction rate for those who murder trade unionists. That means that 97% of the murderers of trade unionists go with impunity. People are never charged, let alone convicted or sentenced for those crimes.

It is a very serious issue for us in a country where we respect labour rights and where we have a very active trade union movement. I think it is hard to understand how we could sell out on the issue of labour rights in making a deal with a regime like the Uribe regime in Colombia.

It does not make sense to me. I think we are giving up on something incredibly important, something that has served our country well, something that could serve Colombia well, in return for a possibility. We are not even sure what possibilities.

Also, it is very clear that, in terms of the rights of indigenous people and the related question of land rights, there are very serious issues in Colombia. We know that 32 aboriginal groups are in grave danger from the policies of the current government and from the way economic development is happening in Colombia. We know that 114 aboriginal people have also been murdered recently in the conflict that is going on in Colombia.

We know that millions of people have been internally displaced in Colombia. Some say four million people have been internally displaced, largely members of the Afro-Colombian communities. These are people who have been moved off their land in rural areas and forced into shanty towns in the larger cities and larger communities in an incredible internal displacement that I think is probably unmatched around the world. It is an incredibly serious issue.

To what end are we entering into an agreement with a regime, with a country, that allows this kind of internal displacement, this kind of lack of respect for its own people, to continue?

We know that democratic rights are often challenged in Colombia. We have seen electoral observation teams come away very critical of the electoral process in Colombia. We know, for instance, that the Colombian government has spied on members of the Colombian supreme court. All these are issues that should raise very serious concerns and do raise very serious concerns from Canadians who want us to be encouraging democratic rights around the world, not encouraging bad practice. That is probably putting it mildly in terms of what is going on in Colombia.

Canadians are also very concerned about environmental issues. Putting the environmental questions in a side agreement to the main trade agreement in this case just is not good practice either. It does not give those issues the kind of prominence they deserve and Canadians would expect them to have.

I think these are all clear examples that we are selling our soul. We are selling our soul on very crucial issues that Canadians want us to address here in Canada and around the world. We should say that confessionally, because on many of these issues we have had problems in our past. We continue to have issues around our treatment of first nations, Inuit and Métis people in Canada and the incredible rate of poverty.

There are places where we too can be criticized in these areas, but I do not think any Canadian would want us not to see these issues addressed in Colombia and would not believe they are the most serious and grave issues that should be addressed and should limit our ability to enter into a new and closer relationship with the Republic of Colombia.

On the whole question of what new possibilities will be opened up, there has been some talk of new economic opportunities for our multinational mining interests, but it also leads to the question about corporate social responsibility and just how Canadian multinational corporations behave in Colombia. There is a lot of concern about the practices of the corporations doing mining and natural resource development in Colombia. I am sure Canadian corporations are part of that concern.

Again, the whole question of selling our soul for appropriate development policies and development policies where the local people have some say in the development of those resources in their communities and in their country is a very important issue and does not seem to be addressed in this agreement.

We know there was discussion at one point at the standing committee that said there should be an independent human rights assessment of Colombia before we enter into this agreement. We have seen the Liberals back away completely from their former support for that. Now we see this special agreement they have proposed, their side deal with the Colombian government, and now their deal with the Conservative government that allows Colombia to examine its own human rights record and report on that. It is just not acceptable.

Again, I think we are selling our soul for a mess of pottage, and we do not even know what is in that stew we are buying. There are many problems with this deal, and I am glad I sit with a group of people who are doing everything they can to see it defeated.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents expressed the sentiments of a number of the people who have written to me when he stated, “There is no evidence suggesting that Canadian investments in Colombia will contribute to improving human rights”. This assumption, this hope, this belief seems to be permeating the discussion about whether there is any evidence that the existence of a trade agreement necessarily would have some improvements in terms of the human rights situation.

I share the member's concern about the amendment that is being proposed from the standpoint that I am not quite sure whether a report of both governments to their own parliaments on the trade deal's impact on human rights will be substantive or significant enough to sway the history and the facts of what the current situation is in Colombia, or would exist.

The marginal effects of a trade deal may have some impact, but the real question, to me, and I wonder if the member would comment, seems to be what is the current and ongoing position of human rights abuses in Colombia.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the member for Mississauga South just by quoting Colombian Methodist Church Bishop Juan Alberto Cardona, who was one of the first Colombians to visit Canada after this agreement was proposed. That was back in November 2007. He talked about what he considered would be the possible effects on the people of Colombia in signing this agreement. This is a direct quote from him:

Your Prime Minister and our President say that free trade will help us, but we know from other places like Mexico that these agreements might create more wealth for wealthy people, but they make inequalities worse. Whatever new wealth is created does not reach the poor people.

He really goes contrary to the whole notion that somehow signing these agreements helps the ordinary people of the country we sign the agreement with. I think he brings a significant witness to this situation.

He went on to describe the situation in Colombia, saying:

After four decades, a civil war goes on. In the past 20 years, the conflict has taken the lives of 70,000 people. Since 2002, when Alvaro Uribe became president, more than a million additional people have become internally displaced

So there are very, very serious consequences, and I do not think there is any evidence that signing this kind of agreement will help the people of Colombia.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment and ask a question, but as far as the comment is concerned, the member for Mississauga South and the member for Kings—Hants clearly have different ideas. The member for Kings—Hants has said many times that trade deals actually help to improve human rights, and that is the whole basis of his amendment, whereas the member for Mississauga South is saying that this trade deal will not have any effect on human rights.

In terms of the question for the member as to what will happen if we do not sign and approve this deal, the government member today indicated that $1.3 billion in trade already exists but is planned to increase 4% in the next year. There are 50 Canadian mining companies and oil exploration companies active, and this is all without a free trade agreement.

Does the member think that trade will be affected in any way if we do not sign this agreement?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, often in this corner we have more faith in the entrepreneurial ability of capitalists than the capitalist-supporting members of the House do. We know that people will seek opportunities to make money, and they will do that in any circumstances presented to them. It is clear that even without a free trade agreement with Colombia, Canadian corporations are making money there and will intend to continue that.

We need to ask them serious questions about corporate social responsibility. Are they doing that in a way that does not sell our souls down the river and is an acceptable way of doing business internationally for Canadians?

I think there are very serious questions to be raised there. We know that is a very serious issue and we want to make sure that is the way Canada behaves when it works internationally, whether that be through our economic interests or our diplomatic or other relations with other countries.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-2 today, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. No one will be surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois is not in favour of this bill.

In the next few minutes, I plan on talking about the absurdity of this agreement, which is not a free trade agreement or a trade agreement. As we read through it, it becomes clear that this is an investment agreement. We can understand to a certain extent that it is important to protect investments abroad.

When governments decide to nationalize a business, Canadian investors and others who invested in these countries must be fairly compensated. We understand that. However, we do not agree with going so far as to allow for investors to sue the Colombian government if its social decisions affect the investors' profits. This kind of country completely disregards human rights and labour relations by intimidating or killing union activists. We cannot agree with taking things that far.

As members of Parliament, we must be open-minded and not focus solely on the sacrosanct monetary and trade approach. When Parliament or the government signs an agreement, we must consider our social responsibility. We must ensure that a trade agreement or investment agreement will not have a negative impact.

The agreement before us now will set Colombian society back significantly. As members of Parliament, we must live up to our social and international responsibilities.

Bloc members feel that to vote in favour of this agreement is to repudiate our social responsibility and to let important matters go by the wayside. We must reaffirm our stand, not only on labour relations, but also on the environment.

Day after day, we are confronted by everything that is happening on the planet. With global warming and with the effect of greenhouse gas emissions, we must not move too quickly. We must even make the same kinds of decisions locally, in our constituencies.

In my view, the constituency of Saint-Jean would want nothing to do with a company that completely pillaged the environment in order to make money hand over fist and that paid no heed to labour conditions or labour relations. That is the point we have reached. In the past, everything was accepted. Now that is no longer possible because of the new problem confronting us: climate change. We must face up to our responsibilities.

Of course, we are told that there will be side agreements. But everyone understands that side agreements are not part of the real agreement. If side agreements were signed on the environment, on human rights and on labour relations before the agreement itself is signed, perhaps we would be more open. But there is no chance of that happening. The agreement will be signed and the side agreements will be negotiated afterwards. But it will be too late because we can no longer go back on our original signature.

For the Bloc, it is important for the agreement to show respect for the environment and to protect labour relations, but that is not the case here. This is why the Bloc has been opposed to this bill for so long. With the prorogation of the House, the bill has come back at second reading, and we are still opposed to it.

When the government signs an agreement, it has a responsibility. It knows that it is able to put significant pressure on the other government before reaching an agreement with it.

It can refuse to sign if the other country does not meet international standards in terms of the environment or labour relations. That is important. Some people call this the carrot and the stick strategy. Perhaps that is what it is, but if we want to live up to our responsibilities, we must tell the Colombian government that we cannot accept what it is doing and that it must change. We cannot accept the deaths of unionists and the degradation or complete destruction of the environment. We cannot.

It is important to say this and oppose it now. We have to say that we cannot agree to this kind of deal. We are not the only ones. Everyone knows how open the American Congress is to finance, trade and investments. Everyone knows that the American Congress is relatively liberal and acts quickly on these kinds of issues. Yet it is blocking an agreement with Colombia because it wants to ensure that minimum labour standards are met. It wants to protect the union movement.

Is this agreement a trade deal or not? It is very simple. A trade agreement means that we want to exchange things, that the economies are more or less equal and that the products are of interest to us. That is not the case. I have statistics and economic data here.

In 2007, Colombia's GDP was $256 million and Canada's GDP was $1,610 billion. That is not comparable at all. Colombia's per capita GDP was $5,314, while Canada's was $48,427. Colombia's inflation rate was 7%, while Canada's was 2.3%. Unemployment was at 11.8% in Colombia, 6% in Canada.

Thus, our situations are not exactly equal. What do we have to gain from this, in terms of trade? Not much. One of our research documents shows that it is more or less equal in terms of trade balance. Signing this will not make us rich. Why would some have us believe that Canada will make a fortune by signing this? The Canadian government, in other words Canada, is opening its markets to South America, which means that the direct impact on Colombia might not be significant. The repercussions will be felt across all of South and Central America. So this is more of an investment agreement.

In fact, I have the numbers right here. In 2008, foreign investors from Colombia invested $1 million in Canada, while Canada invested $1.158 billion in Colombia. That is what is very dangerous. There is a clear imbalance and this agreement protects investments a lot more than an agreement meant to foster trade. The government must be careful. We do not want this bill to pass at this time, because we want to live up to our responsibilities, as I said earlier.

We can also talk about the paramilitary groups accused of killing thousands of people there, not to mention the 30 or so members of the Colombian congress in prison and 60 or so who are under investigation, which suggests collusion between paramilitary forces and the government. Last but not least, Colombia is a narco-state. Everyone knows what goes on in Colombia.

I could go on much longer, for instance, about how workers are targeted by violence. We could talk about the meetings the Bloc Québécois has had with representatives of civil society and social organizations from Colombia.

We think this agreement is completely unacceptable. That is why it should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill at second reading.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member explained things rather well when said that this was all about an investment agreement.

The fact is that we already have $1.3 billion worth of trade with Colombia and it is projected to increase 4% in the coming years. This whole exercise is about 50 Canadian mining and oil exploration companies that are doing quite well and will be doing quite well in the future.

I remember last year asking the government if it could give us a projection as to what would happen with trade in the short term and the long term, four or five years and longer, if we were to sign this agreement. It indicated at the time that it had no figures and that no studies had been done. What sort of preparation do the Conservatives engage in when they bring in a measure like this? Do they just simply write it up on the back of their hands?

Clearly, in the case of the member for Kings—Hants, that is exactly how the Liberal Party does business, where the member negotiates amendments with the president of Colombia at a dance club and then brings it into the House here, gets immediate agreement from the government and we are off to the races in making this the number one initiative of the government in this new session.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. If we do not sign this agreement, will trade between Canada and Colombia disappear? No. Will it continue to expand? Yes.

The problem lies with investment. We spoke about Colombia's natural resources, including mines, and the oil companies that will invest there. If we look to the recent and more distant past of our own country, Canada—as well as Quebec—we see that the mining and oil companies, with their oil sands, are not the most responsible companies in terms of environmental issues.

Here, in Canada, we nevertheless can access remedies to rein them in. However, in Colombia, there are no remedies. If measures are implemented in an attempt to protect the environment or if legislation is introduced to improve labour relations, investors can sue the Colombian government on the grounds that their profit has been affected.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague about some of the material that has been coming from Colombia about all the praise that has been going through this. The thrust of the praise has been that this will open up opportunities for many of the people down there. In the words of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:

The Supreme Court and the Attorney General's Office are incredibly brave in investigating and bringing to trial public officials linked to mafias and drug trafficking in the so-called “Para-politics”.

I would like the member to comment on that particular submission by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Also, would this particular agreement not open up a better way for labour opportunities, meaning better laws regarding labour in the nation of Colombia?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say to my colleague that, according to our assessment, the opposite is true. We have to look at the underlying reasons.

When Canadian shareholders invest in a Colombian mine or when Canadian or American oil companies invest in Colombia, and their profits decline, they can sue the government.

The Colombian government will say that it cannot improve the lives of workers because that would increase costs for companies and decrease their profits. In addition, if the Colombian government realizes that these companies are degrading the environment, it will leave them alone because it does not want to be sued.

Therefore, the complete opposite will happen. That is the issue in this debate: the negative impact of this agreement on working conditions and the environment.

It is for this reason that we oppose this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I resume debate, I want to clarify an issue with questions and comments in the House. When members are giving 10-minute speeches, 5 minutes are allocated for questions and comments. In order to get two questions and two answers in, it is about a minute and fifteen seconds per person. I give people a signal around the one minute mark to wrap up. When they get to a minute and fifteen seconds, I usually give another signal to wrap up.

When members get to a minute and a half, I will start cutting people off because you either leave little time for the second question and answer or you leave very little time for the speaker to respond to you. I would ask for the co-operation of all hon. members so that we can get two questions and two answers in that period of time.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to Bill C-2, which has to do with free trade with Colombia.

Needless to say, I will be voting against this bill. I would like to share some figures about Colombia. Since 1986, 2,690 union activists have been killed. In 2008 alone, murders increased 18% over the previous year, and since November 2009, 34 union activists have been killed, with no government protection. If someone kills a worker, all they face in the way of punishment is a fine from the government.

I just cannot believe that our government is prepared to sign a free trade agreement with a country like that and that the Liberals support the deal.

I was a union representative in a former life. I worked in the mines, and I know what goes on down there in terms of safety. In 1996, in the Brunswick mine in New Brunswick, six people were killed. The union worked very hard to have the law changed in Canada. The right to refuse to work began in New Brunswick.

Yet our country, which now has laws that allow workers to refuse unsafe work, is going to sign an agreement with a country where workers are hunted. It is open season on workers who disagree with the company or want to join a union.

This is totally unacceptable. Colombia deserves no praise for its human rights practices and laws.

How can our country, in good conscience, sign an agreement with a country that is not willing to give workers rights? Why sign an agreement and say that human rights will follow? If Colombia is willing to respect workers' rights, then why not include that in the agreement and in the laws as well? Why does Colombia not pass a law immediately and disclose what it contains? The agreement says that if any social changes are legislated, companies can sue the government.

This is outrageous. It is shameful and unacceptable for this government to introduce this bill to implement a free trade agreement with Colombia.

How can we rise in the House and vote for a bill on free trade with a country incapable of respecting human rights? How can we conclude an agreement with a country that does not respect workers, the men and women who get up in the morning, go to work and build a country, the same way Canada was built?

Worse yet, how can we draft a document, an agreement, when the Colombian government is turning a blind eye to this? How can we sign an agreement like this and have a conscience? This is unconscionable.

It is despicable that the Liberals are supporting this. I am asking the Liberals to change their minds, especially since this is a minority government. They know what is going on in Colombia and they think that by signing an agreement, everything will fall into place. Get real. When companies think they can make even more money they laugh all the way to the bank. That is where their money goes. It does not go toward improving working conditions. Even here in Canada, without unions, labour relations would not be what they are today. The only reason there are a number of companies out there that have good labour relations without a union is that these companies do not want to be unionized and they know that unions are always ready to move in.

Imagine Canada without unions. We see that things can happen even with unions around.

Take, for example, what is going on in Sudbury, where the strike has been going on for a record amount of time in Ontario. Foreign companies set up shop here, buy the company and want to do things the same way it is done in their own country. They say that we are the ones who need to adapt. That is what they said in Sudbury. Foreign company Vale SA purchased Inco and is now telling workers to get used to the way it does things. That is going on here, in Canada. The government supports these kinds of companies and wants to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia, despite everything that is going on.

Since 1986, 2,690 unionists have been killed in Colombia because of their union involvement. That is atrocious and shameful. What is even more atrocious and shameful is that our government is prepared to sign a free trade agreement with such a country. That is completely unacceptable.

In the United States, the free trade agreement between Colombia and the United States was supported by George Bush when he was in power. Now that he is no longer in power, the United States—led by Barack Obama—is trying to back out of the agreement. They do not want to sign it. This shows the similarities between the Conservatives and the former American president George Bush, who was prepared to sign an agreement with Colombia. Now that he is no longer in power, they should be proud that his replacement is saying no to an agreement with Colombia.

Canada should do the same thing. If we do not, we are saying that we do not respect workers or human rights. Colombia in no way respects workers' rights.

What do Colombians have to say? Workers are asking us not to sign this agreement. They do not want it because it will not improve their lives. People make a bigger deal about the way seals are killed than about Colombian workers. People care more about protecting seals than they do about protecting Colombian workers. That is unbelievable.

For all of these reasons, we cannot support such an agreement. Before the House was prorogued, the NDP and the Bloc fought hard against Bill C-23, which is back as Bill C-2. This is the same bill.

The government wants to listen to companies seeking to profit from free trade, but it does not care about workers. Do human beings in Colombia not get a say in this? Do people speaking on behalf of those who have lost their lives not get a say?

The Conservatives opposite think this agreement is something to smile about. Personally, I find that sad because I would not be able to sleep at night if I signed such an agreement. We know that Colombia does not respect human rights or workers' rights. The government knows that too. It should be ashamed. This agreement will do nothing to make workers' lives any better. Quite the opposite, as Colombian workers have warned us, and I agree with them.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a newspaper article out of Colombia on March 4 had the headline “Colombia to investigate 100 judges for corruption”. It states:

Colombian Inspector General...announced Thursday that corruption has infiltrated the government's judicial branch, with over 100 Colombian judges to be investigated for corrupt practices.

For me, that has raised the question of not just whether there are human rights abuses because some people there are murdering labour leaders and others, but whether the system has been very slow to respond. This report is from this month, indicating corruption within the judiciary exists. The prospect of any improvements cannot happen unless the government and the judiciary themselves are shown to be onside and working in the right direction.

Would the member agree that this is not only a matter of whether people are committing homicides against labour unionists, but whether the government has demonstrated that it cares?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood the member's question, I believe he asked me if I thought the government was on the right track. I do not believe it is on the right track. Why would Liberal Party members vote for a free trade agreement when they already know the Conservative government allowed this to happen?

The Conservative government should tell Colombia to clean up its act and it will see after that whether it will sign the agreement. If the government of Colombia makes a law providing social protection for its people, a company could bring it to court saying that affects the company.

How can we vote for an agreement like that? I cannot believe we would promote that in our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the member for Acadie—Bathurst. He is phenomenal in both official languages.

With a president who rose to power supported by the cocaine cartels, who is involved in a government crime spree, who is involved with the Medellin cocaine cartel and linked to paramilitary thugs who brutalize women and children, labour activists and who runs a military that systematically massacres aboriginal people and Afro-Colombians in rural Colombia, why are the Conservatives so soft on crime once it goes beyond Canadian borders? They talk a game in Canada, but once there is a right-winger in power anywhere, that right-winger can commit whatever crimes with impunity.

Why does the member think the Conservatives are so willing to forgive regimes that have their hands soaked with blood, once they are outside the boundaries of Canada?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I blame the Conservatives for their attitude with criminals. They would like to build quite a few jails in Canada. The budget will increase by 43%. Maybe they have found a way to build jails in Colombia too, not just for murderers but for everybody because they really believe in throwing everybody in jail. They believe it is the way to fix the problems we have with criminals instead of investing in rehabilitation.

The government is looking at signing an agreement with the president of Colombia who has been involved in those kinds of things. The government should tell him to change his law, change his attitude, change the way he deals with workers and change the way he deals with human beings, then it will see after that.

I am worried about signing an agreement before that. We are telling the president of Colombia that he is on the right track and to continue.

My colleague said that the Conservative government was strict on crime. Why does it not tell the Colombian government that it will never sign an agreement with a government that is involved in crimes like those in Colombia?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to BillC-2, even though this is the third time I have debated it in the House.

This is the bill to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia, the former Bill C-23, which has come back to the House again.

We really do not understand the Conservative government’s determination to make this a priority bill. This agreement with Colombia contains a number of flaws and raises a number of serious problems. Implementing it would be a serious mistake.

The Conservative government’s motivation for signing a free trade agreement really has nothing to do with trade, it has to do with investment. The agreement contains an investment protection chapter, which would make life easier for Canadian investors who want to invest in the mining sector in Colombia in particular.

Even that is negative, and I will say why in a moment. There is nothing positive about this free trade agreement and we will gain nothing from it. It is therefore incomprehensible that they would want to sign it.

Colombia has one of the worst records in the world and probably in Latin America when it comes to human rights. Thousands of trade unionists have been killed. Since 1968, 2,690 trade unionists have been killed because of their union work, 46 of them in 2008.

Trade unionists are the target of violence, among other things. There have been many population displacements, and this is not because the people are not sedentary or like to move around. These displacements show that Colombia is a country that has no regard for fundamental rights. There are numerous examples of human rights abuses.

It is mainly small farmers and small miners who are displaced, who have to leave their land to accommodate the huge agri-food or mining corporations, probably the ones the Conservative government wants to help. There are various ways of displacing farmers and people who have a small mine.

You can make death threats against an individual or his children. Most of us would have cleared out long ago. There is also murder, which is even worse. As well, people’s land is flooded so they are no longer able to earn a living, and this forces them to leave. After that, the land is dried out so it can be used.

A fundamental principle of free trade agreements is not being respected. Normally a free trade agreement is signed by two countries with similar economies. I will not go so far as to say that nothing could be more dissimilar than the economies of Colombia and Canada, but that is pretty close to the reality.

Colombia has immense poverty: 47% of the population lives below the poverty line and 12% lives in absolute poverty. One fifth of the population lives on less than $1 a day. I did not invent this statistic; it comes from the UN.

The crime statistics also point to a very sinister side of Colombia. Before I begin quoting the Department of Foreign Affairs, I would like to say that in 2008, the crimes committed by paramilitary groups increased by 41%, in comparison with 14% the previous year.

I do not think there is a legitimate reason for signing this free trade agreement. Even this government's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is discouraging people from travelling to Colombia. On the Foreign Affairs website, the warnings and recommendations for the public advise against going. In addition, no one wants to go as part of a mining project.

The advice is very clear when it comes to those who work for or in the mines.

This government makes some general recommendations about Colombia. On one hand, it is saying that we will sign a free trade agreement with the country. On the other hand, it is saying that no one should go there:

Exercise a high degree of caution

Presidential elections will take place in Colombia on May 30, 2010... Public gatherings and areas where demonstrations may occur should be avoided.

Canadians should exercise a high degree of caution due to the unpredictable security situation. Although there is no specific information about future terrorist activities or threats against Canadian citizens in Colombia, Canadians should be vigilant and avoid any unattended packages or parcels and bring them to the attention of security personnel.

It does not seem so bad up to that point, but here is the next part.

Possible terrorist targets include military and police vehicles and installations, restaurants, underground garages, nightclubs, hotels, banks, shopping centres, public transportation vehicles, government buildings, and airports.

How can we go to Colombia and sign a free trade agreement when our government is specifically telling us not to go there because government buildings and airports are considered dangerous? It is completely incomprehensible.

Regional Warning

Avoid non-essential travel

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada advises against non-essential travel to the city of Cali and most rural areas of Colombia, because of the constantly changing security situation and the difficulty for the Colombian authorities of securing all of the country’s territory.

Another regional warning reads:

Avoid all travel

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada advises against all travel...located along the border with Ecuador...The presence of armed drug traffickers, guerrilla and paramilitary organizations, including the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and the ELN (National Liberation Army), poses a major risk to travellers. These groups continue to perpetrate attacks, extortion, kidnappings, car bombings, and damage to infrastructure in these areas. Landmines are used by guerrilla groups, especially in rural areas.

How can we sign a free trade agreement with a country like that? How can we travel there to tour around and see the sights?

Civil Unrest

National parks, wildlife refuges, and city outskirts are often convenient hideouts for illegal groups and should be avoided, as armed clashes are frequent in such areas.

How can we travel in this country with which we have signed a free trade agreement?

Crime

For security reasons, it is preferable to arrive at Medellín's José Maria Córdova International Airport during the day to avoid the road from the airport to the city after dark.

It makes no sense.

Avoid going to bars alone.

Some will say this should always be avoided. In any case, it continues:

Never leave your drink or food unattended. There have been numerous incidents of drugs being used (including scopolamine) to incapacitate travellers in order to rob them. Scopolamine can be administered through aerosols, cigarettes, gum, or in powder form. Typically, travellers are approached by someone asking for directions; the drug is concealed in a piece of paper and is blown into the victim's face. Exercise extreme caution, as scopolamine can cause prolonged unconsciousness and serious medical problems.

And we are going to sign a free trade agreement in this context? I left one of the best excerpts for last.

Colombia has one of the highest kidnapping rates in the world.

As we all know, Ingrid Betancourt was held in captivity for six years.

While kidnapping is primarily aimed at Colombians, foreigners can be targeted by guerrilla groups in all parts of the country, especially persons working for (or perceived to be working for) oil and mining companies.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, Canadians are rallying against this bill and the Liberal amendment. We have received letters from the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the B.C. teachers group, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Auto Workers, the United Church of Canada and the Public Service Alliance. Many other organizations have rallied to oppose this legislation and particularly the Liberal amendment that facilitates it, which until two weeks ago was totally dead in the House. It had been stopped for the last year.

The Liberals have rescued the legislation by making the amendment possible in this deal with the minister and the president of Colombia at some dance club a couple of months ago. The question is whether the amendment makes the agreement worthy of support in the House. Clearly, for some Liberals, it does. For others, I am not so sure.

Does the member think the amendment the Liberals have produced is enough to bring all Liberals onside to support the bill?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather obvious that the Liberal amendment is not enough to make this free trade agreement palatable. One cannot revise the terms of an agreement after it has been signed. We must bring forward our requirements before signing the agreement.

In this case, the fundamental requirements would be that there is respect for human rights and that public safety is re-established in Colombia. These two fundamental requirements must be met before signing the free trade agreement. The fact that our economies are dissimilar poses a real problem. Colombia may be a poor choice.

My colleague stated that many Canadians and Quebeckers are against this agreement. This is what the Council of Canadians had to say:

Our first-hand experience contradicts claims the free trade deal will strengthen Colombia's democracy...We found widespread evidence of human rights violations, corruption, resurgent paramilitary groups, and drug violence.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in regard to what the Liberal member from Mississauga South said and in reply to the question from the New Democratic Party member, I would say this. According to the recommendations in the report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, which was supported by the Liberals, this agreement should not be signed so long as an independent study has not confirmed that the situation is improving and has stabilized. But the Liberals are prepared to sign the agreement first and do the study second.

In answer to the question I asked him earlier, the Liberal member said he tried to find an independent group to do the human rights study, but was not successful.

I want to ask my colleague in the Bloc the following: how can the Liberal member say such a thing in light of all the independent groups that are opposed to this agreement?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, I do not know how so much credibility can be attached to the Liberal member’s answer. I do not know how people could search the world over for a credible organization that could do a human rights evaluation in various countries and not be able to find one. It is so obvious that there are credible organizations that I will not even bother to name any.

Maybe they could not find a credible-looking organization that would say what they want to hear. If they want to hear that there is no human rights problem in Colombia, no credible organization in the whole world would say something like that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on this issue, but with some despair because, as the House has heard from my party, clearly there is a lot wrong with the free trade agreement with Colombia.

We saw the government attempt to bring this bill forward before prorogation and now after prorogation. It claims to have improved it with a proposed amendment by the Liberals.

If I might comment on that to start, at the inception of this talk on free trade with Colombia there did not seem to be a concern about human rights. The government responded by having the side agreement. Having a side agreement on human rights pretty much says it all. It is like having voluntary human rights, something off to the side and not embedded. When the government clearly could not sell that, it had Liberals come to its rescue with this notion that there would be a review.

I have to say that as the foreign affairs critic, the fact of the matter is that our embassy does reviews on human rights in countries around the world, including Colombia. One of the jobs of diplomats in embassies, wherever they are stationed, is to do an evaluation of human rights within the respective countries they are situated in. I would point to some of those reports and some from other organizations to show that having yet another review of human rights is just that. It is a review and does not actually deal with the issue.

With regard to this trade agreement and others, some have made the argument that just having a free trade agreement will automatically change the human rights profile in the long-term. There is just not clear evidence for that. There is hypothesis for that. We can have a hypothesis and that is fine, but we should not mistake that for evidence. When entering into a free trade agreement, we need actual evidence that it will change the human rights situation.

There are people in Colombia who have suffered repeated retrograde governance that has abused their human rights. We have gone through the list on this side of the House of people who are in the trade union movement and speaking up for their communities. They are being targeted by paramilitary forces and people associated with the government. It is cold comfort to go to them with a hypothesis and say we think that free trade is going to change their situation. That hypothesis does not help them.

If anything, the weakest argument the government, and those who support it on the Liberal side, has put forward is that free trade frees people. The nomenclature might sound good, but the evidence is counter to that. There is no evidence of that. It is hyperbole. It does not have any credence when we look at trade agreements around the world.

We can show that there is a shift in capital and investment, and that there is money changing hands, but where there is no evidence and where the government, and those who support it, has no credible argument is that this will actually change the human rights profile. We have to look at that.

Let us look at one piece of evidence that was brought to the House of Commons recently through the foreign affairs committee by the Special Rapporteur for Refugees from the UN. The committee had prepared for that meeting and looked at the issue of internally displaced persons. It was shocking to learn that the number one country in the entire world with the highest number of internally displaced persons was Colombia.

Guess who was second? It was Iraq. Then we get to Sudan and Afghanistan. There is no surprise for those countries. The fact that Iraq has one of the highest numbers of internally displaced persons is probably not a surprise. Afghanistan is probably not a surprise. It is probably not a surprise that the situation in Sudan is not great and that it has a very high level of internally displaced persons, but did members of the government know and did members of the Liberal Party know and others that Colombia ranks number one for internally displaced persons? That is who we are signing on with.

I think that is evidence. It is not a hypothesis; it is not hyperbole. It is a fact that Colombia has the highest number of internally displaced persons. Why? We have talked about it in this House. People have been pushed out of their communities at gunpoint. People have been forced out of their homelands because paramilitary forces are aligned, by the way, with the government. Why? It is because there is a scramble for power and resources, and everyday people are paying the price. They are being pushed out of their communities.

If a person had to pack up everything tomorrow and move somewhere else in the province of Ontario or elsewhere in the country to keep their family safe, that person would not be fleeing the country. They would be fleeing within their country.

Colombia has the highest percentage of people who are refugees within their own country. I think that matters when we look at who we are doing business with.

This trade deal will not help them. We need to have further changes in justice. We need to have reconciliation. We need to have the leadership that is responsible for that, who will finally acknowledge that there have been crimes against humanity in that country. Until that time, those people who have unfortunately shared the experience, and too many people within their country have been internally displaced, are going to ask us as Canadian parliamentarians and decision makers, “What's in it for me?”

That is a critical question when we are negotiating trade agreements. If we cannot answer how we are going to help people who are suffering the most and provide facts, not hyperbole, not theory, not suggestion, then I think it is not a deal worth signing on to.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. When we return to this matter, the member for Ottawa Centre will have two minutes remaining.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-2, 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 and of the motion that this question be now put.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before question period, the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville had the floor. She has four minutes left.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I was telling the House that we have received an extremely important email from a Colombian-Canadian who lives in Montreal. This man opposes the ratification of the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia because of the many human rights violations in that country.

He sent us some extremely important information. He said that a 166-page document at the heart of a current scandal in Colombia had been taken from the administrative security department, which is the secret service agency of the government of the incumbent president, Alvaro Uribe. This scandal is shaking democracy in that country to the core and completely destroying all trust in Uribe's outgoing government.

This document reveals a macabre espionage plan including strategies such as disinformation, casting discredit, scams, falsifying ties with guerrillas, falsifying documents, sabotage, threats, blackmail and acts of terrorism.

The email in question includes examples. In one document, entitled the social and political front, it recommends creating ties with the national terrorist organization. In another document, it is clear they knowingly intend to discredit the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, misinform the public on what is going on in the government, neutralize the destabilizing actions of NGOs, establish ties with drug trafficking organizations and foster an Internet operation to create controversy around the NGOs.

This Colombian-Canadian told us that the Government of Canada absolutely must withdraw from the Canada-Colombia agreement, which, as we have said so many times, does not provide any guarantees concerning human rights violations.

Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in Latin America. People there are poor and workers' rights are violated. Anyone looking closely at the situation in that country realizes it is one of the worst places in the world when it comes to respecting workers' rights, something that has been denounced by the International Labour Organization and by all unions.

The Bloc Québécois does not understand why a free trade agreement was negotiated with Colombia when we know that union leaders are often the victims of violence.

We also need to think about displaced people. It is usually small-scale farmers and miners who are forced to leave their lands to make room for large agri-food and mining companies. In most cases, the people displaced do not receive any form of compensation.

Colombia is not a country we should boast about being friends with. On the contrary, we must force that country to adopt legislation and practices that comply with UN requirements.

I am very surprised to learn that the Liberal Party supports this free trade agreement. I began my political career on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, which, at the time, was chaired by a Liberal member. The Liberals were always very careful—and it was to their advantage—not only to defend democracy, but also to set the record straight in terms of international affairs and human rights.

I simply cannot fathom the fact that the Conservative government is going to ratify an agreement that most Canadians, union members, the UN, Amnesty International and various human rights organizations are all criticizing. I cannot believe that the Liberal Party would be an accomplice to signing that agreement. I am surprised and disappointed. Some members in the House say it does not matter, because Canada will be doing business. That is not true; it will be the mining companies that do business. It will not be Canada doing business.

I still hope that my colleagues on both sides of the House will side with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP to prevent the signing of this free trade agreement. It is a bad agreement and one that takes no account of the human beings affected.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has crafted a speech that raises all the concerns members have had at second reading. However, the member will well know that, at second reading, we are talking to ourselves.

I think the important part here is that we express our concerns about human rights. I think virtually every speaker, unanimously, in the House has expressed concern about human rights abuses in Colombia and with any of the people we trade with. There are a lot of countries around the world that have very poor human rights records as well.

The question then becomes whether or not it is our responsibility to see this bill go to committee after second reading so that we can hear from the expert witnesses, the human rights advocates and those who will try to explain to the committee whether or not trade will, in fact, have a beneficial impact on the human rights situation in a country like Colombia. If not, that kind of evidence and testimony would certainly give parliamentarians a better perspective from which to craft a strategy for dealing with trade with those countries who have problems with humanitarian rights.

Would the member like to see some of these human rights groups come to committee and make the case to support some of her arguments, or does she just want to ignore what the international bodies are saying and decide right now that we are not going to be able to carry this any further? Should we not hear from those witnesses?

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member has posed a very good question.

I do not agree with him when he says that all members have expressed concerns about human rights. I have been listening to the debate for a very long time. If he takes a look at this morning's debates in particular, he will realize that members of his own party have nothing but praise for this free trade agreement, which truly surprises me.

I do agree with him when he states that other countries have a very poor human rights record, but not as poor as that of Colombia. It is Colombia's underground wealth that is coveted by mining companies. Colombia is one of Canada's very minor trading partners. There is very little, except for some grains.

This morning, members opposite said that it would help exports. However, that is just not true. Our exports to Colombia are practically nil. He ought to do some deeper thinking.

At second reading, it is possible that it is effective. I hope that, if this bill is adopted at second reading, members of the Liberal Party will ask questions and try to understand the crux of the matter—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I must interrupt the hon. member as there is another question.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona will have less than 30 seconds to put his question.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the Liberal flip-flop on this issue is akin to the sheriff having joined the rustlers, because in 2008, less than two years ago, at the Standing Committee on International Trade, the Liberals were pushing for an impartial human rights assessment before any agreement was signed. That is what they wanted to do two years ago under their previous leader and the previous critic.

They had a change in the Liberal Party, a new leader and a new critic, and now they have flipped right over directly in line with the Conservative position, a total flip-flop on the issue.

I would like to ask the member whether she agrees with that analysis.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with his analysis and I do not understand this flip-flop. Is it because the Liberals want to befriend the big Canadian mining companies? That is possible. I just do not understand: the party that defended human rights has done a complete about-face today and does not care in the least. I would ask the Liberal members to question their leader about this.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with great pleasure today to discuss the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

It is not often that one can get excited or energetic about certain treaties. By and large they are viewed as rather dry and ordinary things, but I have a personal stake and a personal interest in this treaty. Unlike most members of the House, I have family that is in Colombia and not just Canadians who have immigrated there as expatriates to take a high paying job. They are 100% born and bred Colombians. So for me, Colombia is a special country, a country not as special as my homeland, Canada, but a country that has great potential, a great future. It is a beautiful country.

For those who are watching I encourage them to visit. The stereotypes of a failed state that is incredibly dangerous and a narco-state with guerrillas running there are stereotypes of the past.

I have visited Bogota and Cali, and the regions around it. It is a beautiful country. One of the country's slogans reads, “Colombia is Passion” and it is quite accurate. It is a place where I encourage, particularly come winter, Canadians to consider.

I had planned to speak almost exclusively on the issue of agriculture and Canadian exports to Colombia. I am predominantly here to represent the people of Saskatoon--Humboldt and they will benefit greatly from this treaty because of the nature of commodities that are grown in my riding.

However, watching earlier today on television and listening to some of the debate and statements made by some of the members, it is apparent that they do not have a firm grasp of the actual facts on the ground in Colombia. I feel that I must take a few minutes before I get into the main body of my speech to rebut some of the arguments.

First, while the arguments against this agreement are clever politics, members holding themselves up as defenders of human rights against money-grabbing business interests, the core of their arguments on human rights is disingenuous and not factual.

The critics of this treaty have deliberately chosen to ignore the effects this treaty will have upon the Colombian people. In fact, the argument that human rights will be damaged by this is wrong. It is the complete reverse.

If one thinks what is one of the most fundamental human rights for mankind, it is the right to food. Therefore, let us look at what this treaty will do for food in Colombia. It will lower the cost for staple foods: peas, lentils, oats and wheat. These are things that ordinary Colombians eat every day and are a particularly high percentage of the budget of low income Colombians.

Canadian exports to Colombia will not displace local production. The grains that we will export to Colombia will not affect the local commodities. They will displace commodities imported from places such as Chile, the EU and the United States.

The other thing that would be interesting for our viewers to note is that Colombia has a very large social problem. Some of the industries that will benefit from the treaty actual deal with these social problems. The Colombian textile and apparel industry will gain more access to Canadian markets under this treaty. That is important to Colombia for social reasons. Many of the workers in the textile and apparel industry are what are called heads of households, single mothers whose husbands have either died or run off and are not supporting their children. These women, who are raising their families, work in disproportionate numbers in this industry.

It may interest the House to know that some Colombian businesses have gone directly and given priority to these women to help them because of the social need in this country.

That is one very basic human rights issue, the need for a good job and the need for employment for lower income Colombians. That is what this agreement is seeking to do, to help Colombians. Would it solve all the problems? No, but it is a good benefit, a human rights benefit to the people of Colombia, giving people the ability to make a living. Is there a more fundamental human right than that?

The other major point that has been brought forth by critics today is that the Colombian government, for some reason, does not seem to care about human rights and does not care about union rights. I found this most interesting having listened to the debate.

Members keep citing the number of union leaders killed without noting that some of those union leaders were killed by leftist guerrillas, some were killed due to other causes, and that there is a considerable amount of violence in the whole country.

I have still yet to hear either the Bloc Québécois or the NDP cite the number of evangelical pastors killed in Colombia, a group that is not normally known to be left-wing but has suffered disproportionate violence there as well. If their case was sincerely about human rights, they would cite those as well.

They point at the question of targeting the unions. It should be noted that local union leaders support this free trade agreement with Colombia, even as their national presidents and associations oppose it. It comes down to the question: do we support local union leaders or the nationals.

Other things should be noted as well. The Colombian government has its own judicial and human rights and legal system, and these are working. Colombian businesses are one of the highest investors of any country in the world in social development programs for its people. This is verifiable by independent statistics.

Having dealt with a few of those issues, let me talk about the positives that this agreement has for Canada.

Our government has aggressive free trade agreements that are providing tools Canadians need to compete and succeed around the world. We have negotiated with other countries, such as Jordan, Panama and EFTA. This agreement is one of the tangible examples of how the government is working to maintain and expand markets for our agriculture exports.

This free trade agreement will strengthen our existing trade relationship with Colombia and provide Canadian agriculture, and agri-food exporters and producers with improved access to this important market.

Canadian exports of agri-food products are worth $247 million. Colombia is the second largest market for Canadian agriculture exports to South America. The purpose of this treaty is to increase our market share.

At the moment, however, Colombia maintains tariffs averaging 17% on agriculture products, rising from 10% to as high as 108% for some pork products, 80% for some beef and 60% for certain beans.

Thanks to this free trade agreement, Canadian producers will benefit from the elimination of tariffs on exports to Colombia. In fact, 86% of agriculture tariffs will be eliminated immediately once the agreement is in force, including for Canadian exports of wheat, barley, lentil and peas. These are real tangible benefits for producers in my province of Saskatchewan.

To the benefit of our food processors and consumers, Canada will immediately eliminate tariffs on nearly all agriculture imports from Colombia. This is important to help fight the drug problem in Colombia because these are the sort of crops that are replacing the coca production in the areas that produce cocaine. This is important for security and human rights in Colombia.

The passage of this free trade agreement is essential if we are going to compete effectively within Colombia's market. Other countries recognize that there are opportunities in Colombia. Colombia has concluded similar agreements with the U.S. and the E.U. These are major agriculture competitors with Canada who we must beat into the Colombian market.

Colombia is a vibrant and dynamic market for Canadian exporters and has been an important partner in international trade. Getting into Colombia in a timely manner helps our farmers to be competitive.

Opening expanding markets around the world creates opportunities for our producers to drive the Canadian economy. Now more than ever we need to do everything we can to open doors for our producers, our workers and our farmers, not close them

In Colombia, like everywhere else, we have continued these efforts with the free trade agreement and with recent announcements of the reopening of the Colombian market for Canadian cattle and beef. Colombia was the first country in South America to reopen its market to Canadian cattle since 2003. This is great news for our beef and cattle industry.

Our government will continue to work for Canadians to ensure that they have full access to important markets across the Americas and across the globe.

This free trade agreement includes obligations addressing technical barriers to trade to facilitate the conduct of trade, and ensure that regulatory processes do not become unnecessary obstacles.

In summary, this agreement is good for Canada and it is good for Colombia. All members need to vote for it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his personal knowledge of the Colombian situation. It is always helpful to get a perspective.

I spoke to this particular bill some time ago and one of the key aspects was the corrupt judicial system within Colombia. The number of murders was staggering and there were virtually no prosecutions whatsoever. This is concerning to me. The member did not comment on the state of the judicial system there.

I would be interested to know if he is aware of any jurisdiction, other than his heart, where improving trade with that jurisdiction would have a substantive effect on human rights abuses within that country?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the precise examples that I gave in my speech were on increasing the quality of life for the poor people of Colombia. As far as will wealth inevitably create more human rights, I do not automatically equate the one with the other. World War II Germany was a wealthy country which did not respect human rights for that era.

However, in regard to the question if Colombia itself is trying to improve by doing its best, I would think there are other answers to that question and those answers are “yes”. Having spoken with lawyers who work in the human rights department and have been under pressure in the Colombian government, and having discussed the matter and looked at the rates of crime and violence, both involving the war, assassinations and so forth going down, the government is doing its best to try to get a grip on the situation. I think that can be demonstrated at committee, through statistics and discussion of certain programs.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the comments of the member. In fact, Colombia is indeed probably one of the most beautiful countries on this planet. Its temperate climate is absolutely beautiful 12 months of the year. It is a wonderful place to visit. However, it does have some problems. It is the longest democracy I think in South America, 200 years of history. However, it has had 200 years of violent history. So, I am not entirely sure that free trade is going to stop that particular tradition of 200 years.

It looks as if there is not going to be a fair presidential election on May 30. The international pre-election observation mission to Colombia, which is in the first leg of its study, has found a number of problems, such as human rights violations, illegal armed groups interfering with the electoral process, creating fear and intimidation, illegal campaign financing, and the list goes on.

My question for the member is this. Would it not be wise to wait until after the presidential election to see what happens before even proceeding with Bill C-2?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague gets to the point why there is a filibuster on this bill. No credit wants to be given to the current Colombian administration. Let us be fairly clear. Independent polling of the race clearly states that supporters of the current president and his policies not only take first place but, in most polls, also take second place.

Is the system down there perfect? No, it is not. However, that is the same as stating that it would not be wise to negotiate trade agreements with Canada because of the sponsorship scandal and the previous effect it had on political parties in this House.

To draw such a strong link between certain problems that are limited in the country to the complete opposition to all trade treaties to the country is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives basically decided on the human rights assessment issue two years ago and they were against it. The question is, why would they not allow the committee to carry out a independent human rights assessment if they thought that Colombia, in some way, would measure up? The truth of the matter is they knew Colombia would not measure up.

Also, we know they like to follow the United States. Even George Bush could not get this agreement through Congress in the last three years. So, the question is, what do the Americans know about the situation in Colombia that the current government obviously does not?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, currently, the American political situation is dominated by protectionists in its Congress. That is hardly unique. The Canadian government has no interest in imitating the American government in its massive deficit protectionist mentality that currently seems to be down there. We fought with the United States on issues about the buy American issue, not all elements. Some down there engaged us on it. This is actually a reason why we should get ahead of the United States instead of following. Canadian companies can get an advantage before a U.S.-Colombia trade deal goes through, which would provide us with substantive economic leverage.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Charlottetown, The Budget; the hon. member for Halifax, Housing.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Don Valley West.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise somewhat nervously, standing very much in agreement with the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. It does make me a little bit nervous to be speaking in such agreement with him. I will offer some different reasons why at second reading stage I will be voting in support of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and sending it to committee for review, consultation, consideration, amendment and passing so that we can continue a relationship with a country that desperately needs a relationship with Canada.

I have come to this position rather circuitously, hoping that I would hear something in the debate, and I have been listening to the debate, that would convince me that it is indeed good for Canada and Colombia to enter into this agreement. I have heard enough now that I actually think it is a good idea that we engage in this process.

It gives us an opportunity to look at human rights in that country in a new light and actually engages us in this discussion. In fact, if the government had not presented Bill C-2, we would not be having this discussion about human rights in Colombia. It is a good thing for Canadians to open their eyes to the human rights abuses, the dismal record of human rights in that country, but also the potential for a country to examine itself and police itself eventually and enter into world trade agreements and bring about prosperity and hope to its people.

For the last 25 years I have worked as a United Church minister. The United Church of Canada has stood very strongly in favour of various agreements in the world that will allow human rights to be discussed and also to be improved. It is in that light that I begin to look at this agreement.

I am very pleased that the Liberal Party will be presenting an amendment that looks at the mechanism within this agreement to ensure that human rights abuses are monitored and that the effect of this agreement is actually measured as time goes by.

In this discussion I have been surprised at some of the opposition members who seem to not understand that a free trade agreement is essentially an economic agreement. It is an agreement about trade, not principally a human rights agreement. We can take this as an opportunity to open the door to discuss human rights and to try to foster better human rights in another country, but it is essentially a trade agreement that is about prosperity, economics and making sure that Canadians have products that we can receive and use, and that we can sell and make a profit on.

This particular agreement, though, has raised concern. My constituents in Don Valley West have expressed that concern to me quite regularly. I have received a number of letters from very thoughtful constituents who are concerned that we may be fostering human rights abuses through this trade agreement. I simply do not see that as a possibility. Nor do I see a free trade agreement as being some sort of prize for having an unblemished human rights record. I do not think there is a single country in the world that could stand up to the test of having an unblemished human rights record.

Certain countries, such as Colombia, have a much more tarnished record on human rights. The record of atrocities has been enumerated by members of this House. As people read through Hansard, they can read the number of concerns that we have. Every single one of those is valid, but do we think a free trade agreement will help this or hurt this?

I have come to the conclusion that as we move toward freer trade with Colombia, we will be building prosperity and that prosperity will bring about human rights improvements. We do not have proof of that. Those concerns should linger in this House. Those concerns should dominate the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, as well as the committees of this House that examine international human rights and the effects of this agreement. I think that we will be investigating that over many years to come.

I am very pleased the amendment which we on this side of the House have managed to negotiate will ensure that our Parliament, and not only the government, will be monitoring human rights.

There is a sense that we do not trust the Colombian government. I understand that lack of trust. It is a government which has dubious electoral practices. Colombia is a country that has had unusual difficulties with respect to narcopolitics, gangs and various other human rights abuses. However, that does not mean we wait until those issues are dealt with before we start a trade agreement that actually improves the life of ordinary Colombians.

Ultimately that is our goal. Our goal is not to be ideologically for free trade, or ideologically against free trade. Our goal is to examine this agreement as an agreement with one country and see whether or not it will foster human rights, whether or not it will engage people in the international community in ensuring that the very poorest in our world have greater prosperity, greater openness in government, greater engagement with the world and greater opportunity to come to know Canada and what Canada stands for.

My sense is that the government has entered into this agreement largely based on an economic strategy. I applaud the Conservatives for beginning the debate, but I also am encouraged that they understand this is not just an economic agreement, but also an opportunity to engage in these questions of human rights.

I have received a number of letters outlining disturbing cases, but no more so than the conversations I have had with Colombians who live in my riding. I have never been to Colombia. I am not an expert on it, nor am I an expert on free trade, but I have an interest and a passion for the Canadians who have come from Colombia and now live in my riding. They have expressed two concerns. They have expressed concern for relatives who still live under the threat of a tyrannical government, but also those who have not had the possibility of jobs and the opportunity for economic advancement. They are of a divided mind when I discuss this agreement with them. They are concerned about the possibility of this agreement being used as a stamp of approval for the Colombian government and its current practices. In no way is it that at all.

This agreement is an opportunity to engage in the conversation and to begin to monitor human rights and put on that monitoring the obligation that Colombia will have to fulfill its obligations under this agreement. Monitoring of human rights is very much a part of that.

The most devastating cause of human rights abuses is poverty and misplaced power. This trade agreement begins to address both of those issues. It begins to look at a government and demand from it democratic institutions, democratic responses so that that government may be a world player with us and we can engage with it as a sibling government.

More importantly, it opens up the opportunity for prosperity, for the accumulation of wealth and for an understanding that ordinary people deserve jobs that we take for granted. It is simply too rich for us in a northern western country with all that we have to stand back and say that we expect something more from Colombia than we have of ourselves.

Canada's human rights record is not unblemished. Canada's human rights record certainly is not as extreme as that of a country like Colombia, but our own country has not been perfect with respect to first nations, with respect to new Canadians, with respect to women and with respect to children. We have much work to do on that, but that does not stop us, nor should it stop us from economic participation in the world.

This agreement affords us an opportunity as a Parliament to open up our doors, open up our minds, open up our hearts to understand another part of the world we may not understand. If we were to wait for all human rights abuses in that country to end before we engage with it economically, we would be waiting forever. Instead, we should open the door to have a two-way conversation, for goods and services to flow, for cultural opportunities to expand. In that sense we as a country will be helping another part of the world meet our standard of living, develop an economic standard, a human rights standard and a standard about the cultural way of living that we expect in Canada.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as would be expected with my colleague's background as a United Church minister, he is quite interested in the human rights question. In my time both on my trips to Colombia and in talking to people here, I have had the privilege of talking with many organizations, government relations personnel, human rights personnel, et cetera.

I am a member of the committee involved in studying this agreement. At committee, what sort of messages and witnesses would give the member comfort that the human rights situation is being monitored and that the development by Canadian companies there is progressive, solid and is building the country? What sort of people would he be looking for at committee to help reassure him regarding his human rights concerns?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be looking for a variety of witnesses. They should come from third party, outside international multilateral bodies, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, for instance, that look at those kinds of questions. There should be a variety of Colombian voices and perhaps some from its neighbours as well. There would need to be voices from labour unions, from other NGOs, from the churches, the evangelical churches and the Roman Catholic church as well.

Human Rights Watch has been to my office in Toronto. It has expressed strong concerns about this agreement to me. I would hope that Human Rights Watch and some of the Canadians who have monitored elections would be brought in. I have some names of people who were involved in the last election monitoring endeavour. I think there are some very carefully worded questions that should be answered. Their answers would be weighed. We would weigh what they said, recognizing that everyone has a degree of self-interest in the answers given to these questions.

I trust the committee members in listening to the answers to their questions will give some thought to whether not having a free trade agreement would help or hurt human rights, more than having a free trade agreement would help or hurt human rights.

Decisions regarding helping or hurting a country are important to discuss.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we were concerned in the House about the Liberal flip-flop on this particular issue. Two years ago the member and the Liberal Party appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade. At that time they were supporting an impartial human rights assessment. There is nothing wrong with that. As a matter of fact, that is the proper way to approach this issue. Trade with Colombia continues with or without this agreement. That is where the Liberals were under their previous leader and their previous critic.

Then there was a coup in the Liberal Party. A new leader and a new critic took over and all of a sudden, the Liberals have moved to the extreme right. They flipped overnight. Now they are in lockstep with the Conservatives. However, those members who were for the independent human rights assessment are still sitting there and are now being forced by their new leader to get onside with the Conservatives.

I am just asking the member how he can feel comfortable with flip-flopping so fast on this issue.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond, because I do not see any flip-flop here. I see an evolution of thought and ideas and an improvement on the government's plan.

Our leader is an internationally recognized and renowned expert in international human rights. He has written extensively, travelled extensively, discussed extensively and is quoted extensively on international human rights. He is bringing to bear the thought that an annual examination of human rights as embedded in this new treaty as it will be amended would be far more effective than any idea the New Democratic Party could ever come up with.

The reality is we are putting right in the heart of this agreement the requirement that we as a government and as a Parliament engage in constant, ongoing evaluation of human rights so that we will see whether this agreement is helping or hurting the people.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have been dying to speak. I am shocked by the comments I have just heard about free trade promoting human rights, and by the Liberal flip-flop on the free trade agreement.

I would like to take a quick look at the past. I remember the reaction in Canada when Brian Mulroney negotiated a free trade agreement between Canada and the United States. Canada did not want a free trade agreement at all, but Quebec wanted one because it was good for Quebeckers. In the end, with the help of Quebec, Mulroney won the election, and he negotiated a free trade agreement with the United States.

Then, Jean Chrétien took power. He promised to do all he could to put an end to the free trade agreement. What did he do? He not only failed to put an end to it, but he also went on to become the greatest proponent of free trade agreements that I have ever seen. This comment was in response to the Liberal flip-flop.

As for human rights, I would like to hear how a free trade agreement could promote human rights. I have heard in this House, from very well-meaning people, that Bill C-2—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, am I out of order?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member asked me if you were giving your speech or making a comment. I said that you were giving your speech.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I said that I was very anxious to speak. I will continue to talk about the general principle of human rights and free trade agreements.

Free trade agreements are signed with an economic goal in mind and they must result in benefits. The free trade agreement with Colombia will essentially favour two groups: mining companies, which, through government help, will have access to Colombian subsoil and the Colombian government, which will receive taxes and so on from these mining companies. Why would they think that Colombians, that everyday people in Colombia, could benefit from this free trade agreement?

They can say that they are concurrently negotiating a human rights agreement. However, negotiating an agreement and taking concrete action to improve the human rights situation are two completely different things.

I was involved in the union movement for a number of years and, like my colleague, I am interested in the social aspects of what is happening in my riding. It is the balance of power that drives the relationship between the workers and the employers. If there is no local balance of power, there needs to be a national or regional balance. If that balance does not exist, the human rights situation will not improve and there will be no unions or laws to protect workers.

I am truly dumbfounded by the debate on this bill. My colleague said that farmers from out west could sell their products—wheat, oats or barley—to Colombia. If Canada were to do that, it should be because Colombians are not able to grow these grains to feed themselves. But, this is supposedly their primary resource.

What will Colombians gain from this agreement? Some might ask me why the government signed this agreement. It signed it because it thought it was in its own best interests and it did not need people's support. Everything I have read clearly shows that the mining companies are the ones who will benefit. They can move in and have, what I believe, is the other kind of free trade agreement.

First there was the FTA, even though the rest of Canada did not want it and had it imposed on them. Nevertheless, that agreement did not affect trade between states. Why not? Because no one could file a complaint without going through the state.

In the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, which has support from both sides of the House, it is not the state that can lodge a complaint if there is a problem in a mine, but rather the company. The fact that companies can lodge international complaints directly against Colombia without Canada's consent is something new.

When two states have a relationship, they can negotiate to find a balance, but in this case, no one is trying to achieve such a balance.

A company might have expected to make a profit by setting up in a given location because it wanted to use the water from a river, for instance. If it cannot use the river because it is drying up or because farmers are forcing it out, that company could sue Colombia—according to the bill—for the profits it is losing. It makes no sense.

People are saying they want to help Colombia, but this will not help that country.

I invite my hon. colleges who are standing with their parties to take a close look at the balance of power underlying this agreement. It is not about trying to improve things through trade across borders that is beneficial to both parties, even though a free trade agreement normally tries to improve the situation for both parties.

I will close by saying that I read in the report that the Standing Committee on International Trade has expressed countless reservations about this free trade agreement, that it even went to Colombia and unfortunately learned that the government had proposed this free trade agreement before the committee could make any recommendations.

As the members have probably guessed, I do not support the bill.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. She made an excellent presentation. Obviously, the happiest ones in this country right now are the mining companies. They probably had a pretty easy job of getting to the leadership of the Liberal Party to have it flip to where it is now, joined up with the Conservatives on this issue.

It has been a big gift for the Conservatives, because something is being done here that they could not get done on their own. They are in a minority situation and will never get a majority government. They could try to pass this agreement as often as they want, but they would never get it through the House. That was a stroke of luck for them.

The mining companies probably put pressure on the Liberals. It did not take much to pressure the new Liberal leader to get in line with the corporate agenda. Now we find all the Liberals happily jumping in line behind their leader, except the member for Mississauga South and a couple of other members over there who are still reluctant to go down that route.

I want to ask the member if she would like to make any further comments about that, because I think she really is on the right track.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that I am on the right track. Take NAFTA, for example. That free trade agreement also has a chapter 11 like the one in the bill before us. NAFTA also includes Mexico. I went to Mexico and, except for those who produce fruit, which sells very well in the United States, a lot of people had a lot to say about how other parts of Mexico are against NAFTA. They would like to renegotiate a better deal for themselves.

I think that is the principle. Both parties have to benefit.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I profoundly disagree with the member. Canada is one of the great trading nations of the world. She of all people should understand that not only all Canadians but the province of Quebec benefit from robust trade with countries around the world.

She must be aware, or certainly should be aware, that back in the 1970s, Chile had perhaps the worst human rights record in the world, certainly in the Americas. Today its human rights regime is very robust. In fact, it has the lowest murder rate of all of Latin America. Its economy is doing well. Its banking system, I believe, is the fourth strongest in the world.

Why is that? It is because 13 years ago Canada engaged with Chile and entered into a free trade agreement. It was the right thing to do because when countries that are in the process of moving toward better human rights regimes and are engaged with countries that already have a long history of defending human rights, they do well and they improve that system of human rights.

Has my colleague looked at Chile, which is also part of Latin America, as an example that her party should be looking at to take a positive position on this free trade agreement between Colombia and Canada?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have not checked recently, but it seems that the situation in Chile has improved significantly because of the educated middle class. Chile has had many years to create its own development tools.

A free trade agreement alone cannot develop an economy if local political, economic and social leaders do not create the tools to develop the economy and improve things for the country.

I will look at what has happened recently, but I am sure that development in Chile came about because of what I would call internal factors.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak in the House today to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and the parallel agreements on labour and the environment. This agreement is an important part of our government's ambitious free trade agenda, as well as Canada's deepening engagement in the Americas.

As an export-driven economy, it is in Canada's best economic interest to open up as many foreign markets as possible for our producers and our exporters. By increasing access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses, we can foster economic growth and create new jobs for Canadian workers, which is crucial in these difficult economic times. That is why this government is actively engaging in numerous free trade agreement negotiations in this region and elsewhere in order to build on Canada's already existing network of trade agreements.

Since 2006, the Government of Canada has achieved a forward-looking track in international trade. We are engaged in talks on an economic partnership agreement with India, one of the fastest growing economies in the world. We have opened up new trade offices in critical global markets, such as China, India and Brazil, to help Canadian companies and investors deepen their engagement in these countries, as well as five new trade offices within Canada to work with companies locally.

Since 2006, we have signed bilateral science and technology agreements with both China and Brazil. We have also signed a trade co-operation agreement with the United Arab Emirates.

Today, Canadians reap the benefits from several long-standing free trade agreements in force, notably the North American free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico and separate bilateral agreements with Chile, Costa Rica and Israel.

More recently, on July 1, 2009, a free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association countries of Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein came into force. This agreement is notable for being the first free trade agreement that Canada has conducted with European countries. More important, however, this agreement increases the market access for Canadian exporters to the lucrative and sophisticated European markets. Through this deal, Canadian businesses gained immediate benefits through the elimination of duties on all Canadian non-agricultural merchandise. Tariffs were eliminated or reduced on selected Canadian agricultural exports, such as durum wheat, frozen french fries, beer and crude canola oil. However, this reduction in tariffs is not the only benefit of this agreement. Thanks to this deal, Canadian companies can now access innovative technologies and other inputs from these European markets at lower costs, including through the importation of machinery and scientific and precision instruments.

However, the agreement with the European Free Trade Association is not the only recent trade agreement that Canada has implemented. On August 1, 2009, the Canada-Peru free trade agreement, along with agreements on labour co-operation and the environment, came into force. The free trade agreement with Peru contains considerable benefits for Canada. For instance, Canadian producers immediately benefited from the elimination of tariffs on 95% of current Canadian exports to Peru, with most remaining tariffs to be eliminated over a period of five to ten years.

Products that received immediate duty free access to Peru include wheat, barley, lentils, peas and selected boneless beef cuts, a variety of paper products and machinery and equipment. Canadian businesses also received improved market access in other sectors of the Peruvian economy, such as mining, energy and professional services, as well as banking, insurance and securities.

This government is continuing to pursue ambitious trade agreements with others as well. That is why, on March 24 this government tabled implementing legislation for the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement along with parallel agreements on labour co-operation and the environment. Through this goods-only agreement, Canadian businesses will have improved market access to Middle Eastern countries. In particular, once the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement comes into force, tariffs on over 99% of recent Canadian exports to Jordan will be eliminated.

Key Canadian sectors that will benefit from this immediate duty-free access include forestry, manufacturing and agriculture and agri-food, sectors in which Canadian companies are global leaders. Given these benefits to the Canadian economy, this government is working toward the implementation of the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement as soon as possible.

This government's free trade agenda, however, does not stop there. On August 11, 2009, the Prime Minister announced the conclusion of negotiations of the Canada-Panama free trade agreement, as well as parallel agreements on labour co-operation and the environment.

These agreements, which are currently undergoing legal review, are another important pillar of this government's plan to increase market access for Canadian exporters. Once enforced, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement will improve market access for goods and services and provide a stable and predictable environment for investments in Panama.

In the meantime, while this House debates the Colombia and Jordan free trade agreements and while the agreement with Panama is undergoing legal review, this government is working on numerous other fronts to conclude additional trade agreements.

That is why at the Canada-European Union Summit in May 2009 this government launched negotiations toward a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union. A third round of talks with the European Union are taking place this week. These negotiations not only enjoy wide support among the private sector on both sides of the Atlantic, but the provinces and the territories are involved at a unprecedented level in these negotiations.

Meanwhile, negotiations with the Caribbean community are also progressing. The second round of negotiations between Canada and the Caribbean officials took place a few weeks ago.

Canadian officials also held a negotiating round last month with their counterparts from Central America as part of the ongoing negotiations between Canada and the four Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador.

This government remains dedicated to advancing our ongoing free trade negotiation with other partners, including South Korea, Singapore and the Dominican Republic, as well as seeking ambitious opportunities elsewhere.

For instance, Canada has started exploring deeper trade ties with India. To this end, in November 2009, Canada and India agreed to establish a joint study group to look at key sectors of interest and the possible parameters of a comprehensive trade agreement. The first meeting of this joint study group took place in Delhi this past December, and officials from both sides are currently working to complete the study.

Canada is also currently involved in technical discussions with Japan.

What does an active trade agenda really mean for Canada? To put it in straightforward terms, by bringing down barriers to trade and investment, the government will help Canadian businesses compete in an ever more competitive world while also stimulating the Canadian economy.

This is where the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement plays an important role. Once implemented, this agreement will reduce tariffs for Canadian producers who want to export to Colombia, as well as expanding opportunities for Canadian investors and service providers. This agreement will also help Colombia build a more prosperous, equitable and secure democracy, a democracy that can contribute to growth and economic stability in the region.

In these difficult economic times, we cannot hide behind trade barriers. Protectionism is not the answer. Partnerships are. Canadians can count on this government to lead efforts in securing foreign markets for Canadian businesses and take every opportunity to oppose protectionism and defend free and open trade on the world stage.

I will make it clear once more. Since we took office, we have conducted 14 ministerial visits to China, including recent visits in April 2009 by the Ministers of Trade, Finance and Foreign Affairs. We have made significant investments to develop the Asia-Pacific gateway, a corridor initiative to make it easier for goods to flow between Canada and Asia, by spending over $2.5 billion.

Our government has opened six new trade offices in Chinese cities to attract trade and investment to Canada. This will help Canadian businesses reach the Chinese market.

Our government also recently opened three new trade offices in India, bringing the total to eight, and making our network in India one of Canada's largest world wide.

Our government continues to expand Canada's trade network around the world. We have begun discussions for trade agreements with the European Union and India. We have completed new free trade agreements. We have more on the way with countries such as Morocco and Ukraine.

This is why I ask for the support of all hon. members for the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. Let us stand up for Canadian workers. Let us stand up for freer trade and increased competitiveness. Canadians expect it and our government will continue to deliver it.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have an issue with the previous Conservative member who spoke. The previous speaker suggested that Pinochet's human rights record was bad and that the free trade agreement with Chile basically improved the human rights record in Chile.

That is absolute nonsense. I was an election observer in Chile in 1989 when Pinochet lost the referendum and again in 1990 when they had an election to elect a new president. Patricio Aylwin was elected as the president and he restored the democratic state that had been there up until Salvador Allende's time when he was overthrown in 1973. It was seven years and two elections before democracy was re-established and the free trade agreement was signed. It had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any improvement in Chile's human rights record. It was a totally separate issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think what is absurd is thinking that if we isolate countries and we are not prepared to trade with them or help them find their way out of some of these difficult internal situations, they will just evolve. Somehow by our isolating the countries that do not have options, that depend on drugs and on a whole bunch of other factors, all of a sudden they will be able to find democracy on their own. I think that one of the unique things we are able to do is to come in with labour and environmental agreements that are some of the strongest and toughest in the world. What we are trying to do is provide them other opportunities so they do not have to depend on the drug trade.

Quite frankly, I believe that if we could continue to show countries that need support that there are other options, that they could continue, they could become competitive, they could learn to sell goods, they would look at other ways democracy can be done. I believe this is one of the ways we could help these countries out of some of their current situations.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the speech of the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona and I have listened to him at committee. He always tries to bring in relevant comments and improve legislation instead of just tearing it down.

So, my point would be that, when we look at the situation in Colombia today, when we look at the improvements that have been made, when we understand and actually get beyond the rhetoric of the opposition to this deal and actually look at the effect it will have for the people on the ground, for the jobs, for the opportunity, for mainstream Colombians, we see those benefits far outweigh any possibility of any outrageous negative outcomes commented on by the naysayers.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook, I just want to say that, being on the trade committee and working with the parliamentary secretary, I have had a chance to go to Colombia to see first-hand what is going on, to see what is happening. Are things perfect there? No, not by any stretch of the imagination. There continues to be a number of issues that need to be worked on.

However, I really believe that as we are there with our labour agreements, side agreements, our environmental agreements, we are going to help Colombia continue to raise the bar in terms of where it is at and where it has come from.

My friends across the way like to continue talking about human rights abuses and all these things, but they talk about numbers and they use numbers that actually happened previous to the current government that is in place right now. And so, as the world engages countries like Colombia and helps them find a place for their goods and services, I believe that is one of the things they need to bring them into this century and, frankly, help them trade and depend less on things like drugs.

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

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, it is absolutely absurd to say the figures are outdated. Every single independent human rights organization on the planet says there is a risk of this actually galvanizing more human rights violations, as the member well knows. The reality is that the current government has its hands soaked in blood. So much for the anti-crime agenda of the Conservatives. We have a president who rose to power with the support from the Medellin drug trafficking cartel, who is personal friends with Pablo Escobar, the notorious cocaine trafficker.

We have to ask: Why are the Conservatives so soft on Colombian crime?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the things we need to point out is that this president has been working very hard to get rid of the drugs that have been plaguing his country for a number of years and, quite frankly, so has his cabinet. He has put a lot of things in place, in terms of anti-corruption, and people are under investigation because, quite frankly, he is trying to have a very transparent government.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to talk about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. It really is an important agreement that would allow Canadian workers to compete and succeed in a market that is very important to us. In particular, I would like to discuss the issue of labour under this agreement.

As is the case with other Latin American countries, as part of our re-engagement in the Americas, Colombia needs the support of Canada to overcome its challenges and ensure continued economic and social development. We would not want to turn our backs on the government of Colombia and send a negative message not only to Colombians but also to those in the Americas who look forward to increased trade bringing prosperity and contributing to better governance, peace and security in the region.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is an important part of this commitment to the Americas. It is important to our history of engagement rather than isolation, in countries where Canada can make a difference and help others toward a future of lasting economic recovery, especially in these tough economic times.

The agreement includes parallel treaties on labour co-operation and the environment. The labour co-operation agreement is strong and comprehensive and will help improve labour standards for Colombian workers in many different sectors. Canadians can be proud of their government for ensuring that with all of our engagements, labour is a priority for this government along with the environment and human rights.

I know there are concerns about the impact of increased trade on workers, and I assure the House that it is an important concern for this government as well. This government firmly believes that prosperity cannot come at the expense of workers' rights. This government is committed to working with Colombia to improve labour standards and to help Colombia protect its workers. That is why the Canada-Colombia labour co-operation agreement is so very important.

The agreement is intended to facilitate co-operation on labour issues and to hold Colombia accountable for maintaining rigorous domestic labour standards reflecting those set out by the International Labour Organization. This agreement commits both countries to ensuring that their laws respect the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

The International Labour Organization's declaration covers a wide range of workers' rights and obligations: the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the right of freedom of association, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour, and the elimination of discrimination.

However, our agreement with Colombia goes even further. It commits both countries to provide for acceptable protections in occupational health and safety, to provide for migrant workers to enjoy the same legal protections as nationals in terms of working conditions, and to provide for minimum employment standards, covering such things as minimum wage and hours of work. The agreement also includes a strong dispute resolution mechanism, along with penalties for not living up to these commitments.

To ensure the highest possible compliance, the agreement provides for an open, robust and streamlined complaints and dispute resolution process. As part of this, members of the public can submit complaints to either government concerning the non-compliance of a party with its labour laws and the provisions under the International Labour Organization's declaration.

If a matter cannot be resolved, an independent review panel may be established and could require the offending country to pay up to $15 million annually. This fine would be placed into a co-operation fund to be used to resolve the matter identified through the dispute resolution process.

The Colombian government has demonstrated resolve in recent years to fight impunity for crimes, and Canada needs to support these efforts. The government of Colombia has committed financial resources for the investigation and prosecution of violent acts against union leaders and members through a special unit of the office of the attorney general.

In addition, through the protection program for vulnerable groups, the government of Colombia is providing protection for labour union members, their families and other potentially targeted groups such as politicians, journalists and civil leaders. Colombians and Canadians alike expect that the government of Colombia will remain committed to preventing crime and will prosecute those responsible. Our commitment to the rule of law goes beyond our borders wherever Canada engages.

The fines payable under the labour agreement are not designed to punish specific criminal acts. They are designed to help ensure compliance with and respect for domestic and international labour obligations.

Moneys placed in the co-operation fund would be disbursed according to an agreed-upon action plan. This would ensure that the matters under dispute are effectively resolved. Through this agreement, Canadians would have a unique tool at their disposal to ensure that the Colombian government continues to demonstrate the political will and provide the necessary resources to improve the labour situation.

We clearly recognize the challenges that a nation like Colombia faces in complying with each and every standard set out in the agreement. Nevertheless, Canada believes that compliance with the obligations of this agreement can be achieved not only through a robust dispute resolution mechanism but also through enhanced technical co-operation. That is why our agreement is complemented with $1 million in labour-related technical assistance programming in the areas of social dialogue, occupational health and safety, labour inspection and enforcement of national labour legislation.

These initiatives aim to promote and enforce internationally recognized labour standards, particularly in the areas of labour inspection, tripartite consultation, enforcement of labour rights and occupational safety and health. These initiatives will also help Colombia enforce its domestic laws and meet the high standards established by this agreement. They will foster greater dialogue and co-operation among workers, employers and government to address labour issues. Canada is committed to helping our Colombian partners make the most of our new free trade agreement.

This government is re-engaging with our partners in the Americas and promoting the principles of sound governance, security and prosperity. We see improving workers' rights in the Americas as a fundamental part of this pursuit. More broadly, we are committed to playing an active role in promoting human rights across Latin America and throughout the Caribbean, and that includes Colombia.

We are one of the largest supporters of the Organization of American States, working in Colombia to support peace and demobilize paramilitary forces in that country. Our global peace and security fund is helping to promote peace, protect victims' rights and help strengthen Colombia's judicial system.

Canada takes human rights in Colombia very seriously, and this commitment extends to workers' rights. We believe free trade can play a positive role in a country's economic and social life. Workers' rights fit squarely into this principle and will continue to guide our engagement with Colombia and our partners throughout the hemisphere.

Canada is committed to supporting Colombia's efforts to meet these challenges and to build a better country for its people. Our government recognizes that free trade is a key driver of our economy, representing one in five jobs and a full two-thirds of our gross domestic product. We cannot talk about economic recovery without talking about free trade. That is why our government is putting such a strong emphasis on freer trade, an aggressive free trade agenda that will create jobs and foster economic growth.

Colombia is important to this agenda. It is important to Canadian workers and, of course, it is important to the development of a safer, more secure and prosperous Colombia. A safe, secure and prosperous hemispheric neighbour is a tenet of our engagement in the Americas. Today we have the opportunity to extend a future of promise to Canadian industry and the Colombian people for a future of mutual benefit and of course to demonstrate that, wherever Canada is, we promote the highest standards of labour rights and the protection of human rights. We can only do this through engagement. With the right mechanisms, such as the agreement we have before us, Canadians can make a difference.

For these reasons, I ask all hon. members for their support for this agreement. Let us get this agreement moved off to committee, to support Canadian business and to support the future of Colombia.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was such a reasonable sounding appeal. It made it sound like such a wonderful deal for us and Colombia to pass this allegedly free trade agreement.

The hon. member went on at great lengths about how it would be good for Canadian workers and Colombian workers. I am trying to resolve that in my mind with whether that will be similar to what the government has done for workers in Sudbury, a little closer to home.

I have a specific question. Paramilitary forces in Colombia now are driving Indians and Mestizos off the land, out of the jungles and away from their traditional forms of agriculture, which have been shown over centuries to be sustainable.

There are highly sensitive soils in Colombia, highly sensitive and biodiversity ecosystems, which do not work well with our more northerly kinds of agribusiness, monocultures and so on in these sensitive soils. What concerns me is not just the affront to civil rights but the affront to ecosystems in that area.

I doubt I will get a good answer, but I hope I will be wrong and that I will get a good explanation as to why my fears are unfounded about the destruction of biodiversity and sensitive soils in Colombia.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member said he thought what I said about what was in the agreement sounded good. The fact is it is good. It is a good thing that we are engaging with Colombia. As I laid out in my presentation, there are so many different aspects of engagement with countries in the Americas like Colombia that are positive for countries such as Colombia that we work together. By putting our heads in the sand and putting up a wall would be to the detriment of our own workers and our own economy in Canada and is not going to be very helpful.

I am very confident this agreement does have the protections in it that Canadians expect. It is something that is positive for Canada and it is something positive for Colombia in terms of our engagement.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the question that the NDP member just asked.

It is never passing strange that we find the NDP coming up with all kinds of reasons to oppose free trade agreements no matter what they look like, no matter what the stripe. I just heard about biodiversity and the quality of the soils. Earlier the NDP members were talking about the human rights regime.

I look back to the 1980s and the early 1990s when Canada was negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States, NAFTA. Even back then the NDP members opposed that free trade agreement. They did not have human rights as an issue. They did not have labour rights as an issue. They did not have biodiversity as an issue. They did not have soil quality as an issue.

The NDP members are, in principle, opposed to any kind of free trade agreement. They put up silos around our industries. They build trade walls around Canada. They ignore the global economy. They simply forge ahead as if they are hiding in a little hole.

Does the member not find it passing strange that the NDP would consistently find new ways of opposing free trade agreements?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is if one is ideologically opposed to free trade in principle, one will find any excuse to oppose it.

I happen to chair the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group. We know how important trade is with Canada and the United States and we know how many jobs are dependent on it.

We hear them on the other side say that we have lost jobs, but the fact is free trade has been good for Canada. It has created millions and millions of jobs in the NAFTA area and in the more than 20 years since the original Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was passed.

Just last week I was in Biloxi, Mississippi, where the Canadian provinces and the southeastern states. We heard a presentation from the head of FedEx, which laid out all of the positive things that came out of free trade. I wish the hon. member had heard what was in that speech. This is the message the members from the House take down to the United States. These are the kind of positive things that we can get out of a free trade agreement with Colombia, moving forward for both Canadians and Colombians.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, over the past year I have received many letters and emails regarding the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia. It is undoubtedly an issue that many Canadians care about. It is an economic issue, sustaining jobs in Canada and Colombia, and it is a moral issue when we consider the human rights situation in Colombia.

People are worried. They see the violence and conflict in Colombia. They worry that with this agreement, Canada is supporting and even encouraging these actions.

The reality is that in order to make positive changes in the world, we must get involved. The other opposition parties want to wait until Colombia figures things out for itself and becomes a model country before Canada signs anything.

However, the truth is Canada and Colombia exchanged over $1.3 billion in trade last year. Canadian businesses are taking note of this accord. With the signing of this agreement, Canadian entrepreneurs are prepared to make long-term investments that will benefit the Colombian people.

Canadian agricultural interests are supportive of this agreement. Canadian business organizations, including some members of the small business community, see the opportunities with this agreement. Other Canadian companies such as SNC-Lavalin and Brookfield Asset Management have opened new offices in Bogota and established a $500 million fund to invest in Colombia.

All of this is happening outside of this new agreement that we are supporting today. I say “we” because the official opposition played an important part in getting this agreement. Economics is the motor of trade, but we also have a duty to engage our economic partners on a human level. Sometimes people need to talk about other things before they get people to listen to what they have to say.

Human rights are at the root of our Liberal values, so in order for us to support this agreement, we needed to ensure that the economic agreement with Colombia would have a component that protects the right of Colombian workers and keep our companies out of human rights conflicts. That is why it was such a key element that our international trade critic, the member for Kings—Hants, broke the barriers of partisan politics and negotiated an amendment compelling each country to monitor and publicly report on how this free trade agreement impacted human rights both in Canada and Colombia.

In fact, under this new Liberal deal, Canada and Colombia must publicly measure the impact of free trade on human rights in both countries. This is the first such human rights reporting requirement for any free trade agreement in history. It imposes a new requirement on Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to focus on, collect and analyze information on the impact of the Canada-Colombia FTA on human rights both in Canada and in Colombia. This information must be provided to the Parliament of Canada in an annual report, which can then be used to guide Canada's foreign policy with respect to Colombia. In addition, the public tabling of the annual reports in Parliament will allow for greater scrutiny by all opposition parties and provide a transparent way for civil society organizations from around the world to access this data as they conduct their own human rights impact assessments.

The Liberal amendment for a human rights reporting requirement was motivated by a desire for greater public oversight in the area of human rights and a belief that human rights were deeply intertwined with economic opportunity. We recognize that human rights abuses in Colombia have largely resulted from violence fuelled by Colombia's illegal narco-economy, which in turn has been perpetuated by Colombia's endemic poverty, persistently high unemployment and insufficient social infrastructure. We believe that increased political and economic engagement can help address the root causes of violence and improve the human rights situation in Colombia.

This age of globalization is about opening up to the world and not shutting it out. I visited Colombia 15 years ago. Back then, like today, I saw a lot of challenges, a lot of problems with violence, and a lot of concerns regarding citizenship, but I also saw a lot of poverty.

Canada has a responsibility to share what we do well: not only our economy, but also our impact on human rights. That is our responsibility.

The Liberal Party believes Canada has a moral obligation to help Colombia continue to improve its human rights record. We must work with Colombia to strengthen its public institutions and create legitimate economic opportunities for all Colombians.

This free trade agreement, with the Liberal amendment establishing a human rights reporting requirement, will significantly strengthen Canada's ability to achieve these goals and engage Colombia on the issue of human rights. Furthermore, the Liberal amendment would provide Canadians and Colombians with an ongoing assessment of progress in this area.

Colombia is at a critical juncture in its history, emerging from decades of violence and civil war. The Liberal Party of Canada believes that countries like Canada can support Colombia on its path to peace, justice and reconciliation by helping to build and strengthen Colombia's public institutions and provide greater public oversight on the human rights situation in Colombia.

Canada must not turn its back on Colombia and isolate its people at this time. Rather we must seize this opportunity to open doors, to engage the people of Colombia and to work with them to break the cycle of violence and human rights abuses that prevents the country from reaching its potential.

I spoke earlier about how trade agreements make good business sense, but I must ask all members to consider the human dimension of this free trade agreement.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement includes the most robust agreements on labour co-operation and the environment that Canada has ever signed.

With the help of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, some improvements have been recorded in Colombia regarding those human rights, but there is still a long way to go. There are many obstacles in the way of progress such as poverty, resulting from persistent high unemployment rates in Colombia.

To increase trade, Canada can help build Colombia's legitimate economy, creating real jobs for Colombians, including the most vulnerable. We can provide opportunities that help wean Colombians off their illegal and violent narco-economy. At the same time, this free trade agreement can help strengthen the protection of Colombian workers. The Liberal Party believes that through free trade, Canada can help build Colombia's legitimate economy and create real jobs and opportunities for all Colombians, especially the most vulnerable.

It is important that Canadians know that this agreement is open to accountability. The annual reports analyzing the impact of this FTA on human rights produced to the House of Commons will be available to the public and will be debated at trade committee. Witnesses will be heard, both from Colombia and Canada, on an annual basis. We will deepen the transparency and accountability of this trade agreement. We believe it will actually set a precedent for trade agreements signed between countries around the world.

It is important that we engage Colombia and the Colombian people as a partner in progress, to help them achieve a more peaceful and prosperous future.

I believe this agreement, particularly with this amendment, will strengthen human rights engagement on an ongoing basis and ensure that this Parliament, on an annual basis, will receive a report on the human rights impact of the agreement and will help continue the debate, continue the engagement and strengthen human rights and labour rights in Colombia.

As Canadians, we have the tremendous luck to live in a country that is open, free from violent conflicts, civil war and torture, a country that is prosperous, environmentally conscious, and socially inclined. However, with that luck, comes great responsibility. We must keep the channels open and do the right thing for all Canadians and Colombians. This is where we turn our focus from just making our country a better place to making the world a better place.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had a really hard time keeping up with the member's speech. I see a Canada-Colombia free trade agreement as an economic agreement, but it would force us to compromise our principles and our values. We cannot say that social and human rights are good for Canada, where we demanded and fought so hard for them, but then say that for Colombia, where these rights are violated, they are not important.

When I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I heard about the deaths of union activists and about truly horrible living and working conditions. I wonder what my colleague thinks about moving forward with this free trade agreement. Would it not mean moving forward with an agreement that would violate human and social rights?

I am very much against this free trade agreement.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Our trade with Colombia is already in excess of $1.3 billion, and yet has no impact on human rights in Colombia. Signing this agreement will allow and require us to monitor the human rights situation and the impact of our trade with this country, and give us a tangible tool for improving the circumstances of the Colombian people in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can only lament the ignorance to the actual situation in Colombia. The hon. member has not read any of the human rights reports, not one of them; not Human Rights Watch, not Amnesty International, not the CCIC, not the CLC report, not a single report to actually understand why every independent human rights organization on the planet that has commented on this agreement has talked about the risk of the human rights situation getting worse.

We combine that with the lamentable ignorance of the Liberals of their own amendment that does not compel anything more than the Colombian government to do what it already does, which is issue a report on itself every year. Every year the Colombian government says that it does a great job of protecting human rights and labour rights. No matter how many bodies are in the streets, the Colombian government always whitewashes itself.

The real question here is why the Liberals have completely betrayed all of those who voted for them in the past thinking that they were doing something on human rights and were concerned about human rights.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr.Speaker, something we can always count on is the NDP members standing to oppose any free trade agreement that is brought forward in the House. It is unfortunate because trade opens the way to engaging with other communities and other countries and provides a platform on which to work to build better prosperity.

Not every country in the world can have the laudable human rights record that Canada has. We are not without our imperfections but it is through prosperity, working together, leaning in on it and ensuring that we are working together to create a better, more prosperous future for--

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

We are going to do a forum in your riding.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I am not sure why the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster asked the question if he is not interested in listening to the response. It is difficult for the Chair to hear above all that noise.

There is enough time for a very brief question or comment. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to leave the human rights side of this agreement aside for a moment and look at the trade statistics themselves.

The New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois have both been adamantly against this free trade agreement and yet in the province of Ontario, where many New Democratic Party members were elected, and in the province of Quebec, where the Bloc members were elected, they stand to gain more from this trade agreement than any other region in Canada. Quebec does nearly one-third of the trade that is carried on with Colombia, so I do not understand the position of the members.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the free trade agreement has the support of significant elements of the Colombian private sector and public sector. Specifically the private sector unions, headed by Gerardo Sánchez Zapata, said that this procedure was welcomed by Colombian workers and that they were thankful to the Parliament of Canada for its position because it helps strengthen the mechanism already in place that monitors and evaluates the progress in matters of human rights.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House for this ongoing debate on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. I think we have had over 50 hours of debate, both in the Chamber and at committee, on Colombia already. I am hoping to hear something new in these closing hours of debate today. So far I have not but I am still hopeful that something else will perhaps come up that we have not been aware of.

This is a good agreement for Colombia and Canada. It has a number of additions to it. Here in the Chamber I would like to publicly thank the hon. member for Kings—Hants for his intervention and the assistance of the Liberal Party on this agreement because it will benefit not just Colombians, who desperately need this agreement, but Canadians as well.

As the global economy continues to recover, one thing is clear: free and trade and partnerships, not protectionism, hold the key to long-term prosperity. Canada's approach has been to keep the doors to diversifying global trade open and this agreement is part of that strategy. We are aware that Colombia is already a significant trading partner for Canada, with two-way trade totalling over $1.3 billion in 2009. Colombia is an established market for Canadian exports and holds significant potential for Canadian businesses, the potential we need to continue to work toward a fragile recovery and continue to move forward in these very difficult economic times.

Over the past five years, Canadian merchandise exports to Colombia have grown by 55%. Colombia is also a strategic destination for Canadian investment, with the stock of Canadian investment in Colombia reaching over $1.1 billion in 2008. A country like ours, with so much expertise, can offer a lot to Colombia. Canadian engagement on trade is a key factor to the development of a safe, secure and prosperous Colombia. I think that all of us in the House would be in agreement on that point.

Canadian businesses currently are and have the potential to further become important players in the Colombian market. We need to be able to compete with those who are there, countries like the United States. Looking beyond investment services and market access for goods, this agreement is a comprehensive free trade agreement with terms that extend well beyond these subjects to include other areas of importance to Canadian businesses.

The free trade agreement provides comprehensive terms of the agreement in areas such as financial services, temporary entry of business persons, electronic commerce and telecommunications, and competition, monopolies and state enterprises.

For the second year in a row, the World Economic Forum ranked the Canadian banking system as the soundest in the world in its annual report on global competitiveness. Canadians can be proud. This is an area where Canada is truly excelling. Across the Americas, Canadian banks are helping foster economic growth through access to credit and other financial services. The Canadian financial services sector is a leader in providing high-quality and reliable financial services. This agreement includes comprehensive obligations for the financial services sector, including banking, insurance and securities.

These terms go beyond those already agreed to at the World Trade Organization and ensure that the Canada's financial services sector can compete with its American competitors in Colombia. These market access commitments are complimented by key terms that ensure non-discrimination, provide a right of establishment for financial institutions and promote regulatory transparency in the financial sector.

Those are key elements that our sector is seeking to ensure it is able to compete in an increasingly competitive global market. This government is responding to this demand.

Another important area included in this agreement to ensure that businesses are able to fully maximize the opportunities in Colombia is temporary entry for business persons. Our government is responding to this demand.

This is an important issue for Canadian businesses to ensure their employees are able to work in Colombia and is a natural complement to market access for goods, services and investment. In recognition of the significant number of Canadian companies operating in the region, the agreement removes unnecessary barriers impairing the ability of companies to bring in the skilled workers they need. This would include impediments such as the requirement for labour certification tests, quotas, proportionality requirements or any prior approval procedure. The agreement extends to an extensive list of professions, including various technicians and provisions for spousal employment.

This goes beyond coverage previously achieved in any Canadian free trade agreement. We are tearing down the barriers to trade when Canadians need it most.

The strength of this trade agreement does not stop there but also extends into the areas of electronic commerce and telecommunications. Electronic commerce is an important addition to the previous free trade agreement in light of the importance of ensuring that new digital economy issues, such as protection of personal information, consumer protection and paperless trade, are not overlooked.

Those issues are increasingly important for businesses in the 21st century and Canada and Colombia have recognized this fact. Colombia has agreed to a permanent moratorium on customs duties for products delivered electronically. This includes items such as electronic software, music purchased online and digital books. This moratorium is important not only for businesses but consumers as well.

In addition to electronic commerce, telecommunications provisions were also included to support the competitive development of the telecommunications sector. The obligations contained in this agreement go beyond Colombia's current obligations through the World Trade Organization. Through this free trade agreement, Canadian telecommunications service providers would be able to compete with their American counterparts in the Colombia market.

Clearly, there are many benefits of this free trade agreement with Colombia that go beyond trade, goods and investment.

The final area that I would like to touch on is the terms in this free trade agreement related to competition, monopolies and state enterprises. This agreement meets Canada's objective of ensuring that anti-competitive business practices do not undermine the benefits of trade and investment liberalization achieved in the overall agreement.

Canada and Colombia will co-operate on issues related to the competition policy through their respective authorities. The obligations ensure that Canadian companies doing business in Colombia are treated fairly with respect to their investments.

Overall, this is a high quality and comprehensive trade agreement. This is a market where many key exporters have seen enormous potential. Colombia has stable political institutions, progressive laws and strong pro-market orientation.

These strong economic fundamentals were noted by the World Bank in its report, “Doing Business 2010”. No less than the World Bank has rated Colombia among the top 10 countries in the world for regulatory reform and the best country in Latin America for doing business.

Quite frankly, if we listen to some of the rhetoric that has taken place in the House about Colombia and then look at such respected institutions as the World Bank, there is a serious dichotomy, a serious split between the reality of what major players in the world's economy, such as the World Bank, are saying and what the critics of this free trade agreement are saying.

Colombia is well positioned to weather the global economic crisis. The country has sound macro-economic policies and improved security, which have resulted in favourable economic conditions and stronger demand for imported products. This represents new opportunities for Canadian exporters.

This free trade agreement has the support of key exporters and investors across Canada. Its passage through the House will ensure that Canadian business is able to take advantage of the opportunities in this important market. Our government believes that our businesses can compete with the best in the world and this agreement will help them do it.

The world is quickly discovering the benefits of doing business with Canada and we are there to assist to make that happen.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest, of course, to the hon. member's comments. It occurs to me that the Conservatives are not even really serious about Bill C-2. I was thinking back to the prorogation we just had. It seems to me that this bill was well on its way before prorogation. Then, after prorogation, we had to start the bill all over from the beginning again.

If the Conservatives were serious about this bill, why did they bother proroguing in the first place and stopping all these bills, including crime bills and other bills that they said they were so interested in? Now these bills have to start all over again from the beginning. It seems to me that they are starting to agree with the NDP that this is not a good bill.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat taken aback by the question. In the early part of the question, it sounded as if we may have actually one NDP member who has read the agreement, who perhaps understands at least a minute amount of it, and is willing to support it. But I understand now that that is actually not the case.

I would like to know of one trade agreement, free trade agreement, any trade agreement, that the New Democratic Party has supported. They do not exist. There is no such thing. The NDP is anti-trade. I do not know how it expects the people in Canada to survive as an exporting nation, to create jobs and opportunities for our people, and I do not know how it expects Colombians to create jobs and opportunities for their people, if we do not trade with one another.

There were comments made earlier about bodies in the streets in Colombia. I am going to tell members something. I personally have been to Colombia. I know people from Colombia. I have friends in Colombia. In the 1970s and the 1980s, there were bodies in the streets, but they are not there today. There is a freedom of movement that has never occurred before in the history of Colombia. There is a freedom and a sense of individual protection and safety that was never there before in the history of Colombia. That country is moving in the right direction.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for his cogent intervention on this very important issue.

As he and I both know, unfortunately, the NDP and the Bloc are mired in this archaic ideology where they will not support any type of free trade agreement. It does not matter with who it is. They do not understand that it is a big world out there. We have supply chains all over the world. We have opportunities to build Canada's prosperity. They simply shut their minds to that.

However, I want to turn my colleague's attention to the issue of diversifying Canada's trade.

As he knows, back in the 1980s and the 1990s, we signed a free trade agreement with the United States, which later on became the North American Free Trade Agreement. It has done marvellous things for our economy. It has dramatically increased trade between our nations. However, it is always dangerous to rely on one major trading partner.

Perhaps my colleague could comment on the advisability of expanding those trading relationships and signing additional free trade agreements, such as this Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, upon forming government, our government established two new priorities.

The first one was re-engagement with the Americas, which would enable us to concentrate on economies such as Colombia and sign a free trade agreement with Colombia, and to work with Panama, Peru and other nations in Central, South and Latin America, and the Caribbean.

The other part of our strategy was a global commerce strategy; that is, to find new markets around the world. That is why we are fully engaged with the European Union on signing a comprehensive trade agreement. That is why we are fully engaged with countries like Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland. We signed a free trade agreement with those four nations. That is why we are looking at the BRIC economies of the world: Brazil, Russia, India, and China. These are the growing economies of the world.

We can no longer simply be dependent upon one major trading partner. We must look further afield and diversify our trading partners. That is good for Canada and, quite frankly, that is good for the rest of the world.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is vote buying and vote selling, misuse of identity documents, illegal possession of identity documents and stolen documents. This is all part of the election in Colombia.

There is coercion and intimidation of voters. My gosh, this is what democracy is all about in Colombia. Fraud is committed by polling officers at the polling stations, wow. There is obstruction of the electoral observers so they cannot go and see what is going on. There is control over public transportation to prevent voters from getting to the polling stations. On top of that, there is an absence of educational outreach to voters to teach them about the importance of citizenship and participation.

Is this the Canadian vision, or the Conservative Party or maybe the Liberal Party's vision, of democracy and an election that is fair and free?

This kind of report came from several countries, including Canada, United States, Germany, U.K. and Mexico, participating in an extensive pre-electoral observation mission. Their reports talk about widespread fear among the Colombian population in this region because they are worried about their lives, intimidation, and what would happen to their financial resources.

The government manipulates the social programs for its own political ends. It says, “If you don't vote for me, you're going to get cut off from the families in action benefits”. That is not a fair and free election. That is not what democracy is all about. If the residents and voters do not attend political meetings or vote for the governing party's candidates, they can have their benefits cut off. That is not what democracy is all about.

The other situation is that funding is transferred from drug trafficking to finance campaigns. That is criminal behaviour. There were agreements between candidates, government officials and companies to award government contracts after the election if they donated to their campaign.

Occasionally, we see this here in Canada. It becomes a scandal. We have heard about brown envelopes over restaurant tables, or sometimes a meeting at a certain bar or maybe with certain mutual friends or former MPs, I do not know. Certainly, this kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated. That is not what the New Democratic Party of Canada's definition is of a fair and free election, and that is not what democracy is all about.

Democracy should not be about fear. That is what is happening in Colombia. Apparently, the mission recommends that the nation update its electoral census to avoid situations reported in which the dead vote. I know that occasionally some MPs go and sign up people who may be dead to become a member of certain parties, but that is not what should be tolerated.

We have seen report after report. Two years after the Conservative government started on this free trade deal, what has happened? There is more fear and increased intimidation. This is according to a 2009 report of the office of the United Nations high commissioner. Regarding human rights in Colombia, he said that the office located in Colombia had observed an increase in the number of intimidations and death threats by letters and emails against human rights defenders, social and community leaders, and members of other marginalized groups.

I keep hearing that the more we engage with the Colombians, the safer it is for them. Actually, the opposite happens because the government is tolerating it, even encouraging it through its secret services.

It is given encouragement by these free trade deals, by the Liberal Party and Conservative Party in Canada and the Conservative government, that we will reward the Colombian government even though it continues to intimidate its opponents, The elections in Colombia are not fair nor free. We will reward Colombia by providing even more trade. That is the exact opposite of what Canada should do.

Canada should send a clear message to the existing government of Colombia and say that we believe in democracy. We should send a clear message that we believe that elections should be fair and free, and that when the Colombian government sends secret services to intimidate opponents, to fabricate allegations against its opponents, to sabotage and inflict terror upon its political opponents and citizens, that when secret services that are condoned by the government conduct smearing campaigns, we will not reward such behaviour. We will say no to any free trade agreement with a president and a government that is of this nature. If not, the message we are sending is that we will support criminal behaviour and elections that are conducted in a way that is totally undemocratic.

What we should be calling for instead is a halt to this trade agreement. We should be calling for an independent and comprehensive human rights impact assessment, not done by the government itself but by an arm's length agency. And until that kind of assessment takes place, we should not proceed by saying to that government that we will have a trade relationship with it. If not, those people who have been jailed, terrorized and forcefully displaced will feel that justice is not on their side.

Since 1997, between 2.6 million and 6.8 million hectares of land in Colombia have been acquired by violence, most of them through the paramilitary strategy. Not only does this kind of government intimidate its citizens but it has forcefully removed land from people, so it certainly is not a government we should support by negotiating free trade with it.

We have also noticed, with two successive terms of this government, that it has focused on intensifying the wall. We can always tell what kind of government it is. Does it rule by hope or by fear, and can we examine its defence budget? In these two terms, the Colombian government's defence budget has risen from 5.2% of the GDP in 2002 to 14.2% of GDP, that is $11 billion in 2010.

That is a lot of money that could have been used to help feed its people, to help bring some of the 4.9 million people who have been displaced by force in the last 25 years back into their country. It could help some of the people who are starving, who are being intimidated by the secret services. Instead, it is putting its money into the defence budget rather than the education budget. The education budget is only 13.9% of GDP. Its defence budget is even higher.

That is why we should vote against this free trade deal with Colombia.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke at length about human rights issues in Colombia, but I have not heard the NDP speak about human rights violations in Venezuela. I would be very interested in her view of the Chavez regime. I would be interested in why the NDP members are so conspicuously silent on their brethren Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Why are they being so silent when there is a Canadian physician who has been detained in Venezuela? Dr. Carlos Cossio and seven members of his family were arrested a few weeks ago accused by the Venezuelan government without any evidence whatsoever of espionage. They are being detained in Venezuela against their will.

I would be very interested in knowing why the NDP members refuse to stand up to bullies and thugs like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Is it because of their ideology that they are all right with left-wing thuggery in Venezuela and they are opposed to some sort of ideological perspective that is more in keeping with market-based economies?

I cannot understand the NDP members at the best of times, but I certainly cannot understand why they are being so silent on defending fundamental human rights in Venezuela.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the former Conservative member of Parliament now sits on the Liberal bench, and there is not a lot of change there. Any time a member of Parliament tries to change the subject and change the channel, there is something to hide. We are talking about Bill C-2, the free trade agreement with Colombia.

I understand that the Conservative members are so worried about this bill that last Friday, when the bill was not even on the agenda, they moved a time allocation motion to try to change the channel and say that we are going to have closure, similar to what occurred with respect to the HST.

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

Idiotic.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Answer the question.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, they brought in closure to stop the debate and rush the bill through. That is the kind of anti-democratic behaviour that we should not tolerate in the House of Commons. Yet the Conservative government, because it refuses to debate this bill properly, invoked closure. That is why we have to vote on the bill today.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I hope members realize that I will not recognize them if they heckle while a member is speaking.

The hon. member for Westlock—St. Paul.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member's answer about changing the channel. I was hoping to give her a little more opportunity to answer the question that was put to her about Chavez.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thought we were discussing free trade with Colombia. I thought we were talking about whether or not the dead should vote. That is what I have noticed in those reports. The dead vote. Should we tolerate that? I do not think we should.

Should we tolerate exceeding campaign financing limits? Maybe that is a practice the Conservative Party is familiar with. Maybe that is why the Conservatives support that. There is also the use of money from illegal activities, especially from drug trafficking, to finance campaigns. Is that the kind of behaviour we should condone and the kind of government we should support? Absolutely not.

If that is happening in Colombia, we should say no to that kind of behaviour. We should not reward that kind of government. We should say no to free trade with Colombia.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

My goodness, Madam Speaker, the vigorous debate that we have here today. I am very proud to be a member of Parliament during these times. I suppose we can all just get along for a little while. I hope that my speech is not going to be as contentious as what we have heard over the past little while.

I would like to bring some facts to this debate. I would like to put them out there for a decent round of questions and comments so we can talk about this issue as it goes forward not just for us but also for the wonderful people of Colombia.

I want to start by talking about my personal opinion regarding the free trade arrangements that exist currently throughout the world and what they do not just to liberalize trade but also to increase the standard of living for people involved in the economy and the illegal economy. It allows people in all regions of a nation to better the standard of living of anyone who wants to participate. I will touch on this later in my speech.

I am a rural member of Parliament and I would like many people in the rural areas of Colombia to be engaged in this process as well.

Right now we have an economy that is global, far more global in nature than we ever anticipated. The rapid development of this global economy is intense. It is certainly intense in my riding in the traditional sectors of mining, fishing and even forestry. Many people in the rural areas of the Andean region rely on these industries as well, particularly the mining industry.

We have to analyze the three pillars by which we want to engage Colombians not just in conversation but in an arrangement that would allow them to better the standard of living not just for the select few elite, but for people in the entire region. It is part of that legal economy that we need to increase.

Fifty-six per cent of the people in Colombia engage in illegal economic activities. Through no fault of their own they are engaged in a workforce that is not legitimate for the most part. For people in some of the smaller places in Colombia, it is all that they have. They find themselves in a situation where they are desperate to make a living for their communities and for their loved ones. Those people need options.

We have created some options that they can use to increase their skills which would allow them and their children to stay within the regions they love so much. Colombians love their country. This is important for the Andean region.

We already have comprehensive agreements in place with Chile and Peru. These agreements provide a substantial boost to many people living in the rural and urban communities.

Hopefully, we can wean Colombians away from the practices taking place in other countries that do not believe in the same values, such as Venezuela, as my hon. colleague talked about.

We need to give these people options. It is not that they want to be involved in the activities we hear so much about. The narco-economy in Colombia is well developed. Destruction of that type of economy is not going to happen overnight. It has to be done piecemeal. It has to be done through steady investments, through a sense of corporate responsibility. Canada can share its sense of corporate responsibility with Colombia.

We are not oblivious to all that is happening in Colombia. My hon. colleague from Trinity—Spadina ran off a list of incidents that we would not want to ever see happen in that country. How can we give the people who live there the option to get away from that? We need to engage these people.

I have heard the criticisms made by Amnesty International and others that the Bloc and the NDP have brought out. We need to engage these people. We do not disagree with them, but why take these measures and just throw them out? This is the part that we need to understand.

We are currently working on a comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union. I bring that up only because this deal would be a boon for people in rural communities. It would allow them to improve a currently failing industry. A prime example involves those individuals who make a living from catching and harvesting shrimp.

The European free trade agreement is going to bring about a positive deal for them for the very simple reason that it gives them options. It does not matter if they are in Belgium or Colombia, it is the options that this creates.

Sure this is a benefit for us; we do not disagree. We would never walk away from something that is only a one-sided deal, but there is also something for them.

I want to refer to what has been talked about in this debate for some time and that is the comments by President Barack Obama on this. There has been some confusion as to whether the United States does or does not agree with this. I think the principles laid down by Obama are true. He said, “I commended President Uribe on the progress that has been made in human rights in Colombia and dealing with the killings of labour leaders there, and obviously we have seen a downward trajectory in the deaths of labour unions and we have seen improvements when it comes to prosecution of those who are carrying out these blatant human rights offences”.

I do not think the President of the United States is saying the place is perfect, but he is saying it is a lot better than what it used to be.

This is part of a proactive measure that helps these people get away from the type of living where they are living from hand to mouth every week. It is not just a question of making money. They are dealing with people who are incredibly dangerous. The paramilitary groups, whether or not they are disbanded, in some instances they are regrouping under some major urban crime. That is what we have to avoid. We can do that by engaging them and giving young people options.

I have a teenage son. If my teenage son were growing up in Colombia and there was no engagement with the outside world, think about what would happen. His only option would be to engage in part of that economic activity that is completely and utterly illegal. His life expectancy would be cut in half. However, he knows that living in Canada he does not have to choose that life.

We share a bit of what we are with them. That is striving for perfection. It is the same argument I have over universal health care with people. My American counterparts sometimes say that Canada has a bad system. Well, it is better than theirs. Universality is not perfect, but at least it is worth striving for.

In this case increasing the standard of living for average Colombians, whether they are rural or urban, is certainly worth striving for. I think this agreement does this.

My hon. colleague from Kings—Hants has brought forward an amendment which goes in the direction of achieving a better standard of living, the report brought here in the House for us to vet, to look at and to debate. That is what we need, a proactive measure that actually makes this a better situation not just for those who do business in Colombia but for us.

SNC Lavalin, a successful company in Montreal, is now doing business in Colombia, quite comfortably, I might add. Brookfield Asset Management created a $400 million Colombia infrastructure fund. They would not do this if it was an absolute nightmare to work in Colombia. They are not saying it is perfect; they are just saying it is better than what it used to be. I think they like this deal as well. They certainly agree with the principles of corporate social responsibility.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights made these comments:

The report demonstrates how the internal armed conflict continues to pose many challenges for the country, including the complete disregard for international humanitarian law by guerrilla groups [most notably FARC]. This situation is exacerbated by violence against civilians committed by illegal armed groups that emerged after the demobilization of paramilitary organizations, links between illegal armed groups and drug trafficking, and the particularly acute impact of the internal armed conflict on indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombian communities.

There is no doubt it is there, but the problem now is that we need to make this better. That is what this agreement does.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions. When I listen to some of the criticisms from the opposition parties, at least from the Bloc and the NDP, on this trade agreement, they continually say that the paramilitaries are linked to the government.

There is never any acceptance that 30,000 paramilitaries have been disbanded. They never say that FARC, the communist-led insurgency in the jungle, is fed by the narco-economy and continues to feed the narco-economy. Somehow that is just left out of the equation. Could the hon. member speculate as to why?

When we look at this overall agreement and what happens to immediate jobs in Canada and in Colombia, right now our businesses are operating anywhere from a 1% to a 15% deficit. That is what the tariff is. Now they will be able to compete on equal footing with anyone else on the planet. Other countries in the world have already signed free trade agreements with Colombia, including those in the European Union and other modern countries in the world. Why would we not move in this direction?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I mentioned something in my speech was about Peru and Chile, and I think my colleague would concur with me. We have established comprehensive trade agreements there and in other nations around the world. We need to point to that to see it is not just an issue of trade deficits and improving the economy, but also one of social responsibility.

One thing I really like about this are the side accords about labour. An issue we have in our country is workers' compensation. Workers' compensation principles are now improving around the world, thanks in part because of these trade agreements. He talked about the crime aspect. There is no doubt about that. In rural areas, when they disband these military groups, they reform, regroup and end up in major urban centres.

Once again, that exacerbates a situation where people just do not have options. Well over half of the people there are not involved in the legal economy. It is not because they do not want to be, it is because they do not have that choice. This is not entirely perfect, but it is certainly a positive step ahead for these people to get ahead and join in with the rest of the world to improve the standard of living.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing from the Conservatives and Liberals today. They readily admit that Colombia is a disaster in human rights, with a drug trade and lax environmental regulations. Their logic seems to be that the more problems a country has, the better it is to conclude a trade deal with it.

However, Colombia is the second most biodiverse country in the world. Ten percent of the world's species are in the forests there. There are over 1,800 birds, over 600 amphibians and over 400 mammals. The list goes on and yet deforestation has displaced four million people, according to the UN, and 50,000 hectares of deforestation have displaced 300,000 people just in 2007.

How can the Liberals go along with the Conservatives on this kind of faulty logic?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I want to address the issue. He talks about the disaster there and gives the impression that it is becoming increasingly worse as they digress. Numbers point out that the rate of unionist homicides in Colombia between 1995 and 2008 has decreased dramatically. Basically, per 100,000 inhabitants, it was at 25 to 30 above that at the peak of 1996 and down to less than half that in 2008.

Again, it is not a perfect situation for a trade partner to be in, but it certainly has improved over the past while. Canadians have gone a long way in providing the world with decent policies surrounding biodiversity and we continue to do so. Why would we not want to engage Colombia in a conversation to do much of the same when it, too, has the renewable resources that it desires so much and that we can contribute to help save the very asset about which he talked?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, an agreement that is part of our aggressive free trade agenda at a time when Canadians need it most.

Since 2006, our government has continued to expand Canada's trade network around the world. We have begun discussions for trade agreements with the European Union and India. We have completed free trade agreements with the European Trade Association, Peru, Jordan and Panama. We have completed our free trade agreement with Colombia as part of our strategy to open doors for Canadians at a time when it is most welcome. The time to implement this agreement is now.

I would like to take this opportunity today to look at our relationship with Colombia through two different lenses, the lens of trade in services and an investment lens.

Let us start with the benefits of this trade agreement to Canadian service providers. From financial services, legal services, engineering and architecture to high technology, the opportunities are there. Canadian service providers already have a substantial presence in the Colombian market. Our service exports to Colombia are in the area of about $80 million to $85 million each year. Driving these numbers are Canadian financial, mining, engineering, petroleum extraction sectors and tourism.

Services sectors like these in Canada stand to benefit greatly from the new free trade agreement. They will be able to enjoy a secure, predictable, transparent and rules-based trading environment. It also gives Canadian service providers an added measure of confidence. They can now plan for the future, knowing that under this agreement, they will be treated the same as Colombian service providers.

Moreover, our two countries have agreed to begin discussions on mutual recognition agreements, starting with engineering, that allow for our standards and qualifications to be recognized in each other's country. This will save service providers in both nations time and money and let them get to work more quickly in each other's market.

For these reasons, our free trade agreement with Colombia provides a great opportunity to take our current trade in services to a new level in the years ahead. Our services sector is an engine of our economy. In total, it is responsible for 71% of our gross domestic product. Development of new market opportunities is our priority. Helping the Colombian government on the trade and investment front is a way to do this. For Canadians during this period of global economic uncertainty, it is important to keep markets open.

The free trade agreement with Colombia will help increase the competitiveness of Canadian exporters at a time when they need it most. The free trade agreement with Colombia will engage rather than isolate Colombia to ensure a brighter future.

These are just some of the factors driving Canadian investment into the Colombian market. Free trade accounts for three in four Canadian jobs. That is why I am so pleased to see that our free trade agreement with Colombia opens up many new doors for Canada's services sector.

We already know that this agreement gives Canadian services providers greater access to the Colombian marketplace than ever before. It is now time to ensure that Canadian service providers can take advantage of the opportunities and remain competitive globally.

I would like to look more closely at what the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement means for Canadian investors. Two-way investment is an absolutely critical driving force in today's economy. Investment links our business to global value chains and to the technology and expertise they need to forge a wide range of commercial links with our partners around the world. That is certainly the case for Canada.

At the end of 2008, Canada was a net provider of foreign direct investment, or FDI, with the overall stock of Canadian FDI valued at approximately $637 billion. The inward stock is impressive as well, with foreign-held direct investment in Canada totalling $509 billion that same year.

Investment with our partners, inward and outward, is enormously important. That is certainly the case with Colombia. The Colombian workforce is highly skilled, qualified and trained, giving global investors, including Canada, more and more confidence in the Canadian marketplace as well as the Colombian marketplace. Thanks to the dedication of the current Colombian government, we see steady improvements in the security and stability of Colombia, to the point where the stock of Canadian investment in Colombia reached over $1 billion in 2008.

We expect this number to continue to grow over the next two years, thanks in great part to Colombia's burgeoning oil and gas and mining sectors and to Colombia's great need for infrastructure.

These are just a few areas where Canada has significant interest and can offer a lot to our Colombian partners going forward. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that our investment relationship with Colombia figured prominently in our free trade negotiations.

For Canadian and Colombian investors alike, the free trade agreement offers an unprecedented level of stability, predictability and protection, one that will help us take our investment relationship to a new level in the years ahead. The agreement establishes a stable legal framework that gives Canadian investors the predictability they need and deserve.

At the same time, strong obligations will ensure the free transfer of investment capital and protect against expropriation. It also gives investors access to transparent, binding and impartial dispute settlement processes. In short, under the free trade agreement, Canadian investors will be treated, with very few exceptions, just as well as Colombian investors.

For Colombian investment in Canada, we have taken steps to ensure that we maintain full policy flexibility in key areas, like health and public education.

From the outset of the global economic downturn, our Prime Minister has been very clear that trade and investment hold the key to helping the world economy recover. That is why our government is continuing to move forward on an aggressive free trade agreement agenda that puts a strong focus on creating new partnerships with key nations around the world.

To create new commercial opportunities around the world, we need to be doing everything we can to open doors for Canadians and to work with our partners to help Canadians succeed. That includes service providers and investors. That is why I ask for all members to show their support for the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement not only on behalf of Colombians but Canadian investors and the Canadian economy.

One thing it is important for me to point out as a rural member of Parliament coming from eastern Alberta is that it is critically important for our beef livestock and pork sectors to have opportunities open up. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has done a tremendous job going around the world opening up new markets for our farmers and investors.

It is, however, difficult when we get these free trade agreements, which our own farmers and constituents say are tremendously important, people like Jurgen Preugschas from my riding, who is the president of the Canadian Pork Council. He came to the agriculture committee and said that they absolutely need this free trade agreement to be ratified and moved forward in the House of Commons. He explicitly looked at the NDP members of Parliament and said that this had to happen. It is free trade agreements like this that will continue to move not only our global economy to recovery but the Canadian agriculture sector to the recovery it needs and to expand and open up markets.

Opposition members often ask how much trade we really do with Colombia. When it comes to pork, it is essential to know the industry and the market and to understand that while these niche markets may not always be huge, they provide a very important market for us to send products that other countries do not necessarily want. They provide added value to our carcasses and farmers and the $1 or $2 extra that it adds on pork means a lot of money in rural Canada.

I know the NDP is predominantly a party of downtown Toronto and downtown Sudbury, but at the end of the day, we need to represent rural Canadians as well and we need to come to this place and get together.

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

Downtown Toronto? Working class Canadians vote for us.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Obviously, I hit a nerve. I know the member for Burnaby—New Westminster is a strong advocate of human rights, even though he does not appear to hold the same values to Hugo Chavez as he does to Colombians.

I implore members to stop filibustering and move this forward so we can all work in the best interests of our constituents and take into account rural Canadians. These kinds of free trade agreements are tremendously important to them.

I ask all members of the House to support the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a very quick question.

The member talks about us filibustering, but the biggest filibuster of all was proroguing Parliament, which meant this bill had to start at the beginning. He talks about filibustering. The Conservatives do not even want this bill to go forward. I am not even sure what they are trying to do today.

Would the member like to comment on this?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not intend to continue to fight past battles with these members. I came to this place hoping to move forward on important projects, important bills like the Canada free trade agreement. I am happy that this member has not supported the long-gun registry, and I look forward to seeing him continue to support the abolishment of the long-gun registry, just as Liberal members across the way have.

I look forward to our continuing to work together in the best interests of rural Canadians.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased that my Conservative colleague from Alberta talked a bit about the agricultural prospects for Canada and Colombia that are contained within this free trade agreement. I would encourage him to expand a bit more about how important it is that Canada expand its free trade relationships around the world.

As he knows, we have embarked upon a free trade negotiation process with the European Union. We have already signed an agreement with the European Free Trade Association. We are negotiating with many other countries around the world to ensure that we have a diversity of trading relationships so we are not as dependent on the United States as we have been in the past.

I would encourage him to expand a bit on that and to also expand on the impact this agreement and other trade agreements would have on the agricultural industry, especially in his province of Alberta.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Madam Speaker, being a member of the agriculture committee, I have seen the member constantly strive to fight for agriculture in Canada, particularly the agriculture in his area. He has always been a strong proponent.

He is absolutely right. We need to continue to try to move forward on free trade agreements, bilateral free trade agreements. The European Union is tremendously important. Once again, I will go back to pork. This is an industry that has been devastated over the last several years. Romania's being included in the European Union has taken away another niche market for our pork industry that is tremendously important to value-adding for our Canadian farmers.

It is the same as Colombia. Not only would this free trade agreement with Colombia give us a niche market that is important to our farmers but it would also raise human rights standards for Colombian farmers. It would also allow them to interact on a more global basis with us in an exchange of ideas and information that would better their farming techniques.

It is important that we do not become an isolationist country when it comes to free trade and that we continue to expand that around the world.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member should be aware that there is an election process going on in Colombia right now and that just recently a group of international election observers returned and detailed a report of some very bad things going on in Colombia; for example, vote buying and selling, misuse of identity documents, illegal possession of identity documents, including stolen documents, coercion and intimidation of voters, fraud committed by polling officers, and on and on.

The question is: When does this member think things are going to improve in Colombia? If we sign a free trade deal with Colombia, are things going to just turn around and Colombia is going to become a model partner in a free trade agreement? That is absolute nonsense, and he should know that.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have already outlined the benefits to Colombians and the Canadian economy.

However, I would like to let the member from Manitoba know that there are bad things happening right here in this country, right here in Manitoba. Our farmers in Manitoba are having a tough time in the pork industry. They are concerned about where they are going to get their next meal from. They are concerned about what is going to happen on their farms and where they are going trade to. They are losing markets in the United States. They are losing markets with country of origin labelling. They want to know what the government and their members from Manitoba are doing for them and that they are standing up for Manitobans, not just coming to this place, worrying about whether or not Colombian farmers are getting a fair shake, but worrying about whether Manitoban farmers and Canadian farmers are getting a fair shake out of these deals.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

First of all, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to Bill C-2. The Canadian government's main motivation for entering into this free trade deal is not trade, but rather investments.

I wish my Conservative colleagues would at least have the courage to tell the truth. Always trying to invent illusions, as the Conservatives do, is most harmful to us as we do our jobs as MPs.

They are trying to pass this off as a trade agreement. The Conservative members spoke of opening up major markets with Colombia. Canada has been negotiating for two years and I have yet to receive a single email from farmers or businesspeople in my riding asking me to sign this free trade agreement with Colombia.

This agreement contains a chapter on investment protection, which would make life easier for Canadian investors, particularly those who invest in the mining sector in Colombia.

The ultimate goal is to provide businesses with access to markets and investments.

We have to be careful because, comparing this investment protection agreement to all the others Canada has signed over the years, the one that would bind Canada and Colombia seems ill conceived. All these agreements contain clauses that enable investors to sue the local government if it takes measures that reduce their return on investment.

These provisions are particularly dangerous in a country where labour and environmental protection laws are uncertain at best. Such an agreement, by protecting a Canadian investor against any improvement in the living conditions in Colombia, could slow down social and environmental progress in a country that is in great need of such progress.

What Conservative MPs from Quebec and the rest of Canada need to understand is that people will not stand for our Canadian companies investing in a country where they do not meticulously observe labour laws, respect human rights and protect the environment.

I know that this is extremely hard to swallow for Conservative members from the west whose hands are full with the oil sands development, but the vast majority of Quebeckers and Canadians will not stand for the Canadian government allowing Canadian companies to invest in countries like Colombia without respecting human rights and protecting the environment.

Colombia has one of the worst track records in the world, and certainly in Latin America, when it comes to human rights. That is where the problem lies. The government wants to allow companies to invest in a country that does not respect human rights.

In order to promote human rights in the world, governments usually use the carrot and stick approach. If we want to promote human rights in Colombia, and if they absolutely want to do business with us, then we have to be able to tell them that they must first improve their human rights record.

They support efforts to ensure greater respect for human rights and reserve the right to cut off those benefits if things go back to the way they were.

If Canada signs this free trade agreement, it will relinquish its power to exert pressure. Not only will it give up the option of using the carrot and the stick, it will be handing that power to the Colombian government. That is why we said this was a bad deal. It is a bad, ill-conceived free trade agreement that eliminates the Canadian government's power to force Colombia to improve its workers' quality of life, human rights and environmental rights.

The government keeps saying that it has included side agreements on labour and the environment in the free trade agreement. But such side agreements are manifestly ineffective. They are not part of the free trade agreement, so investors are free to destroy the rich Colombian environment, displace people to set up mining operations and keep murdering trade unionists with impunity. That is what is going on now.

Our Conservative colleagues are trying to lull us into submission by telling us that it is a good agreement, but there are no provisions concerning human rights and environmental protection in the agreement, even though they should have been. The Conservatives talk about the side agreements, but they are not part of the main agreement, so companies are not required to comply with them.

The Bloc Québécois does not agree that the government should exchange its ability to exert pressure to ensure respect for human rights against the privilege for Canadian companies to make foreign investments.

The Bloc Québécois is in touch with the people. If they knew about this, Quebeckers and Canadians would never agree to investments that compromise human rights. Once again, the Conservative caucus is trying to make us accept this. We are being gagged. On Friday, the Conservatives decided to limit the time for debate on this agreement. The government wants to force all parliamentarians, all Quebeckers and all Canadians to accept this terrible free trade agreement.

In December 2009, this bill was debated at second reading before being set aside when Parliament was prorogued. I asked the minister who gagged our debate why, if it was so important to the Conservatives, the government prorogued the House and ended the debate just before the holidays. By proroguing the House, they decided to end the debate.

We think that it was, once again, to please investors close to the Conservative Party. That is the harsh reality. It is a party that acts out of political interest. The Prime Minister acted out of political interest when he prorogued the House. He is again acting out of political interest and also to help his mining friends, in this case, and the oil companies. It is a question of investments and Colombia's natural resources.

An amendment to an amendment stating that a number of human rights organizations were strongly opposed to the ratification of this agreement was rejected by the Conservative and Liberal parties on October 7, 2009. Once again the opposition parties, both the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, agreed on this amendment to the amendment to respect human rights.

The Conservatives and Liberal voted against this amendment to the amendment. The Liberals voted against it for political reasons. For some months now, all the Liberals' actions have been politically motivated. Inevitably, there has been pressure from mining and oil companies to get this free trade agreement signed.

The free trade agreement between the United States and Colombia, signed in 2006, is also stalled because of the human rights issue. Quebeckers and Canadians are not the only ones who oppose the agreement. The people of the United States are also worried about the human rights issue. This agreement should not be ratified by Congress until Colombia strengthens its legislation to protect minimum labour standards and union activities in order to respect human rights and labour rights.

Once again, the Conservatives decided to rush through with this in order to serve the interests of a handful of Canadian investors. The Liberals and the Conservatives are going to ratify this agreement despite the fact that the Americans have decided not to ratify it until Colombian laws change to allow effective union action and ensure minimum standards for working conditions. This will ensure that Canadian companies that employ Colombian workers provide them with decent working conditions and respect labour laws so those employees can work in an environment consistent with our values.

As the members can probably guess, out of respect for human rights and the environment, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this free trade agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech very much. He has a great deal of experience in the House and has understood what is at stake with this free trade agreement.

All human rights organizations,without exception, are opposed to this agreement. As the member knows very well, even the members of the Standing Committee on International Trade, when they saw what was happening on the ground, stated that it made no sense to go ahead with the agreement without an independent and impartial assessment of its impact.

All human rights organizations and free and independent trade unions are against this agreement. Can the member explain why the Conservatives and the Liberals are prepared to sacrifice the fundamental values of Canadians, who believe that a system must be put in place to protect human rights?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the NDP member for his question. It is clear that this is an investment agreement. We are sacrificing human rights in Colombia to satisfy a handful of rich individuals who control the mining and oil companies.

As I already said: the Americans were not fooled. They are demanding changes to legislation before they will sign a free trade agreement. Once again, the Conservatives and Liberals will violate these human rights in a country that is in desperate need of having them protected.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to order made on Friday, April 16, 2010, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion that this question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #27

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

The next question is on the main motion.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you would find agreement to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is there agreement to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

There is no agreement. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #28

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)