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.

Opposition Motion—Prorogation

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal opposition day motion covers some things that are already being done. A legislative committee is working on the prorogation issue. Still, the main advantage of this motion is that it gives us the opportunity to discuss the December prorogation again. The government realized that that was a serious mistake, and it is trying to make us forget about it. As this session comes to a close, I believe it is not a bad idea to look at the Conservative government's overall behaviour by means of this motion, which I must say is not the most original motion I have ever heard.

That said, though, I do think the motion gives us a chance to take stock of the anti-democratic behaviour of the Conservative government and the Prime Minister. Of course, we will not vote for this motion if the amendment is not passed, because it would be pretty odd to vote to set up a special committee that would have to report next Wednesday. We reserve our decision on this. The motion is an opportunity to take stock of how this government has behaved in the House since 2006.

Things would have been different if last December had been the first time the government had used prorogation, a perfectly legitimate mechanism in the British parliamentary tradition whereby the Governor General is asked to prorogue the session. We would have understood if the government had asked for a prorogation for the first time because it had nearly completed its legislative agenda and the bills it had introduced over the months had been debated, amended, passed, defeated or what have you.

But December was the second time the government and the Prime Minister used prorogation to avoid answering the opposition's questions and facing up to their responsibilities. So we are completely within our right to criticize and challenge the government's actions, because the only purpose of last December's prorogation was to suppress allegations that Afghan detainees transferred by the Canadian Forces to the Afghan authorities were tortured. We all know about it now, so the government's tactic did not work. But the fact that it did not work is not why it was the wrong thing to do.

Earlier the parliamentary secretary talked about what a waste it would be to create a new committee. Was there any bigger waste this year, in 2010, than the month of parliamentary work the Conservatives made us lose? They supposedly tried to make up for lost time by getting rid of break weeks. That was the biggest waste there ever was.

The money spent on the G8 and the G20, the fake lake and the virtual decor is one thing but this is on an entirely different plane. We are talking here about a month of parliamentary work that could have prevented what happened yesterday when the government pulled out of its hat a bill that was introduced in mid-May. The government did not bring the bill back to the House until June 6 or 7 and told us, a few days before the end of the session, that the bill was absolutely necessary for preventing a notorious criminal, Ms. Homolka, from applying for a pardon.

Why did the government not wake up sooner? In part because we lost a month of parliamentary work as a result of this unnecessary prorogation. And then the government tried, as it has many times before, to push through a bill that we are not prepared to accept without amendments. We voted to refer Bill C-23 to committee in order to study it seriously and to amend it. The government wanted to impose its agenda on us.

The Bloc Québécois stood firm. I am pleased to note that the other opposition parties did so as well. The Liberal Party in particular stood firm for once. We forced the government to accept a compromise that everyone could agree on. The bulk of Bill C-23 will be studied in committee and we will take the time to amend it in order to change what we dislike about it.

Our experience yesterday with the drama invented by the Minister of Public Safety and the Conservative government could have been avoided had we used the month of February to examine bills already introduced and if the government had better planned its work.

I will give an example. Why was it urgent to pass Bill C-2 on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement? Was it really urgent that it pass? The government devoted all kinds of time, effort and resources to try to ram the bill down the throat of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, even though our trade with Colombia is very limited. Furthermore, the human rights situation and democratic rights in Colombia are cause for a great deal of concern.

We could have used the parliamentary time to examine Bill C-23 earlier. However, the government decided otherwise. It is its right and responsibility, but it did not make responsible choices. This is all the result of the Prime Minister's decision of December 30, 2009 to prorogue the session until early March.

There is another negative aspect. Thirty-six bills died on the order paper, including 19 justice bills. That is an indication of the hypocrisy of the Conservative's rhetoric on justice. Once again, the government told us that it was proroguing to recalibrate its political and legislative agenda. Perhaps it understood that a number of its bills were not acceptable to Quebeckers and many Canadians. It told us it was proroguing in order to come back refreshed in March.

So, what happened? Two days after the start of the session, the government proposed a budget that was completely unacceptable to Quebec. There was nothing in the budget to meet the needs of the regions or the forestry and aerospace sectors. Nor was there anything for the unemployed in Quebec or in Canada. The government spent one and a half months to present the same, unacceptable budget that it presented in spring 2009.

During that month, no work was done. I wonder what the Conservatives were doing. They probably travelled around handing out cheques. In Quebec, that has led to the Conservatives dropping below 16% in the polls. The fact remains that they acted under false pretences.

That was the latest prorogation. With the other one, just a few weeks after the election, a few days after Parliament returned in November 2008, the Minister of Finance presented an economic statement that was nothing more than an ideological statement. No concrete measures were announced to combat the looming financial and economic crisis. Instead, it was an attack on the opposition parties, and on women's rights in particular. This attack was totally unacceptable to the three opposition parties and to a good number, if not the majority, of Canadians. I can assure you that the majority of Quebeckers were opposed to this dogmatic, ideological and provocative approach.

The government sparked a political crisis a few weeks after the October 2008 election. It should have realized that it was a minority government and that Canadians had given it a minority in the House, especially Quebeckers, who sent a majority of Bloc Québécois members to represent them in Ottawa. The Prime Minister should have realized that a minority government has to work with the opposition parties.

That is not what he did. Instead, he sparked a political crisis and the opposition parties reacted by proposing an NDP-Liberal coalition, supported by the Bloc, on certain conditions that we announced and that were respected by the NDP-Liberal coalition at that time.

A confidence vote was scheduled, and instead of submitting to the decision of the House, the Prime Minister chose to pay another visit to the Governor General to request prorogation and avoid being held accountable. His request was granted, but only after two hours of discussions I must point out.

I suspect that her attitude and the fact that she had the nerve to question the Prime Minister cost Michaëlle Jean her job as Governor General. Of course, we do not know exactly what they talked about, but the conversation took long enough to suggest that she did not say yes right away, which is what often happens, and may have asked for an explanation. At any rate, the House was prorogued once again at the Prime Minister's request to avoid a confidence vote.

The very same thing happened during the September 2008 election. The government built up expectations. We have seen some of that during this session too, particularly in the spring when they paralyzed the committees. Mao Zedong gave us the Little Red Book, and then the Prime Minister gave us a blue book about how any good, self-respecting Conservative can sabotage a committee's work. The government created an artificial paralysis in the committees. The Prime Minister and his Conservative members and ministers, with their sorrowful and utterly false statements, have apparently tried to convince Canadians and Quebeckers that opposition parties were to blame for this paralysis because they blocked committee work on legitimate government bills passed in the House.

After this buildup, the Prime Minister simply triggered an election in an attempt to not have to answer the opposition's questions on a number of issues and, in particular, to not have to respond to the allegations of torture in Afghanistan.

There again, this way of doing things seems fine according to British parliamentary tradition, but it is very questionable in terms of democratic legitimacy. Finally, the government is using all sort of tactics to not have to answer for its actions, to try and impose its backwards, conservative agenda on policy, economic, social and cultural fronts. And if that is not suitable, it provokes the opposition and tries, with measures that are, again, fully legal, to short-circuit the work of Parliament.

I think that it is important to use this opportunity provided to us by the Liberals to remind the public of that. At the same time, I must say that the Conservatives' provocative approach, which is extremely negative and undemocratic, has been encouraged by the Liberals' weakness because the government knew in advance that not all of the Liberal members would be in the House to vote against the budget implementation bill, Bill C-9. Again tonight, we will be voting on supply and it will be interesting to count the number of Liberal members in the House.

Benefiting from this weakness, the Conservatives try to impose their agenda on the opposition—on the Liberal Party in particular—and we have seen this throughout the session.

Another example of extremely questionable Conservative behaviour is the issue of the documents concerning allegations of torture in Afghanistan. A motion had to be passed in the House on December 10, ordering the government to produce a series of relevant documents that would reflect the work done by the Afghanistan committee concerning allegations of torture. The House adopted the motion by only a slight majority. A number of weeks after prorogation, we had to raise this issue and demand these documents again. Each time, the government tried to deflect the question by tabling highly censored documents that showed nothing that would lead us to believe that it was responding to the motion passed on December 10 requiring them to produce documents.

The fact that the requests for the production of documents do not die on the order paper following a prorogation, as government bills do, might come as a surprise for the Prime Minister and the Conservatives. Perhaps the Prime Minister had been misinformed and believed that by proroguing Parliament, the order to produce documents concerning allegations of torture in Afghanistan would disappear. That was not the case.

The opposition did not give up, and questions of privilege had to be raised so that the Speaker could intervene in the matter.

The Speaker's historic decision of April 27, 2010, was very clear: the documents must be handed over, while protecting all information related to national security, defence and international relations, and the opposition has always agreed with that. However, we had to pressure the government further to reach an agreement in principle. We also had to constantly brandish the sword of Damocles—contempt of Parliament—so as to obtain the compromises needed from the government in order to finally implement the mechanism. We only hope that it will be implemented quickly.

This shows how we had to push the government to the wall in order to obtain results that, theoretically, should not have posed a problem, since there had been a democratic majority vote in the House. The government should have simply obeyed the order of the House, yet each time we had to use every means at our disposal to force the government to respect the democratic decision made in the House.

We are still in the same situation today. The House is about to rise for the summer break and we will be in exactly the same position when we come back around September 20.

The government has decided not to let political staff appear before committees anymore. The Prime Minister no longer allows his press secretary and director of communications, Dimitri Soudas, to appear before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The committee therefore gave Mr. Soudas an ultimatum: he must appear. But he is hiding. There is bound to be a new children's game called Where's Dimitri? after Where's Waldo? The bailiffs tried to serve him with a subpoena, but he followed the Prime Minister to Europe to avoid it.

The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics legitimately and legally said that Mr. Soudas had to be aware of the subpoena requiring him to testify before the committee, because the newspapers had written about it. But perhaps Dimitri does not read the papers, which would be an unusual thing for the press secretary and director of communications with the Prime Minister's Office. Dimitri Soudas is well aware he has to testify before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and the deadline was yesterday.

Today, the committee is starting to write a report that will be tabled in the House. It may be tabled tomorrow, next week or when Parliament resumes. This report will serve as the basis for a new question of privilege and for making a case for contempt of Parliament.

We are leaving off at the same point as where we were at the beginning of this session. The atmosphere in Parliament is rotten, poisoned by the Conservatives' anti-democratic attitude, which has nearly reached the point of provocation a number of times.

Again, what happened yesterday was quite something. At the beginning of the day, the Minister of Public Safety, accompanied by the ineffable Senator Boisvenu, came to tell us that it was Bill C-23 or nothing. At noon, we were told it was Bill C-23 or nothing. Finally, they had to fold.

Instead of trying to get Bill C-23 passed with all its poison pills, it would have been much simpler for the government to tell the opposition parties that it wanted to prevent Ms. Homolka from being able to apply for a pardon, given that she was released from prison five years ago.

The government could have asked that, in light of the seriousness of the acts she committed, we amend the current pardon legislation—that is not actually the title—to change the period of time before an individual is eligible for a pardon to 10 years from the current five years. We would have been open to discussing that, but again, there was a pseudo political crisis provoked by the Conservatives.

I will close by saying that an anti-democratic attitude is poisoning the atmosphere. The government also has an anti-Quebec attitude that is supported more often than not by all Canadian parliamentarians and sometimes by MPs from Quebec in parties other than the Bloc.

I am thinking about the Canada-wide securities commission and Bill C-12 to reduce Quebec's political weight in the House, the GST and QST harmonization, where the government is not just dragging its feet, it has shut the door. I am thinking about the government's attitude with regard to climate change and culture, which is extremely important to Quebec's identity.

There are also the issues of equalization, employment insurance and the guaranteed income supplement. Not only is this government anti-democratic in the way it does things, but it is not meeting the needs of Quebec and the people.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The House will now proceed to the taking of deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-2.

The House resumed from June 11 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 third time and passed.

CANADA-COLOMBIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really thrilled to be speaking again. I am sure that this time around the hon. Conservative member will be recognized for a question when that time comes. I am sure he will be very eager and feverishly working on a question or two over the next 20 minutes. Nevertheless, he will have to wait for 20 minutes before he gets to ask his question.

We have gone through a very, very lengthy process dealing with this particular piece of legislation. I certainly want to compliment our critic for his enormous efforts over the last year or so on this issue. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster has been tireless in his efforts to stop this free trade agreement. It took the combined coalition of the Conservative government and the Liberal opposition to crush his efforts, and they did it in a very unsavoury way at the end of the day. The fact of the matter is, they denied key witnesses who should have been able to present on the bill.

Many key witnesses from Colombia, as well as Canadian and Colombian trade unions, were denied the right to appear at the committee, including the CLC, which represents 3.5 million workers. The National Union of Public and General Employees, NUPGE, one of Canada's largest unions with over 340,000 members, was refused. Several other organizations were cut out of the process by this unholy alliance between the government and its Liberal servants in this case.

I only have to look back to two years ago historically to see that there was a point at which the Liberal Party was on side, more or less, in terms of opposition to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. Under the previous leadership and the previous critic, the Liberals were in agreement to have an independent human rights study, which is what has been demanded and still is being demanded as something that is absolutely necessary in this process.

As soon as the Liberal Party changed leaders and the leader changed the critic, the position of the Liberal Party on the Colombia free trade deal turned right in line with that of the Conservatives. The Conservatives received a bit of a gift, because they knew that the deal was dead. They knew this deal was as dead as the Colombia-United States deal.

Let us deal with that for a moment. The George Bush administration signed the agreement with Colombia and the United States in 2006, four years ago, and the U.S. Congress to this day has still not ratified that deal. The member for Kings—Hants and I were in Washington on February 19 and 20 meeting with up to 40 individual members of Congress and the U.S. Senate.

While we did not include this item on our agenda, we let them bring it up. There were at least three Republicans, not Democrats, but Republican members of Congress who said, “We love Uribe. We love the Colombian-U.S. free trade deal, but it is dead. It will never make it through the Congress of the United States. It is very sad, but it will never happen”. Why does the Conservative member opposite cling to this hope that passing it here in Canada will somehow revive it in the United States? Maybe that is the government's intention, to basically show, in the Conservatives' own minds, leadership and pass the Canada-Colombia free trade deal and ratify it so that it will be an example. Perhaps that is the strategy here. The Conservatives could go to the United States Congress and say that Canada passed it and the U.S. should follow suit.

We have argued all along that this is absolutely the wrong way to deal with free trade, particularly with a country like Colombia. As I indicated before, this deal was dead in the House in terms of ratification until single-handedly the member for Kings—Hants resurrected the whole process through some late night partying with the Colombian leadership. I think he claimed he was dancing until the sun rose. He did get a signature on an amendment which he felt would make the agreement fly.

The Conservatives were only too willing to go along with this because they had nothing to lose. They were going nowhere until the member for Kings--Hants saved them. He has brought in an amendment which essentially says that the Colombian government will make up its own human rights annual reports. Is that not sweet? That is the standard to which the Liberals are prepared to hold the Colombian government. Essentially it would put full trust and faith in the Colombian government to police itself.

It is going to be business as usual in Colombia. There is no real incentive now for the Colombian government to clean up its act in terms of human rights. Before we ratify this free trade deal, we have the power over the Colombian government to say that unless and until it can show that it has changed its approach and cleaned up human rights abuses we will not ratify this agreement. What have the Conservatives done? They have simply laid down, given up, and rolled up the white flag. The government is going to ratify the agreement regardless of what happens in Colombia. Colombia can come up with its own annual reports and self-assess its progress on human rights.

That is a terrible way for the Liberal Party to approach agreements like this. I feel worse for the Liberals than I do for the Conservative government because they actually believe all this stuff and they got what they wanted.

It has been pointed out that the NDP has given more speeches than there are members in the NDP caucus. The government said that 40 NDP members have spoken but there are only 36 members in our caucus. I have no idea how the government does its math. Suffice it to say that we have fought this agreement for as long as we could.

People must wonder why this agreement is such a high priority for the government. In 2008, two-way merchandise trade between Canada and Colombia totalled more than $1.3 billion. We have always said that there is trade with Colombia and there always will be trade with Colombia, but there is just no reason to implement a free trade agreement.

Canadian merchandise exports to Colombia totalled $703.8 million in 2008. Major exports include agriculture goods such as wheat, barley and lentils, as well as industrial products, paper products and heavy machinery.

Canadian merchandise imports from Colombia totalled $643 million in 2008. Major imports consisted of coffee, bananas, coal, sugar and flowers.

Bill C-2 has attracted considerable attention from the media and various civil society groups, many of which were opposed to Canada's implementing a free trade agreement with Colombia because of its human rights record and because of the fear of the impact of free trade on investments and the environment.

We have experience. We have dealt with NAFTA for a number of years now and in the case of agriculture, for example tomato growers, in certain parts of Mexico, we have found that indigenous farmers have been put under a lot of pressure and put out of business because of the free trade agreement. If that could happen under NAFTA, it can be suggested that the same could happen under this type of free trade agreement.

I will deal with this later if I have enough time, as it is hard to fit in all of the points, but the fact is that there are indigenous farmers all over South America and certainly in Colombia who have sustained themselves for many years with their small farms. Free trade will flood that market with imported foreign food and will put those farmers out of business. That is what happened in Mexico and that is not good for the long-term sustainability of the local population.

We seem to think that somehow trucking produce around the world and spending a huge amount of money on fossil fuels, gasoline and trucks to get the produce there is the way to go. The reality is that we should probably be pulling back and trying to produce as much of our product in the local market. We should be encouraging the Colombian farmers to improve their farming methods but also certainly to produce the products there so they become more sustainable, rather than simply specializing in nothing but one product to export to Canada, and then of course have other products sent from Canada to Colombia, as opposed to developing independent self-sustainable enterprises.

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 third time and passed.

Mineral Exploration Abroad

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I received a response to a petition from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The response indicates that Canada recognizes the right to participation and the right to consultation.

Some citizens in my riding and across Quebec signed a petition, because they learned from different countries that mining companies often organize botched consultations. The scheme consists of creating division among people by promising benefits to others.

In light of Bill C-2, this petition is very pertinent. Young people are worried and are calling on the government to ensure that, beforehand and with full knowledge of the facts, all exploration projects in certain countries come with a complaint and redress process, along with compensation for the victims.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 is now at third reading, and I would like to begin by saying that I find this rather strange and even a bit anachronistic. I am very disappointed that we have gotten to this point.

Both in committee and in the House of Commons, we have seen the Conservative government use closure to put an end to extremely important, interesting and relevant debates, especially about respect for human rights, and to prevent witnesses, including Colombians, from testifying about what their lives are like. The issue of human rights affects them directly, yet the government is using procedural tactics to prevent them from talking to the committee and is putting an end to this debate to prevent witnesses from being heard.

Moreover, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster raised a question of privilege in the House about what happened in committee, where, with the Liberals' support, the government denied members access to the committee clerk to check some information.

So it is disappointing that this bill is at third reading today, especially since the government has imposed closure to put an end to this debate. With the issue of human rights a top priority, it is particularly significant that the government is using closure, seeing as how it is bound, bent and determined to do whatever it takes to implement an extremely controversial bill.

What the government is doing goes completely against the unanimous position of the Standing Committee on International Trade, which had unanimously recommended two years ago that the government wait before implementing this agreement, because the Colombian government's respect for human rights was highly questionable.

A number of people have still not had a chance to be heard to this day. Even though Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in Latin America, the Conservative government keeps on saying that Colombia's human rights situation has greatly improved.

In all honesty, the situation may not be as bad as it was a few years ago, but it certainly is not ideal or worth celebrating, as the Liberals and Conservatives are doing by implementing a free trade agreement with a country whose trade with Canada is quite insignificant compared to other countries.

Is trade the real reason the Conservative government is so eager to implement such a trade agreement with support from the Liberals?

It begs the question. We believe that the government is not trying to promote trade through this agreement. The government is instead trying to help Canadian mining companies exploit the natural resources of another country.

They want to go after the natural resources at the expense of human rights. I said earlier that Colombia has one of the worst human rights records. It is a country where the government tolerates extreme violence. I will continue after—

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

Mr. Speaker, first, as far as the Conservatives are concerned on agricultural policy, after the vicious attacks on the Canadian Wheat Board, after the fact that Alberta has the lowest farm receipts in the entire country, and after putting supply management on the table in the Canada-E.U. negotiations, this party takes no lessons from the Conservatives on agricultural policy.

I would like to go back to the member now. The Conservatives' record is very clear. Alberta has the lowest farm receipts in the country. So, farmers are not being well-served by the current government.

I like the hon. member. I find her a little disingenuous, to say the least, on this particular issue. I know that she is not a member of the trade committee and has not been to Colombia. However, the reality is the Liberal Party systematically obstructed and refused to hear from the Canadian Labour Congress; refused to hear from the National Union of Provincial General Employees; refused to hear from the Public Service Alliance of Canada; refused to hear from the free and democratic labour unions in Colombia, where over 90% of Colombians who are workers and unionized are in that sector; refused to hear from African-Colombians; and refused to hear from aboriginal people in Colombia. It shut off all debate before the committee.

Two years ago, when we went down to Colombia, the trade committee came back with a unanimous recommendation to not proceed with this agreement. That is the one time when the trade committee did its job.

It did not do its job on Bill C-2 because of Liberal interference and Liberals refusing to hear from the groups that actively requested to come before the committee.

For the Liberals to say they are for human rights when they have accepted and in fact promoted closure, and cut off all of those important witnesses who wanted to come before the trade committee is disingenuous, at best.

I know that many activists have expressed this to Liberal members. The Liberal leader has simply said to all of the members within the Liberal Party caucus who have misgivings about this tragic turn of events with no human rights override at all in the Colombia trade deal, that the only thing the Colombian government is obliged to do is produce a whitewashed report on itself once a year.

My question for the member is very simple. Will her leader allow a free vote on the Colombia free trade agreement? Will her leader actually say that those many Liberal MPs who have expressed misgivings about this Liberal sellout on human rights will have the opportunity to vote on this agreement without being bludgeoned through a whipped vote here in the House?

[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 third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again speak in the House to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. This agreement is an important part of the government's ambitious free trade agenda, an agenda aimed at supporting Canada's economy, Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and building prosperity for our economy.

The fragility of the global economy emphasizes the value of expanding trade and investment relationships by improving access to markets abroad.

Our government is committed to pursuing this initiative and building Canadian prosperity through bilateral and regional trade relations. Canada's economy is export-focused, and as such, it is in our best economic interest to find as many new foreign markets for our producers and exporters as possible.

By improving access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses, we support economic growth and create new jobs for Canadian workers. That is the experience of the North American free trade agreement and the experience of new free trade agreements under this government with Peru and with the European Free Trade Association.

We have had other free trade agreements, one before this Parliament on Jordan and another one recently signed with Panama, and we are currently negotiating a very ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union. This Canada-Colombia free trade agreement before the House today is an important part of that agenda.

Canada's exporters, investors and service providers are calling for the opportunities that all of these free trade agreements provide, and this government is listening.

Colombia is a significant trade partner for Canada. In 2009, our two-way merchandise trade totalled $1.3 billion and, over the past five years, Canadian merchandise exports have grown by over 55%. Clearly, Canadian businesses and producers see potential in this market.

However, the reality is that Canadian exports, particularly commodities, are at a disadvantage when compared to many of our main competitors, like the U.S., for geographic reasons.

Speedy implementation of our agreement with Colombia will help our exporters strengthen their position. Canadian exporters are in danger of finding themselves at an even greater disadvantage in this important market. Once in place, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement will benefit Canadian exporters by removing a number of major trade barriers to the Colombian market. For example, Colombia will eliminate duties on nearly all current Canadian exports to Colombia, including wheat, pulse crops and mining equipment.

In 2009, Canada exported agri-food products worth $247 million to Colombia. In fact, Colombia is the second largest market for Canadian agricultural exports in South America.

Once this free trade agreement is in place, over 85% of Canadian agricultural exports to Colombia will be duty-free immediately. The removal of these duties is a significant advantage for Canadian agriculture and agri-food producers. This government is standing up for Canada's agricultural producers. This sector is critical for Canada. It contributes about $100 billion to the country's gross domestic product and employs over two million Canadians.

The benefits of this deal extend across the Canadian economy. It is also expected to have a positive impact on the Canadian manufacturing sector. This sector has been hit particularly hard during these recent difficult economic times and it is a sector that would benefit from new market opportunities.

With rapid growth in the Colombian economy in recent years, Canadian companies made important investments. The strong presence of Canadian companies has also created many export opportunities for Canadian exporters of industrial goods, particularly oil and gas and mining equipment manufacturers.

Some of Canada's leading exports to Colombia include off-road dump trucks and auto parts. The manufacturers of these products would benefit under this agreement, and I need not point out the obvious, that auto parts manufacturers in the auto sector have been hit hard in recent years and the workers in this sector would appreciate the economic opportunities this would present.

Knowledge of infrastructure needs and the production of industrial goods are areas in which Canada excels.

These export sectors are integral to our economy. They are part of every Canadian community, large or small. That is why our government is seeking access to new markets.

Colombia is also a strategic destination for Canadian investment, and two-way investment is an absolutely critical driving force in today's global economy. It is important for Canada to maintain both inward and outward investment with our global partners, partners including Colombia, with the stock of Canadian investment in Colombia reaching approximately $800 million in 2009, and thanks in great part to Colombia's oil and gas a mining sectors, this number is expected to grow over the coming years.

Those are just a few areas where Canada has significant interests and can offer a lot to our Colombian partners going forward.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement offers both Canadian and Colombian investors an unprecedented degree of stability, predictability and protection.

This agreement establishes a stable legal framework and strict obligations to guarantee freedom of investment capital transfer and to protect investors from expropriation. Thanks to this agreement, investors will also have access to transparent, enforceable and impartial dispute resolution procedures.

In terms of services, this sector is a primary driver of the Canadian economy. It is responsible for 71% of our gross domestic product and for three in four Canadian jobs.

The Colombian market holds many opportunities for growth across this service sector in areas such as financial services, legal services, engineering and architecture, and high technology, for example. Canadian service providers already have a substantial presence in the Colombian market. Our services' exports to Colombia are in the area of about $80 million to $85 million each year. Propelling these numbers are Canadian financial, mining, engineering, petroleum extraction sectors and tourism.

Service sectors like these in Canada have a lot to gain. This agreement would afford service providers a secure, predictable, transparent and rules-based trading environment, and would provide an added measure of confidence.

Under this agreement, Canadian service providers can plan for the future knowing that they will receive the same treatment as Colombian service providers.

In addition, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement will provide direct benefits in other areas that are important to Canada. Thanks to the procurement provisions in the accord, Canadian suppliers will be able to bid on requests for proposals for goods, services and construction issued by most Colombian federal departments.

There are also comprehensive provisions covering the temporary entry of business visitors, intra-company transferees, traders and investors, spouses, technicians and an extensive list of professionals. This would ensure timely processing and transparency in the review of temporary entry applications. Businesses would directly benefit from this expedited process and the people to people movement would mean that Canadian investors and Canadian professionals would be better positioned to benefit from the opportunities offered in the Colombian market.

Those are just a few examples of the many benefits that would be achieved and accomplished by this free trade agreement.

In difficult economic times, we cannot hide behind walls or behind barriers. We need to seek out new opportunities on the global stage, and that is why this government has been committed to securing access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses through negotiations with the European Union, Ukraine and others across the Americas.

It is now time to move ahead with this legislation. it has been debated at length by this Parliament, by numerous speakers and by extensive evidence at committee. It has been studied as thoroughly as any other agreement, perhaps even more than the North American Free Trade Agreement, I hasten to suggest. Of course, we believe that in this agreement, our parallel agreements on environment and labour help address the concerns that some have raised with regard to Colombia.

I ask for the support of all hon. members for the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and the parallel labour co-operation and environment agreements. This would be a great step forward for Canada, another addition to our overall free trade agenda, which is leading to growth and prosperity for the Canadian economy and for the benefit of Canadian workers, which is why we think this is a long overdue agreement.

Canada would lead the way, ahead of those in the European Union and in the United States that have agreements in place but have failed to ratify them as yet. We would be in a position to do that. This agreement would provide an advantage and an opportunity to our Canadian workers, an advantage that this government is committed to capitalizing upon.

Standing Committee on International Trade—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 3, 2010 by the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster concerning events which took place in the Standing Committee on International Trade on June 1, 2010.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster for having raised this matter. I would also like to thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the member for Calgary Centre for their comments.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster argued that the manner in which the Standing Committee on International Trade conducted its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement implementation act, violated his rights and the rights of two other members of the committee.

Specifically, he complained that the chair had not informed the committee that it was reverting to a public meeting from its in camera status and that the chair and the majority of the members on the committee had systematically frustrated his attempts to speak, intervene on points of order, and have access to the procedural resources of the committee.

While recognizing that traditionally the Speaker does not get involved in matters that should be dealt with in committee, the member argued that this clearly constituted an abuse by the majority in the committee of the privileges bestowed on it by the House, and as such was a contempt of the House. For his part, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader contended that a prima facie question of privilege did not exist as there was no report to the House from the committee on this matter. The member for Calgary Centre, the chair of the standing committee, reiterated this and stated that the committee had conducted its meeting fairly and in keeping with the rules of procedure.

All members who have intervened in this matter have acknowledged that the Speaker does not sit as a court of appeal to adjudicate procedural issues that arise in the course of committee proceedings. Indeed, on numerous occasions, Speakers have restated the cardinal rule that committees are masters of their own proceedings and any alleged irregularities occurring in committees can be taken up in the House only following a report from the committee itself. There have been very few exceptions to this rule.

The ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser on March 26, 1990, to which the member for Burnaby—New Westminster alluded, does state:

—that in very serious and special circumstances the Speaker may have to pronounce on a committee matter without the committee having reported to the House.

However, having reviewed the evidence submitted, there is little to suggest that in the case before us the circumstances warrant the chair breaking with the entrenched practice of allowing committees to settle issues related to their proceedings, particularly since the member himself stated that “the chair had the support of the majority of the members of the committee”.

Thus, as Mr. Speaker Fraser declared in that same ruling, on page 9,758 of the debates:

I have chosen not to substitute my judgment for that expressed by a majority on the Finance Committee, unless that majority decides to report its dilemma to the House.

While it is clear to the chair that the member is unhappy with the decisions taken by the committee, the committee has not reported this matter to the House. It may be of assistance to the member to refer to pages 149 to 152 in the chapter “Privileges and Immunities” in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, where the procedural steps associated with bringing committee-related privilege issues before the House are fully described.

In the meantime, I regret to inform the member for Burnaby—New Westminster that unless he can persuade the committee to take some of those procedural steps, there is little the chair can do and there is certainly no basis for finding a prima facie question of privilege at this time.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the deputy House leader for the Official Opposition, for her questions.

When I get into addressing the issue of the upcoming government legislation that I intend to call, I will make reference to Bill C-34, which was her first additional question. The other question dealt with private member's Bill C-391 and the report that came back from the committee about that legislation. I am sure the member is well aware of the process of private members' business. It has nothing to do with the government business and therefore those negotiations and consultations will take place between yourself, Mr. Speaker, and the sponsor of that legislation.

We will continue today with the opposition motion. Tomorrow we will call Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, which is at third reading.

I would also like to designate pursuant to Standing Order 66(2) tomorrow as the day to complete the debate on the motion to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Next week we will hopefully complete all stages of Bill C-34, Creating Canada's New National Museum of Immigration at Pier 21 Act. I would like to thank the opposition parties for their support of that legislation and for allowing it to pass expeditiously when we do call it.

There may also be some interest to do something similar for Bill C-24, First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act; Bill S-5, ensuring safe vehicles; and Bill S-9, tracking auto theft and property crime act.

I would also like to complete the remaining stages of Bill C-11, Balanced Refugee Reform Act.

In addition to those bills, I would call Bill C-23, Eliminating Pardons for Serious Crimes Act; Bill S-2, Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act; and Bill C-22, Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act.

I would also like to announce that on Monday we will be having a take note debate on the subject of the measures being taken to address the treatment of multiple sclerosis. I will be moving the appropriate motion at the end of my statement.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66(2) I would like to designate Tuesday, June 15, as the day to conclude debate on the motion to concur in the first report of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Finally, I would like to designate Thursday, June 17, as the last allotted day.

At this time I will be making a number of motions and asking for the unanimous consent of the House for them, starting with the take note debate motion.

The House resumed from June 7 consideration 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-2--Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That in relation to 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, at the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-2--Notice of time allocation

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the member for interrupting his speech.

However, 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 report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-2.

Therefore, 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 the disposal of the proceedings at the said stages.

Motions in Amendment

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is more one of process. Eighteen months ago, the Conservative government prorogued Parliament so it could recalibrate, to use its term, its legislative program. After a long wait while it recalibrated, we came back and the very first piece of legislation tabled, the top of mind, number one priority for the government was not the global economic crisis. It was not housing or social programs. It was Bill C-2, a free trade agreement with Colombia--

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member's comments, but I do appreciate them.

My colleague knows that two years ago the trade committee had hearings in Colombia where we heard from the labour movement. The committee was unanimous in its recommendation that the government not proceed with trade negotiations with the Government of Colombia until an independent human rights assessment was done on the impact of the agreement on human rights in Colombia given the egregious constant and ongoing human rights violations taking place there.

The member well knows that we are not talking about 2008. From January 1 to April 30 of this year, 30 trade unionists were massacred. Thirty of them died standing up for better health and safety conditions in their workplace, for better working conditions for Colombian workers. We are not talking about five or six years ago. We are talking about what happened a few weeks ago.

Given that the recommendation of the committee was unanimous and that those people who talked to committee two years ago wanted to come back on Bill C-2, my simple question is: Why do the Conservatives refuse to hear from the free and independent labour movement in Colombia and the labour movement in Canada, as well as the many activists who wanted to come before the committee?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide a few comments on Bill C-2.

It is interesting that this is the first bill the government brought to Parliament. We have been on quite a journey with this bill and it bears some reflection on where we came from.

First, I want to indicate that there is no question that rules-based bilateral trade deals are intrinsically a good thing. When we enter into these arrangements, as we have with a number of countries, it is a win-win situation. There are synergies and things that happen that make value come between the economic inputs that each can bring.

In fact, I was much swayed by the argument that other countries that are doing this will have the benefit of the tariff arrangement that would be entered into and that if Canada does not do this, then our businesses that want to do business in Colombia will be impaired. It is an interesting argument. I do not think I have heard the answer to the question on whether we should proceed at this time or whether there is a point at which current bilateral trade with Colombia might be impaired because of that.

I was also intrigued that the standing committee looking at this in the first instance came back to the House with a recommendation that the first thing that should happen is an independent human rights assessment. That was the starting point and all the parties said that but it did not happen. Canadians probably want to know why. I do know that I had read where Amnesty International was reluctant to participate or to conduct such an independent assessment. I do not know why.

We have had a number of debates on this matter for some time and the issue of human rights has often been raised. I gave a speech at second reading after doing some work. I was looking at what was happening in the United States, which was also working on this. I was looking at some of the reports out of Colombia that talked about judicial corruption. I was talking about some of the reports from Colombia that showed that the number of prosecutions and convictions of those who had participated in human rights abuses and murders was almost nothing.

I could not understand how, if we had a situation that was improving, we could have circumstances where the judiciary was corrupt, where prosecutions were not being followed through on and where people were being disrupted and displaced from their homes. This is part of the partner with which we are looking at in terms of doing trade.

If I am not on the committee, when I look at any bill I have to depend on the committee to provide that information. I can only do so much research myself. I do know I still have questions about the agreement to have Colombia do an assessment on human rights as a consequence of the trade that would happen as a result of Bill C-2; the incremental or the specific impact of additional trade on human rights in Colombia. We would hope that it would improve it. However, from the standpoint of due diligence and of doing the kind of work that would be necessary to prove it, we need a mechanism. I think one of the Conservative members said that we need a rules-based free trade deal.

I understand, and I stand to be corrected, but the understanding is that the Government of Colombia will do an assessment of its human rights situation and the impact of trade on that, how trade has impacted human rights as a result of this deal, and report to its government.

I think we would get a copy of that, but I am not sure. However, when it was first introduced, it sounded like both governments would do their own independent assessments and report to their Parliaments. The other interpretation was that Canada and Colombia would work together on an assessment and would each report the same report to both Houses. I do not know where that is right now but I do know that it is a big question. I do not know whether there is a mechanism in place that could actually make an assessment of the impacts on human rights.

The fact is that the government wanted to have this amendment to the bill, an amendment that it had not contemplated. If we think about it carefully, it is not just an appeasement. It probably reflects a concern that there will be a major constituency out there concerned about the human rights element here.

As parliamentarians, we have heard from Canadians right across the country about the human rights aspect. I know they are in the same position as many parliamentarians who are not on this committee. They do not have all of the facts. However, when parliamentarians do not have all of the facts and the government says that we should trust it because trade is a good thing and it will deal with this, I am not sure. So, as a parliamentarian, we would look at what other countries are doing.

In the United States, President Obama was very aggressive in saying that getting out of the hole in the United States will be by promoting bilateral trade. I read the article on his speech and he had made a list but he did not mention Colombia, even though his country was working on a free trade deal with Colombia. I then heard congressional leaders saying that they would not go there and that it would be a long time before they looked at it. I do not know the precise reason but my understanding, from the media reports, is that the Americans are not proceeding aggressively with their free trade deal with Colombia.

Again I have some questions and parliamentarians should not be left with questions. We need to have answers. We need to have credible, reliable, verifiable information from all of the stakeholders in this matter and that includes from all the various human rights groups that have expressed concerns and who wanted to appear before the committee.

I understand how committees work and I know that sometimes it is very difficult to hear from everybody, but if there were any issue that we had to identify that was the principal concern that some people have about Bill C-2, it is about human rights. I have not heard many challenges to the benefits of trade, whether it be in agriculture or mining, but there has been some concern about that. I would have thought that the committee would want to ensure that the principal representatives of stakeholders across the country related to human rights issues would have had an opportunity to present their case to the committee so that the committee could ensure that Bill C-2 would contain measures to help mitigate or in fact eliminate the concerns that may have been raised. Those are the questions that as parliamentarians we wish were answered. It is fundamental.

I do not have to stand here and give a technical speech about the bill. The bill is about doing a free trade deal with Colombia. I hope that we can do many free trade deals that are rules-based and that take into account all of the factors that cause certain stakeholder groups concern. However, the fair way to do it is to listen to those stakeholders.

When we start this House, every day we say a prayer in this place before it is open to the public and the last line is that we make good laws and wise decisions. There is still time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am appalled at the ignorance of the members who are not aware that there have been systematic massacres not only of members of the Awa nation in Colombia but of other aboriginal nations. Indeed, the government and paramilitary and military forces have been involved. It is a matter of public record.

I will turn to other issues, because it is obvious that there is not a very high level of understanding of the human rights situation in Colombia. How could there be? Liberals and Conservatives shut off debate on Bill C-2. They refused to hear from human rights organizations in Colombia who asked to come forward. They refused to hear from the Canadian Labour Congress, which asked to come forward. They refused to hear from some of the largest labour activist unions in Canada, which asked to come forward. They refused to hear from the free and democratic labour movement, which is over 90% of the labour movement in Colombia. The Liberals and Conservatives said that they did not want to hear from those organizations. If they had heard from those organizations rather than having cut off debate, their level of ignorance would have been improved.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak to Bill C-2.

I want to speak to the point that my friend from Windsor West raised in terms of trade. We need to make it very clear. Canada already does trade with Colombia. There is some $1.3 billion in two-way trade right now, with $602 million in Canadian exports and $734 million in imports.

It is important to understand that the purpose of the free trade agreement is to institute some rules-based trading. To say that there is no trading going on right now would be disingenuous and quite frankly misleading. There is trade right now. We are trying to make sure it is rules based so that we can move forward on a stronger footing.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement because it is an important agreement for Canada. It has been the subject of extensive debate and study by the House and the Standing Committee on International Trade.

At the standing committee alone there has been over 35 hours of witness testimony on the free trade agreement. In the House, opposition members have spoken 99 times to Bill C-23 which was in a previous Parliament, as well as Bill C-2.

The New Democratic Party members have made it clear that they are opposed to free trade. As a matter of fact, they have never met a free trade deal they did not oppose. They have spoken 40 times to these bills despite only having 36 members. We can do the math on that one.

The committee has heard from over 90 witnesses who have shared their knowledge and views on this agreement. Some organizations have appeared more than once. This is in addition to the visit by the standing committee to Colombia to study Canada's commercial relationship with Colombia. During this visit alone, members of Parliament were able to meet with over 50 Colombian stakeholders.

What have members of the House and members of the committee heard time and time again during their discussions on the free trade agreement? They have heard that this is a strong commercial agreement for Canada and for Colombia.

Certainly no one is saying that Colombia is a country that has fixed all its problems. While we were in Colombia listening to testimony, people talked openly. The government talked openly of the struggles the country has had in terms of civil unrest and civil war over the years. We would be hard pressed to find anyone with the government or civil society who has not said that conditions have improved.

That is one of the things we are talking about here today. As we heard from SNC-Lavalin when it appeared before committee, more and more engagement of Canadian companies and good Canadian values are more likely to help the situation than to make it worse.

We must move forward now with the passage of this free trade agreement. Canadian business is looking to Parliament to do everything we can to open doors for Canadians, to create new commercial opportunities around the world and to work with our partners to help our citizens succeed.

To allow this to happen, Canadian companies need improved access to markets in order to compete. That is why this free trade agreement is such an important accomplishment. Trade between our countries is significant.

In 2009, as I mentioned when I started my speech, our two-way trade in merchandise totalled $1.3 billion. Key Canadian products such as pulse crops, paper, wheat, barley, machinery and motor vehicles are exported to Colombia. Canadian companies and producers of these products are counting on the passage of the free trade agreement. Colombia is a vibrant and dynamic market for Canadian exporters and foreign investors. It is a growing market of 48 million people.

As soon as the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement comes into effect, exporters and investors in Canada will enjoy lower trade and investment barriers in the Colombia market.

Colombia will eliminate tariffs on nearly all current Canadian exports, including wheat, pulses and mining equipment. The competitive advantage that will be provided for Canadians with the removal of these tariffs is significant. The removal will help Canadian workers, farmers and businesses stay ahead of their global competitors.

Canadian exporters, particularly of the commodities, are already at a disadvantage compared to their U.S. counterparts due to higher transportation costs. These disadvantages could become even worse if the U.S.-Colombia agreement comes into force. As well, Colombia has been aggressively expanding its commercial relations with other countries, having recently concluded negotiations on a free trade agreement with the European Union and it is currently in negotiations with Panama and South Korea. If we wait to implement our agreement, we risk seeing Canadian exporters further disadvantaged in this important market.

Colombia maintains tariffs averaging 17% on agricultural products, with tariffs ranging from 15% to as high as 108% for some pork products, 80% for some beef products and 60% for certain beans. Indeed, agriculture was a key driver for these free trade agreement negotiations, and a successful outcome of agriculture was absolutely critical.

Tariffs on 86% of Canadian agricultural exports will be eliminated immediately when the free trade agreement comes into force. That translates into about $25 million in annual duty savings in sectors such as wheat, barley, lentils, beans and beef. Clearly, this is a significant amount and will certainly provide additional incentive for Colombian companies to buy Canadian goods.

During one of its appearances before the standing committee, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association was quite candid with its views:

I'm interested in making the lives of Canadian beef producers better. I think this agreement and other trade agreements do that.

This government echoes these remarks. We are working on trying to support Canadian farmers and to make the lives of Canadians better by creating jobs and ensuring the long-term competitiveness of this country.

The benefits of this trade agreement extend beyond agriculture. By creating new market opportunities for Canadian exporters, this agreement is also expected to have a positive impact on the Canadian manufacturing sector, growth that can be achieved in Colombia. Off-road dump trucks, auto parts and machinery are some of Canada's leading exports to Colombia. These products will benefit from increased market access through this agreement.

We need to listen to Canadian businesses and help them expand their reach into this exciting market. The time for Canada to act is now. Our trade with Colombia is complementary. Both countries have a lot to gain.

It has been mentioned by members on the opposite side that there is a number of issues facing Colombia. They talk about the paramilitary, the FARC. One of the things they forget to factor into the equation is the extensive illegal drug market in Colombia. What this deal does is it helps Colombians rely less on drugs and more on trade.

This is trying to provide opportunities for Colombians so that they do not need to rely solely on the illegal drug market that has plagued Colombia. This is about trying to create additional opportunities. When we say we will not provide opportunities or will not give them an opportunity to trade, we remove the chance for them to be able to transfer out of the illegal activities into legal activities where they could make sustainable long-term differences.

Colombia is making significant advances to ensure it becomes a stable democracy. However, one cannot have a democratic and secure nation without jobs and opportunities. Colombia is working to create opportunities for its people, and the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement will assist in those efforts.

Our businesses can compete with the best in the world. It is certainly time we listened to our Canadian companies and worked to ensure that they maintain their competitiveness in this market and have the chance to pursue new opportunities.

I would also mention the fact that during the polling that has been going on with the presidential elections coming, of all the parties that are running there is only one party that opposes free trade. Let us think about that. There is only one party out of all the parties that are running for re-election and to run the country that actually opposes free trade. Ninety-six per cent of those parties support free trade. That is what the polls show.

We talk about what is not good for Colombia. I think Colombians understand what is important for Colombia. If there was such an opposition to free trade, do members not think that would become an issue during the campaign? Do members think any political party in Colombia would be supporting free trade if they believed this was going to hurt their chances of winning? That bears out in the results of the polls which show that only one party, which actually has less than 4%, opposes free trade.

It is for this reason and the many benefits to our Colombian partners that this agreement brings that I ask all members to support the passage of this free trade agreement.

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the report stage amendments but I must say that these are the most egregious circumstances imaginable.

As we well know, the trade committee, which was supposed to vet and hold, as the Liberal Party promised, full and comprehensive hearings on Bill C-2, did not do that. The Liberals and Conservatives combined to shut down the hearings. It is for that reason the NDP is bringing forward these report stage amendments.

The Liberal and Conservative majority on the trade committee refused to hear from the Canadian Labour Congress and some of the largest trade unions in the country, such as the National Union of Public and General Employees and the Public Service Alliance of Canada. As we know, these are labour activists, people simply trying to improve the working conditions of themselves and their co-workers.

More trade union activists are killed in Colombia than anywhere else on earth. One would expect that the promise by the Liberal Party to have full and comprehensive hearings would have come to pass, but that was absolutely betrayed.

The Liberals not only refused to hear from the Canadian Labour Congress and labour activists from some of Canada's largest unions, they also refused to hear from any members of the labour movement from Colombia. These are people who often give their lives trying to improve working conditions in Colombia because of the immense brutality of the paramilitary organizations that are affiliated with the Colombia government. They refused to hear from any of the non-government activists affiliated with the labour movement.

Labour activists in Colombia, who often do their work as volunteers with threats to their lives and those of their families, simply wanted to go before the trade committee and give their points of view on 90% of the remaining labour movement in Colombia, not the government-affiliated labour movement but trade union activists who comprise 90% of the labour movement there. The Liberals and Conservatives said no to hearing from those labour activists. They said no to hearing from Afro-Colombians, individuals suffering the brunt of the brutal government-linked paramilitary groups that, there is no other way to put it, brutally slaughter hundreds of activists every year.

Rather than the trade committee hearing from African Colombians, aboriginal Colombians, the free labour movement in Colombia, not the government-sponsored part of the labour movement, rather than hearing from Canada's largest unions and labour activists from the Canadian Labour Congress, it closed out debate on Bill C-2. Through a pretty thuggish process, it simply shut out all of those groups and many civil society organizations and individuals, all of whom had written to members of the trade committee to appear before the committee. Then, in the space of just a few minutes per clause, it moved to rubber stamp this trade bill.

As we know, there is the so-called Liberal amendment that requires nothing more or less than the Colombian government to report on itself annually. I guess one of the reasons the Liberals moved closure on this issue before committee was that the witnesses who came forward were very clear about the fact that this amendment, which would force the Colombian government to report on itself, is simply not credible given its lies and deception.

What the committee heard from the CCIC, no less, was that there could be a historic precedent to put in place some independent and impartial human rights monitoring and evaluation both prior to and during this process. Quoting from the organization's testimony before the committee, it stated, “...the damage from a non-credible process is high...”.

What we have are no full and comprehensive hearings and a non-credible process that has been added in allowing the Colombian government to report on itself. The Liberals and Conservatives rammed this bill through without the due and appropriate consideration, without even hearing from the folks who the trade committee is bound to hear from. It is absolutely outrageous.

Our report stage amendments endeavour to tackle these issues: the lack of credibility and lack of process around this; and the fact that the Liberal Party has completely betrayed its past. I think it is fair to say that in the past, under previous leaders, the Liberal Party did have some legitimate connection to human rights. When we look at the history of the Liberal Party, there were times when the Liberal Party stood up for human rights issues. However, that is not the case today under the current leader. I believe profoundly that is one of the reasons that the Liberal Party is in such difficulty in the polls. People in this country want to choose between something more than far right to extreme right points of view.

In the Colombian trade deal, we have a government that, through its secret police, through its military and through its affiliated paramilitary organizations, has been nothing less than brutal with dissidents, the people who stand up for labour rights and human rights.

The NDP offered about 100 amendments to this trade agreement. What we talked about and what we put forward at committee stage was the very clear desire from the labour movement and human rights organizations across this country and in Colombia to have an independent and impartial human rights assessment prior to any implementation of this trade deal.

Given the fact that there are more serious human rights violations around labour activists in Colombia than anywhere else in the world and that, according to many sources, there are more forced and violent displacements and thefts of land in Colombia than anywhere else in the world, most of it done through organizations affiliated with the Colombia government, as well as human rights violations by the guerrillas operating in Colombia, no one is proposing offering a reward for those human rights violations. We, in this corner of the House, steadfastly resist offering a reward to the Colombian government for repeatedly bad behaviour.

The Colombian government might have a slick public relations firm but, quite frankly, the violations and the many reports speak for themselves. The fact is that we had more witnesses asking to come before committee than the trade committee has seen since I have been in Parliament in the last six years, and yet there was a closing off and refusal to hear systematically from human rights organizations, from activists involved in human rights work, work with the aboriginal community and work with the African-Colombian community, and labour activists.

Our many amendments that were brought forward called for an independent and partial human rights assessment, among many other things, prior to this bill being implemented and also to put in place a system so that if the Colombian government did not keep its commitments the trade agreement could be abrogated.

All of those amendments were refused despite the fact that two years ago, when the trade committee actually went down to Colombia, we had a unanimous recommendation that the Conservative government not proceed any further with this trade agreement until an independent and impartial human rights evaluation could be undertaken to determine to what extent this would have a negative impact on human rights.

Although that was unanimously agreed to at the time, the Conservatives stepped back within 24 hours and tried to, under pressure, I imagine, from the PMO, distance themselves from the report. However, it passed unanimously at committee. It is only the change in Liberal leadership that has led to the Liberal Party completely betraying its tradition of standing up on human rights.

The fact that we brought forward these amendments, that we were very clear about the importance of rebuilding the bill with a human rights focus and that so many organizations throughout the country said that they wanted to step forward and speak to this issue, I think attests to the fact that Canadians are profoundly concerned about the direction this Parliament is taking.

I have had the privilege of speaking at a number of public events throughout this country. I have been speaking about this issue at public events in Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and western Canada. Canadians are very concerned about this issue.

To close, I will give one example in the riding of Davenport where 200 people came out to speak to the issue of concerns about the Liberal Party's stand on human rights and this pushing forward of the Colombian trade deal. People in Davenport and so many other ridings across the country want to see this bill receive the sober second thought these report stage amendments are designed--

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-2. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House proceeded to the consideration 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, that is quite a number of questions and I hope I have them all. My hon. colleague, the opposition House leader, says they are good questions. Indeed, they are very good questions and I appreciate him posing those questions today. I will go first to the business before the House and then I will get to his other questions.

We will continue today debating the report stage of Bill C-9, the jobs and economic growth act. As I said on Tuesday, Canadians are expecting this bill to pass before we rise for the summer.

I pointed out some of the consequences of not adopting Bill C-9 by the summer. Payments would not be authorized for over $500 million in transfer protection to our provinces. Bill C-9 also authorizes appropriation of $75 million for Genome Canada, $20 million for Pathways to Education Canada to provide support for disadvantaged youth, $10 million for the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, and $13.5 million for the Rick Hansen Foundation. These payments and many others cannot be made until Bill C-9 receives royal assent.

This process, I would remind the House, began on March 3, some three months ago, when the Minister of Finance delivered his budget. We debated the budget on March 5, 8, 9 and 10. On March 24, we adopted the ways and means motion required to introduce the jobs and economic growth act.

The bill was introduced on March 29. It was debated for five days at second reading and finally referred to the Standing Committee on Finance on April 19. The committee reported it back on May 14 without amendment. The opposition had almost a month to offer up amendments but reported the bill back without amendments.

This is the fourth sitting day that we have been debating report stage. The opposition and particularly, I would contend, the NDP have had the opportunity to raise their concerns. However, I want to point out a Speaker's ruling from April 14, 1987 in which he addressed this issue. He stated:

It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view. Sooner or later every issue must be decided and the decision will be taken

I would also like to quote House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 210, which states:

it remains true that parliamentary procedure is intended to ensure that there is a balance between the government's need to get its business through the House, and the opposition's responsibility to debate that business without completely immobilizing the proceedings of the House.

Following Bill C-9 today, we will call Bill C-10, Senate term limits, and Bill S-2, the sex offender registry legislation.

Beginning tomorrow, if necessary, we will continue with Bill C-9, followed by Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

Next week we will continue with the business from this week, with priority given to Bill C-9 and Bill C-2. In addition to the bills just mentioned, the government will call for debate on Bill C-22, protecting children from online sexual exploitation, Bill C-23, eliminating pardons for serious crime, and Bill C-24, first nations certainty of title. As usual, the government will give priority consideration to any bills reported back from committee or received from the Senate.

Thursday, June 10, shall be an allotted day. That was an additional question that my hon. colleague, the official opposition House leader, asked during his customary Thursday question.

The other thing he noted was a date for an important take note debate dealing with multiple sclerosis. That date has not been set yet, but there have been consultations between myself and my counterparts, the House leaders from all three opposition parties, and I am sure that we can arrive at a suitable date in the very near future.

On the issue of committee witnesses and that we are blocking other people, I would be interested to know who those other people are that we are blocking. I am not aware of any. I have said repeatedly in the House of Commons over the last week or so that we intend to uphold the principle of fundamental value of Parliament, which is ministerial accountability.

Our ministers have been appearing and will continue to appear at the standing committees. It is my contention and I would ask any Canadian who is interested in viewing, and in some cases where there is no video record, reading the Hansard of standing committees to see the types of questions and antics that the combined opposition coalition is resorting to.

In most cases, we had our very junior people. These are young people. They are people who are probably about the same age or perhaps even younger than my children. These young people are dragged before the standing committees. The opposition subjects them to abuse and intimidation tactics.

Standing Committee on International Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present this question of privilege before the House of Commons. I will not take an inordinate amount of time, but I believe it is important to get the facts on the table. I hope that you will consider the merit of the case I am putting forward.

I am asking you to find a prima facie question of privilege based on the extraordinary events that took place at the Standing Committee on International Trade. I believe the violations were so egregious that they have pre-empted these facts from being reported to the House. I believe that there has been a fundamental obstruction of my rights as well as the rights of my colleagues, the members for Saint-Maurice—Champlain and Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

These violations occurred at the 20th meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade on June 1, 2010 during its review of Bill C-2 and its related procedural motions, which were submitted by the members for Saint-Maurice—Champlain and South Shore—St. Margaret's.

The meeting was held in camera at first. The in camera status was removed at around 4:30 p.m., shortly after the committee started clause-by-clause review of the bill, and the public meeting lasted until the meeting ended at 11:30 p.m. that evening. The chair did not notify members of the committee as to the move to a public meeting.

My fundamental privileges, as well as the privileges of my colleagues, were violated, mostly under the cover of in camera meeting status as well as, in part, during the primary stages of the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-2. While I cannot elaborate on the specifics, as everyone can understand, I will present you, Mr. Speaker, with sufficient information to make my case.

I have never in my six years as an elected MP experienced such a gross, brutal, systematic, and outrageous violation of my fundamental rights as a parliamentarian. The following facts are on the most important of these violations.

First is the violation of my right to speak. From 3:30 p.m. to the early stages of clause-by-clause consideration, I was, along with my colleagues from Saint-Maurice—Champlain and Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, unable to carry out my duties as a parliamentarian.

The chair and the majority members of the committee maintained in camera status by arbitrarily failing to debate and vote on the motion submitted by the member of Saint-Maurice—Champlain, with proper and orderly 48-hour notice, requesting that the meeting be open to the public. The chair then imposed a vote on the motion submitted by the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's without allowing any debate on this motion, which imposed a shutdown of public hearings and a six-hour cap on the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-2.

This brings me to the second important violation, a systematic refusal of the chair to allow me or my colleagues to intervene on points of order to speak against the breaking of procedural, traditional, and ethical rules of conduct. Given that the chair had the support of the majority of the members of the committee, I was unable to challenge his decision, which breached my privilege, and I was unable to request that the committee present a report on the question to the House. That is why I am bringing it forward today.

That brings me to the third point. Faced with a situation in which I could not speak, I asked for the opinion of the clerk. This is, as we know, the committee's principal adviser. I am quoting from O'Brien and Bosc, which states that the committee's principal adviser “provides advice to all members of the committee”.

On this clear violation of procedural rules and Standing Orders, the chair systematically and repeatedly denied me access to the clerk of the committee, thus effectively and completely censuring my speech as well as my democratic right to participation in the committee.

In sum, these three points raise a fourth fundamental question that is at the heart of our democratic institutions. What do we do in a situation when minority members have been denied their right to speak and their right to access critical procedural resources to function as effective parliamentarians?

Virtually every written and unwritten rule has been trampled upon. This clearly constitutes an abuse of the rights bestowed upon the committee by Parliament, and as such, is contempt against the House, I submit.

While I know that it has been tradition for the Speaker not to get into a matter that should be dealt with in the committee and that it was up to the committee to decide whether what occurred through its chair was within parliamentary practices, there are exceptions to the rule, and I believe that this is one of them. I am referring, for example, to the landmark ruling by Speaker Fraser on March 25, 1990 in which he acknowledged that he might have to rule on a committee-related issue in a very serious and special circumstance.

This is a matter that goes way beyond committee business. It deals with the abuse by the majority in the committee of the privileges bestowed on it by the House. In our parliamentary democracy, nothing could justify the violation of the sacred right to speech. The abuse of in camera privileges to conceal the trampling of democratic rules and traditions and to hide the truth sets a dangerous precedent for our parliamentary institutions and traditions.

I am going to quote very briefly a paragraph from both Speaker Fraser and from you, Mr. Speaker, that indicates the importance of the matter.

Speaker Fraser ruled on Tuesday, April 14, 1987 and stated the following:

It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view. Sooner or later every issue must be decided and the decision will be taken by a majority. Rules of procedure protect both the minority and the majority. They are designed to allow the full expression of views on both sides of an issue. They provide the Opposition with a means to delay a decision. They also provide the majority with a means of limiting debate in order to arrive at a decision. This is the kind of balance essential to the procedure of a democratic assembly. Our rules were certainly never designed to permit the total frustration of one side or the other, the total stagnation of debate, or the total paralysis of the system.

I submit that in this case that balance was far from being observed.

Finally, I would like to quote you, Mr. Speaker, in a decision on March 14, 2008, when you said, in part:

I do not think it is overly dramatic to say that many of our committees are suffering from a dysfunctional virus that, if allowed to propagate unchecked, risks preventing members from fulfilling the mandate given to them by their constituents.

You quoted at that time, Mr. Speaker, House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 210:

...it remains true that parliamentary procedure is intended to ensure that there is a balance between the government's need to get its business through the House, and the opposition's responsibility to debate that business without completely immobilizing the proceedings of the House.

You continued, Mr. Speaker, saying:

The Speaker must remain ever mindful of the first principles of our parliamentary tradition which Bourinot described thus: To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority, to secure the transaction of public business in a decent and orderly manner—

There is no doubt in my mind that the events of June 1 bring truth to your prediction, Mr. Speaker, back in 2008, that if the dysfunctional virus of committees and this dysfunctional virus of the time is allowed to propagate unchecked, that risk of preventing members from fulfilling the mandate given to them by their constituents is essentially being brought to bear.

In this case, I believe very clearly that this prediction has come true. The member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, and I were prevented from fulfilling the mandate that was given to us by our constituents.

In conclusion, I ask that this be allowed to go before the procedure and House affairs committee. There I will be seeking a remedy on these issues. The misuse of in camera status to circumvent the fundamental rules and traditions of Parliament that protect parliamentary privilege cannot be tolerated, for it has the potential to seriously censor the legitimate democratic participation of elected members who are in a minority situation.

International Trade

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on International Trade in relation to 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.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

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

If I may continue, Mr. Chair, we certainly were able to hear from a number of people, both in the fall and again in the spring, who said the same thing. Even though we were having hearings that indicated this amendment, some people initially thought, might have some merit, we have had labour unions wanting to come before this committee, and we have seen as well that the representatives of working women and workingmen across the country have expressed strong concerns about this overall agreement.

So how do we address that, Mr. Chair? How do we address the fact that millions of people, those individuals who are Canadians, who work within labour unions, who are organized, and who have the benefit, fortunately, of having collective responses to health and safety issues, wage issues, and all of those other issues, have not been able to testify on Bill C-2?

It seems to me, Mr. Chair, that the least we can do to address this inequity is push the minister—and we say the words “shall consult”—to consult on a regular basis with representatives of Canadian labour and trade unions. What this means is that the point of view of those millions of working women and workingmen who are engaged in the trade union movement would be able to move forward and hopefully be heard by the government.

I think it's fair to say, Mr. Chair, that the vast majority of unionized workers across the country do not feel that they've been heard during this process. They have not had the opportunity to testify on Bill C-2. Given the fact that we're not even putting collective bargaining and the ability to develop free and fair collective bargaining rights in Colombia as a purpose in this amendment--

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

They asked to come before the committee on Bill C-2, Mr. Chair.

So what we have—

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

It was not on Bill C-2, Mr. Chair. It was not on Bill C-2. In fact, he requested to come before the committee. The Labour Congress—

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

Chair, I believe that in fact Walter Navarro gave testimony before this committee on Bill C-2 on behalf of 12 private sector unions in Colombia, the private sector unions that are actually impacted by free trade agreements, as opposed to the public sector unions, which only have an ideological relationship with their brethren and comrades to these kinds of agreements.

I just wanted to clarify, because I think the honourable member might remember that.

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

Well, you speak very well too, Mr. Chair, but it might be easier, just because I'm matching it up.

It is that line 14 on page 3 would be changed to read:

[work]ers' rights, including the right to collective bargaining, strengthen cooperation and build

The issue of the right to collective bargaining, Mr. Chair, is fundamental to this. Even though many of the largest labour associations in Canada, including the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the national union of provincial government employees, and the umbrella group, the Canadian Labour Congress, were all denied the opportunity to come before this committee, and even though, Mr. Chair, not a single non-governmental, non-regime-linked labour union was able to testify on Bill C-2 before this committee, which many, I think, Mr. Chair, will suggest is an absolute outrage....

In fact, they are quite right in that. it is outrageous that not a single Colombian labour union—

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

It states that Bill C-2 in clause 7 be amended by replacing line 18 on page 3 with:

(h) promote sustainable development including sustainable human development.

[Matthew Kronby]

Maybe we could do that as we get to those clauses. I wouldn't want to overlook anything here. So maybe rather than going through all of Bill C-2 now and discussing what it does or doesn't do, it would be easier to address that when we get to a clause.

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

Could you identify for us the later clauses in the bill that deal with breaches of the agreement, just so we know? I ask because you certainly have a good knowledge of the legislation, and that's why we bring you forward. We appreciate that.

I just ask so that we can flag these clauses later on. I have my own feelings on this, but it would be helpful to have you provide us with the clauses of Bill C-2 that deal with breaches.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't think I need to spell out the process for you; I know you have a lot of experience.

What this committee hasn't done, of course, because we didn't have full committee hearings into Bill C-2.... There are a whole bunch of organizations that have asked to come before the committee that have not, and I'm sure those organizations will be voicing their concerns in the coming days now that it's out in public. Organizations like the Canadian Labour Congress, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and many other organizations, are not coming forward. They are being denied their right to speak on Bill C-2.

I think as you know, Mr. Chair, the normal process in a healthy democracy is that we go to the clause, see if there are any questions for the guests here tonight, have debate on it...and then we would go to clause 2.

Mr. Chair, for the record, I will be asking for a recorded vote on every amendment and every clause.

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

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

And it is the same thing for Mr. Guimond; you could have said debate would be suspended while you looked into these matters. Questions of privilege are not often raised, Mr. Chairman. In my case, this is the second time in six years that I have raised a point of privilege. As for Mr. Laforest or Mr. Guimond, I am not aware whether they have raised a question of privilege previously or not.

Mr. Laforest and Mr. Guimond are signalling to me that they have not. This is not an insignificant matter; this is not something that can be brushed aside in that manner. It is a question of enormous importance, and if Mr. Allison and Mr. Keddy raise points of privilege, it will be equally important to consider them, because these are substantial issues. For all these reasons—and you were in the room when Mr. Laforest and myself asked to be given the Clerk's opinion—and after all the questions that have been raised, I think you have things to consider now. This truly is a question of privilege.

Mr. Chairman, I am therefore asking that you rule on these three questions of privilege. If you refuse, in addition to the fact that you arrived late, we will find ourselves in a situation where everything that follows is not legitimate. Having said that, we will try to start the clause-by-clause consideration, but that does not change the fact that what happened today is not legitimate and that this will not stop here. It is obvious that it cannot stop here. For that reason, and because of the issues that have been raised, the entire process surrounding Bill C-2 is now tainted and, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the public takes a great interest in this. There have been a lot of public meetings about this and it was standing room only; so, there is no doubt that the public will also want to have its say on these matters. We are calling on you, Mr. Chairman, just as Mr. Laforest and Mr. Guimond have done. This is truly a question of privilege and I hope that you will take it seriously.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You were here. I saw that you were here a little earlier, when we asked that the Clerk be consulted and the Chair of the Committee refused. That is precisely the issue I am addressing in my point of privilege. Because the Clerk and the services of the Clerk belong to all Committee members, the Chair cannot unilaterally decide that members will not request the Clerk's opinion.

Requests were made several times, but you don't seem to take these questions of privilege seriously. As you know, Mr. Chairman, you normally are required to consider them, to gather the facts and to dig a little deeper. That is normally your responsibility, when a question of privilege is raised.

Now if you do not follow proper procedure with respect to questions of privilege, the entire process loses its legitimacy. This process allows us to report if we want Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement Between Canada and the Republic of Columbia, the Agreement on the Environment Between Canada and the Republic of Columbia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation Between Canada and the Republic of Columbia, to reach the report stage. It's the third step in a lengthy process that some would say is a nuisance.

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it is precisely when a bill is controversial that it is even more important to respect the right of minorities and allow members sitting at this table to consult the Clerk, who is very clearly available for that purpose according to O'Brien and Bosc. That is also stated, albeit with less clarity, in the regulations.

All of these things must be done in the proper order and according to the process, as you well know, Mr. Chairman.

We have made all these points. That means that there will be an effect on everything that happens for the rest of the evening. The former Chair said that we have a few hours for the clause-by-clause consideration, but the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that you have not considered the matters raised by Mr. Laforest and Mr. Guimond. This is not just going to end here; that is obvious. In their case and in my own, you could have said that you would look at the facts, take the time to do so, and possibly ask the Committee to suspend debate in order to get to the bottom of this.

If you systematically ignore the questions of privilege that have been raised today, we will be forced to report this to the Speaker. As we said earlier, Mr. Chairman, and as all the precedents clearly demonstrate, the Speaker of the House has the right to refuse a report that is not consistent with the rules.

Ordinarily, Mr. Chairman, you could have said, when Mr. Laforest finished speaking, that you would look at this—not that you weren't here and would not accept these points of privilege. That is not your role, Mr. Chairman.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Don't worry; I will not be long.

My colleague spent quite a few minutes discussing a member of Parliament's right to freedom of speech. We have been talking about democracy for several hours now, with respect to parliamentary rules, and I have to say that I am disappointed with the way we were treated in the first hour of this Committee meeting.

I raised my hand several times. The Chairman heard me but never recognized me. I have been sitting on this Committee for a year and a half now. I have never abused my right to speak. I have always shown great respect for the Chairman performing those duties.

That is why I want to take this opportunity to say that I am very disappointed at what occurred. It is no different from Bill C-2 which we are examining today. It concerns a free trade agreement between Columbia and Canada which does not have unanimous support and is highly controversial. It is very much like what we are witnessing today. It is unfortunate, because I believe we are part of a great democracy; today, however, we were not given a great example of Canadian democracy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We are resuming our meeting.

Just prior to our suspending, Monsieur Laforest had the floor on a question of privilege. I might say that we've heard very much of it.

I think we get the gist of it, Monsieur Laforest. I'm prepared to allow you to speak as long as you want, but as it's becoming a bit redundant and you're just getting into additional precedents, I really wonder whether or not there's any validity to it. I'm prepared to rule on the question of privilege at any time.

Just to keep the committee up to date, we have passed two motions at this point. The motion that we're dealing with now is the committee stage of Bill C-2. We are on clause 2. Before we hear further points of order or questions. I just wanted to let the committee know that this is where we are on the matter.

Pursuant to the motion that we passed earlier in the day at 4:01, limiting the debate to six hours, we will conclude the debate at 10:01, at which time we will move to votes on the amendments as submitted, one at a time. Those amendments and the votes on the clauses are not debatable pursuant to the motion passed by the committee.

With that, I think we're ready to continue. We will hear the end of the most recent question of privilege and, at some point, hopefully we can return to the business of the committee.

I might say that if we find that the points of order and/or questions of privilege have been heard or are redundant, or if it appears that the points in question are simply irreconcilable, I think that in the interests of the committee and the members of the committee, and the privileges of other members, we'll have to rule that we move on.

It doesn't seem that there is any middle ground being suggested here. On this committee, we have heard more witnesses than on any other matter put before the House or a committee, and I think most of the committee members have determined their views on the matter. I haven't noticed from any of the interjections made so far that there's any change in that sense, so in the interests of the committee and those officials who we have gathered here to answer questions, and of getting on with it, we will get on with it at some point....

But we certainly wouldn't want to impose on the privileges of any member to speak, so if you want to take the time of committee with your personal views at some point you're at liberty to do that. But when we've heard them all, or they become redundant, or it's simply a matter of irreconcilable matters, we will rule that way and carry on with the meeting.

I would also like to say that at this point I'm going to pass the chair to Mr. Miller. Mr. Cannis, our vice-chair, is not here yet, so until he gets here I'm going to ask for the--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of precedence of Monday, April 19, 2010, are 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, clause-by-clause consideration.

The Economy

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the international trade committee and part of this government, it is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Motion No. 518 regarding expanding Canada's free trade agenda.

This government is committed to improving Canada's competitiveness and creating the economy of tomorrow as outlined in Canada's economic action plan and the Speech from the Throne. To do this Canada must open up as many foreign markets as possible for our producers, exporters and investors. I would like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of hon. members to some of the government's initiatives for expanding our network of trade agreements.

This government is committed to building on Canada's existing regional and bilateral free trade agreements. It is committed to increasing access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses, committed to helping Canadians compete with the best in the global economy and committed to an aggressive free trade agenda to support our goals.

Of course the World Trade Organization, otherwise known as the WTO, remains the foundation of our approach and Canada continues to be an active supporter of the Doha round of negotiations. A strong multilateral trading system has a critical role to play in the global economic recovery. We are working hard to achieve the best possible outcome from the round, and Canadian agricultural producers, manufacturers and service providers stand to benefit from the expanded access to global markets that an ambitious outcome would provide.

Canada is ready to do its part, but success in the round will depend upon the meaningful engagement and contributions of all members. With the uncertainty surrounding such a broad and ambitious process, we cannot rely exclusively on these negotiations to deliver the new opportunities that our traders need in order to grow and prosper. For that reason we also recognize the importance of bilateral and regional agreements.

Canada already has free trade agreements in force with the United States and Mexico through NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, 1994, as well as agreements with Israel in 1997, Chile in 1997 and Costa Rica in 2002. Last year we implemented a free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association with the countries of Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland on July 1, and with Peru on August 1.

The agreement with the European Free Trade Association is Canada's first free trade agreement with European countries. Thanks to this deal, Canadian companies are better positioned to expand commercial ties with the countries of the European Free Trade Association in particular and other European countries more broadly.

The Canada-European Free Trade Association Free Trade Agreement establishes a competitive advantage over exporters of our main competitors, such as the United States, that do not benefit from such an agreement. It places Canadian goods on an equal footing with goods from the European Union, Korea, Mexico and Chile, which already benefit from trade agreements with the European Free Trade Association.

The Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement, which came into force along with agreements on labour co-operation and the environment, contains considerable benefits for Canada. 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 five to ten year period. 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. On November 21, 2008, Canada and Colombia signed a free trade agreement along with parallel agreements on labour co-operation and the environment. The implementing legislation, Bill C-2, passed second reading and is now being studied by the Standing Committee on International Trade.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement will help to expand bilateral trade and investment with Colombia. Having the opportunity to personally visit Colombia with the trade committee, I believe it is important to engage the Colombians rather than isolate them, like some of the opposition parties would like to do.

We also want to deliver concrete progress on Canada's commitment of engagement in the Americas. The free trade agreement will provide greater market access for Canadian exporters of products such as wheat, pulses, barley, paper products and heavy equipment. It will also help the increasing number of Canadian investors and exporters that are entering the Colombian market by providing unprecedented levels of stability, predictability and protection for Canadian investors.

Less than a week later, on March 24, this government tabled implementing legislation for the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement and the related agreements on labour co-operation and the environment. This agreement would give Canadian businesses improved access in Jordan and a platform for expanding commercial ties in the broader Middle East.

Once this agreement comes into force, tariffs on over 99% of recent Canadian exports to Jordan will be eliminated.

Key Canadian sectors that will benefit from the immediate duty-free access include forestry--which is a great benefit for British Columbia where I am from, Quebec and Ontario and our softwood lumber agreements are providing great support for that as well-- manufacturing, and agriculture and agrifood.

The government's free trade agenda does not stop there. On May 14 of this year the Minister of International Trade and his Panamanian counterpart signed the Canada-Panama free trade agreement here in Ottawa. Parallel agreements on labour co-operation and the environment were also signed at the same time. All three agreements have been tabled in the House for 21 sitting days for review and debate. The free trade agreement will improve market access for goods and services and will provide a stable and predictable environment for investments in Panama.

This government is also working on numerous other fronts to provide Canadian businesses with better access to foreign markets.

Negotiations toward a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union were launched in Prague at the May 2009 Canada-European summit. This is by far Canada's most significant trade negotiation since the NAFTA with possibly up to $12 billion of new economic opportunities.

The successful negotiation of a high quality ambitious agreement with the European Union is a key priority for the government. Canada and the European Union have held three successful rounds of negotiations with four more scheduled to take place by spring 2011. The parties will continue to work toward an ambitious comprehensive agreement that will open markets and resist protectionist pressures in these challenging economic times.

Most recently, on May 18 in Kiev, Canada and Ukraine launched free trade negotiations. Canada already has strong cultural ties with Ukraine and our commercial ties have grown stronger over the last decade. Canadian companies are steadily building a deep business presence in areas like aerospace, communication technologies and agriculture.

A free trade agreement with Ukraine could further open markets for Canadian exports ranging from agriculture and seafood products to machinery and pharmaceuticals, and improve market access for services and help to address non-tariff barriers.

Negotiations with the Caribbean community are also progressing, and the second round of negotiations between Canadian and Caribbean officials took place a few weeks ago. Canadian officials also held a negotiating round in March 2010 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 negotiations with other partners including South Korea and the Dominican Republic, as well as seeking ambitious opportunities elsewhere. We are also engaged in a joint study with India to explore the parameters of a possible comprehensive economic partnership. We are involved in technical discussions with Japan aimed at improving and deepening our economic relations, including the possibility of a free trade agreement, a key interest for Canadian stakeholders.

We also remain engaged with the members of the trans-Pacific partnership and are watching those negotiations with interest.

Finally, trade opportunities with China and our Asian partners continue to expand. Canada's Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway was in China last week and our Minister of International Trade is in China this week building new markets.

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 increasingly competitive world while also stimulating the Canadian economy. This is where free trade plays an important role. It reduces tariffs for Canadian producers and expands opportunities for Canadian investors and service providers.

In these difficult economic times we cannot hide behind trade barriers. Protectionism is not the answer; partnerships are. We want to innovate, to move up the global value chain and to compete globally. These measures will continue to fuel our recovery from the global recession, forge a competitive advantage, support growth and prosperity and help create jobs in the economy of tomorrow.

Through this record of success we are making Canada's economy stronger, more vibrant, more innovative and more competitive. That is why Canadians can count on this government to lead efforts in securing access to foreign markets for Canadian businesses and to take every opportunity to oppose protectionism and defend free and open trade on the world stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We're a few minutes behind. We're going to open the meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade, meeting number 18 of this session.

We are continuing our discussion 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.

As has been our practice for almost two years now, we're hearing witnesses on this subject. Today we will continue that practice and process with four witnesses from a long distance away.

I'm going to introduce the witnesses, we'll have a brief comment from them—hopefully opening statements that will assuredly be under ten minutes each—and then we'll proceed to questions. Let me start by introducing our witnesses.

With us here in Ottawa we have Steven Shrybman, who is a partner with Sack, Goldblatt and Mitchell, who has appeared before the committee before. Welcome back, Mr. Shrybman.

We have from Coventry, England, from the University of Warwick, James Harrison, who's an associate professor at the Warwick School of Law. Welcome, Professor Harrison.

Visiting us from Vancouver via video conference, as an individual, is Dawn Paley, a journalist. Welcome, Ms. Paley.

As well, via video conference from New York, we have Nazih Richani, who is also a professor. I'm sorry that I don't know where you're instructing these days, so before you begin your allotted ten minutes for statements, perhaps you could do a brief further introduction.

Again, the format is that I'm going to ask each of you for an opening statement, followed by questions. I hope we can keep these opening presentations under ten minutes so that we have ample time for the committee to ask questions.

I have an indication here that our guest with us in Ottawa would like to speak last, so I'm going to start with Mr. Harrison, from Coventry, England, who is coming to us via video conference.

Professor Harrison.

[Andrew Casey, Vice-President, Public Affairs and International Trade, Forest Products Association of Canada]

Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

And thank you to the committee for this opportunity to contribute to your deliberations and study of Bill C-2.

I just want to give you a quick sense of who we represent. We're the Forest Products Association, the national voice of Canada's forest products industry in Canada, with integrated lumber, pulp, paper, and other products forming the mix.

By way of introduction to the industry from an economic standpoint, we represent about 12% of Canada's manufacturing GDP. We directly employ 240,000 Canadians and, indirectly, another 366,000 Canadians across the country. Given the rural nature of the industry, we of course are a huge economic foundation of about 200 Canadian communities from coast to coast.

An instrumental component of our economic strength and long-term viability is our ability to sell into markets outside of Canada. Indeed, about $24 billion worth of our product goes to markets outside of the country. That's well over 50% of the products we make. That makes us the fourth largest Canadian exporter and the most successful forest products exporter in the world.

The lion's share of our product, as most people would know, goes down to the U.S. market--about 70% of our products. Another large part goes to Asia, to China, India, and other Asian countries. About 16% of what we produce goes there. Another 6% goes to Europe. The remainder goes to other countries around the world, including those in South America. For that reason, we find that our opportunity here to contribute to these deliberations is an important opportunity in that it obviously presents a chance for us to grow that success.

Members of this committee and other parliamentarians are of course very familiar with the economic challenges this industry has faced over the past couple of years. We've seen a number of mill closures and job losses and, of course, the communities are gravely affected by this. Many of you have communities in your ridings that have been directly affected by the challenges that this industry has gone through over the past couple of years.

There are some bright lights on the horizon. There are some signs that the industry is picking up. We've seen a growth in demand for lumber. Prices have gone up accordingly. We've also seen a growth in pulp demand, with prices going up there also.

It's too early to tell right now whether this is a short uptick or a long-term trend. Nevertheless, the industry continues to plan for when markets do rebound. We expect them to rebound and we have put in place a four-point strategy that will help or position the industry to be ready for when markets do come back.

First and foremost, it's incumbent upon the industry itself to invest and improve its productivity. We've done so, even throughout this economic downturn.

A second component is to continue to improve our environmental performance and our forest management practices. We've done so. We want to be able to leverage those improvements and practices in a marketplace that is increasingly using environmental criteria as a criteria for buying.

For that reason, if I might just open up a side bracket, we're pleased with the inclusion in this agreement of a separate agreement on environmental priorities, where it has identified both forestry management and sustainable resource management as priorities for cooperation between the two countries.

A third portion of our strategy going forward is looking to maximize the resource, to get as much out of the fibre, out of the tree, as we possibly can. A major portion of this is integrating the new emerging bio-economy, bio-products, and bio-energy into the existing product lines--again, to get as much value out of the tree as we possibly can and minimize the waste.

The fourth--and I put it fourth because it gives us a proper segue--is to grow and expand our markets. Seventy per cent dependence on the U.S. market is a bit too heavy. We see what can happen when you get tied up into a softwood lumber war. We'd like to diversify those markets and expand them elsewhere.

Bill C-2, this agreement, serves as a good example of how those markets can be expanded and of the potential there, so let me give you a sense as to what the potential is. The potential is mostly on the pulp, paper, and paperboard side of things--very little lumber. It looks to us like it's not exactly a culture that builds with lumber, unfortunately; maybe there's some work that can be done there, but let's say that's not part of what we can talk about today.

Overall, Colombia imports about $740 million annually of forest products. I think what's interesting about this is that we're seeing a 13% annual growth in that number. That's a significant marketplace that is growing annually.

There are three core areas where we see opportunity here.

One is in the newsprint business. They import about $60 million annually in newsprint. We represent $41 million worth of that, so that's the lion's share of it. Right now that is tariff free. The advantage this trade agreement will give us is that it will put in place the zero tariff for the foreseeable future, which gives us some security and a long-term security in terms of our marketplace.

The second area is the pulp area. Colombia brings in about $125 million worth of pulp annually. Again, we're seeing about a 17% growth per annum in that import number, so that's a growing market for us.

We're not at play in that marketplace, arguably because we're facing about a 5% to 10% tariff on that, whereas our competitors from Brazil and Chile, who enjoy not only geographical proximity but obviously have no tariff, have much greater access to that marketplace. Getting our tariff down to zero will at least put us on the same footing or level playing field with our core competitors from Chile and Brazil.

The third and probably most important area is the uncoated paper and paperboard product lines. Colombia imports about $450 million of this annually. Again, it's growing. We ship only about $12 million worth of that product into that marketplace. The other big players there are Germany, the U.S., and Brazil.

Germany and the U.S., like us, are faced with about a 10% tariff on their products going into the marketplace. This agreement would bring ours down to zero, obviously giving us a huge leg up on our immediate competition out of the U.S. and opening up a potential market of $450 million in this product line. It will also let us undercut Brazil, which is another one of our major competitors.

We see those three market areas as presenting enormous potential: $740 million in potential. While it may not seem like a big number if you put it on a national scope, the reality is that a lot of the products we are sending down there are coming from certain regions of the country.

Most of the newsprint side, for example, comes from Quebec and Nova Scotia. So you can see that when you're shipping $41 million from one specific region, you're talking about keeping a couple of mills open for a longer time.

Any time we have a chance to open up new markets or expand markets we welcome that. For that reason, we're very supportive of Bill C-2 and what it aims to do. We encourage you to support the bill likewise.

Again, thank you very much for the committee's time.

I will be pleased to answer your questions in French, if you wish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you for your patience. It now looks like we have a quorum and we're ready to proceed with meeting number 16 in this session of Parliament of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Today we are pursuing our discussion 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.

We have witnesses today who will each give opening statements, which will be followed by questions. I think we'll be able to do two full rounds of questioning today if the witnesses keep their statements at 10 minutes or less. We'll keep an eye on the questioners, to keep their questions short, and hope that the answers are equally short but to the point.

We're going to begin. I'd like to introduce our guests.

First of all, just so we can all confirm that we have communication working properly, I'm going to introduce Mr. Mauricio Ferro.

Mr. Ferro, can you hear me?

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We have concluded the second round. As we stated at the outset, I think there are members who have obligations, so we're going to terminate this meeting now.

Thank you to our witnesses for coming, and as much as we enjoyed it, I hope we won't have to see you again on this issue.

We're going to continue with witnesses on this matter on Tuesday. It looks as if we're going to have to defer consideration of the U.S. procurement business until after the break and perhaps after we have concluded Bill C-2.

The meeting is adjourned.

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

Thank you. Obviously it would be hypocritical to vote for Bill C-300 and vote for Bill C-2 without the protections in place. One has to be consistent.

I'll turn things over to Mr. Moist. I appreciate your comments that “The connection between the government and paramilitaries and narco-traffickers has been documented and it paints a very disturbing picture of a failed state that is increasingly controlled by criminals”, and later on about the “involvement of illegal armed groups...including paramilitaries and drug traffickers, who benefit from campaign financing as well as determining outcomes”.

This has been an issue all along: President Uribe's links to the Medellín cartel, President Uribe's links to the drug cartels, and the fact that his regime has open corruption that is being investigated, as well as it can be, by what's left of the independent Colombian judiciary.

One has to ask how Canadians on the street react when they see a government that has a supposedly tough-on-crime agenda actually cozying up to a government that has obviously such clear links with criminal gangs.

I'm wondering, then, given your testimony, whether you are concerned about that aspect as well as the aspect around the forced dissolving of the labour movement. Do you think Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about this regime and its human rights violations?

And my final question: in a word, how would you describe the Liberal amendment? We've had previous testimony saying that it lacks credibility and that damage from this non-credible process could be high. Would you agree with that statement?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, gentlemen, and welcome once again before the committee to deal with the same topic.

My first question is for Mr. Moist. On March 24 of last year, during the debate on Bill C-2, the Hon. Scott Brison moved an amendment relating to, among other things, “...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”.

What do you think of that amendment?

[Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too will do my best to stay within ten minutes and not make you cranky.

I particularly welcome the opportunity to be here, which I must note is my third appearance over the past two years with respect to this particular issue, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. It is clearly something we are very concerned about.

At the outset, as I have emphasized in all appearances before the committee, I very much want to stress that Amnesty International takes no position either for or against free trade deals with any country, including this particular deal. We simply and consistently insist that any trade deal, be it free trade or restricted trade, be structured to avoid contributing to human rights violations and to do everything possible to strengthen the protection of human rights. From that perspective, we offer our comments with respect to Bill C-2.

Colombia remains a country mired in four decades of devastating armed conflict with serious human rights abuses committed by all parties, state security forces, paramilitaries, and guerrilla forces. That violence and those abuses devastate the lives of millions of Colombians, especially members of vulnerable communities living in rural areas. This is shockingly exemplified by the fact that as many as 286,000 people were forced to flee their homes in 2009 alone. That brings the total number of people forcibly uprooted since 1985 to more than four million, and that number is one of the highest in the world. I'm sure you've heard that before.

Much of that forced displacement arises because of a desire to take over land of strategic interest, which is of interest for a variety of reasons but often including economic interest.

Today I would like to zero in on two pressing situations of particular relevance to the issue of trading with Colombia, and that is the plight of indigenous peoples and of Afro-Colombians. In February of this year Amnesty International released a new report about the deteriorating situation of indigenous people in Colombia. Copies of that report have previously been provided to all members of the committee. Among other things in the report, we noted that the UN special rapporteur on indigenous peoples describes the situation in the country as “grave, critical, and profoundly worrying”, and he has called for a visit to Colombia by the UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide.

There are many dimensions to this crisis. One is the intensification of threats and violence aimed at forcing indigenous peoples off land valued for its agricultural potential, oil, or minerals. That's very relevant, given that the Canadian government has promoted the introduction of Bill C-2 by naming Colombia as a “strategic destination” for Canadian direct investment in mining and oil exploration, among other sectors. Colombia's national indigenous organization warns that the survival of 32 indigenous groups is at grave risk as a result of large-scale economic projects as well as the armed conflict and lack of state support. In 2009 alone at least 114 indigenous women, men, and children were killed. Many others were attacked and threatened, and thousands were driven from their land.

Once indigenous inhabitants have fled in fear of their lives, their lands are sometimes opened up for large-scale economic development. When indigenous leaders and communities try to defend their land rights and their right to free, prior, and informed consent about economic developments that affect them, they commonly encounter significant opposition and violence, especially if their lands are found to be rich in natural resources. To make matters worse, high-ranking government officials continue to make statements linking indigenous leaders and the communities they represent with guerrilla groups, which exposes them to the very real risk of attack. This has encouraged a climate in which grave abuses against indigenous peoples are tolerated, encouraged, or even facilitated.

The Colombian Constitution recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples to manage the political and administrative affairs of their traditional lands, yet in practice these rights are not respected. In January of 2009, for instance, Colombia's Constitutional Court issued ruling 004, which found the state's response to the many problems faced by indigenous peoples in Colombia to be inadequate. The court gave the government six months to devise and implement a plan to guarantee the rights of displaced and endangered indigenous peoples. More than one year after that ruling, there is little evidence of any progress towards that goal.

Instead, Amnesty International continues to receive numerous reports of attacks, threats, and violence. An indigenous leader representing Embera communities, who was opposed to the development of international mining interests that will impact on the Jiguamiando river basin, has received paramilitary death threats, for instance. The threats follow another recent Constitutional Court ruling that mining interests had failed to consult the local population adequately and that a proper consultation should take place.

All of this has led the UN special rapporteur on indigenous peoples, in his most recent report, to conclude that government policies and programs have failed to effectively protect indigenous peoples and to safeguard their human rights.

The second relevant yet largely invisible situation I wanted to highlight is the threats and violence against Afro-Colombian communities, many of whom also live in areas of economic interest in terms of resource extraction or agro-business.

In February of this year, following a ten-day visit to Colombia, the UN independent expert on minority issues expressed concern about mega-projects or large-scale operations involving major corporations that are promoted as providing economic gain to the whole community but have had the effect of encroaching on Afro-Colombian land rights. The independent expert recognized that, as with indigenous peoples, Colombia has impressive legislation aimed at recognizing the rights of Afro-Colombians, but she reported that many of these laws are rarely implemented or enforced. She said, “In the face of such economic interests and mega-projects, it appears that the rights of communities are 'inconvenient rights' and that the laws put in place to protect them are equally inconvenient.”

To give you just one example, on January 13 of this year, a leader of the Afro-descendant communities of the Curvaradó river basin was ordered out of the vehicle in which he was travelling by a paramilitary, a short distance from a police base. He was shot and killed. He had played an active part in denouncing the illegal appropriation of lands in the area by African palm companies. Before and after the killing paramilitaries have maintained an open presence, despite the area being heavily militarized.

It is the violence against communities living in areas of economic interest who are defending their right to be consulted about economic development projects that makes an independent human rights impact assessment prior to implementation of Bill C-2 so imperative.

In 2008 this committee called for just such an assessment prior to implementation of the trade agreement, yet so far none has been commissioned. We realize that the Colombian and Canadian governments have given their support to a proposed amendment calling for yearly reviews of the human rights impacts of the agreement in both Canada and Colombia, to be carried out by the governments of both Canada and Colombia. This is not the same thing, however, as an independent human rights impact assessment carried out before the deal comes into force.

And I must stress that there are ample reasons to doubt the credibility of the Colombian government to accurately report on human rights conditions in the country. For example, the Colombian government denies that there continues to be an armed conflict in Colombia, yet both the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights continue to define the situation in Colombia as one of internal armed conflict.

The government also insists that the worst excesses of the conflict have now been overcome. There has been an improvement in some conflict-related human rights indicators, like a decrease in the numbers of civilians killed or taken hostage. People in some cities will tell you that they feel safer. But this is only part of the picture, a picture in which close to 300,000 people were displaced last year alone.

It is vital that Canada not give a legislated platform to the Colombian government's selective approach to assessing human rights, which highlights a handful of positive indicators while leaving aside grave ongoing concerns.

I read with interest, for instance, what Minister Plata had to say to this committee last week in reassuring you about the human rights situation. I note that he did not once mention indigenous peoples. From Amnesty International's perspective, that is a stunning omission when addressing human rights concerns relevant to the Colombian trade context.

The Colombian government claims that paramilitary groups have all demobilized, yet the paramilitary continues to operate in many parts of the country, sometimes in collusion with sectors of the security forces.

Human rights defenders too are experiencing a worrying increase in death threats. These are attributed mostly to paramilitary groups, but also to state agencies. Successive Colombian governments insist that significant progress has been made in bringing human rights abusers to justice. I will note that the UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers said at the end of a ten-day visit just this last December that

...a climate of fear and insecurity appears to reign over the judicial system because of attacks and threats against judges, prosecutors and lawyers...This also affects victims and witnesses who often prefer not to denounce abuses or to testify before the courts...This situation leads to impunity...

What do we need? We need a human rights impact assessment that takes place before implementation. We've been calling for this for three years now. It could be complete by now. This would either provide reassuring evidence that there is no cause for concern or it would identify expected impacts on human rights, much as an environmental impact assessment can identify expected impacts. This in turn would afford an opportunity to take action to prevent human rights violations. This is a win-win situation, and it obviously requires a credible, independent process at arm's length from both governments.

There also need to be legislated assurances that recommendations of the assessment will be addressed and not simply noted and filed.

In closing, I would also urge you to hear directly from Colombian organizations that represent and accompany indigenous peoples and Afro-descendant communities. We've provided a list of such organizations. We think it's vital that you hear from the National Indigenous Organization of Colombia, ONIC, but there are three others that we've suggested as well. It is crucial that your hearings permit all affected parties to have a voice.

Thank you.

[Mark Rowlinson]

I'll limit my comments.

I just want to pick up by highlighting the weaknesses of the enforcement provision in the Canada-Colombia labour side agreement. The particular weakness that I want to focus upon is the fact that, once again, enforcement is left up to the signatory states and the signatory bureaucracies that are assigned the task of enforcing the labour rights.

That is to say, unlike in the investment provisions, the offended parties, whether that be workers, trade unions, or human rights organizations, have no ability whatsoever to advance these cases to a dispute resolution panel on their own. All of the enforcement takes place through the states themselves. The result of that, in our experience under existing agreements, is that you never get to the dispute resolution mechanism so you never get a remedy. Nothing, frankly, ever happens when these complaints are filed.

The other substantial failing, of course, is that there is a profound limitation on the remedies that are provided. Even if you were to get to a dispute resolution panel--namely, a fine in the amount of $15 million--and the payment of that fine...into essentially a labour fund; that's essentially how the agreement works.

Again, this committee has to ask itself whether or not a $15 million fine is a substantial enough penalty and remedy to seriously deter labour rights violators in Colombia, given the history of violence and appalling labour rights violations. In our respectful submission, that sort of fine is not sufficient.

Again, I urge you to compare the labour rights provision with the investor rights provisions. The investor rights provisions, in article 8, provide an enforceable arbitration mechanism that is effective, independent, and rapid. The awards are final and binding, and they provide real remedies to investors whose rights may be violated in the agreement. Again, the contrast is stark.

In our view, because this agreement contains no real trade sanctions such as the imposition of countervailing duties or the abrogation of preferential trade status in the event that a party fails to adhere to the labour rights provisions, and given the magnitude of the labour rights violations in Colombia and the failure of the current government to prosecute the offenders, we submit that simply issuing fines against the offending government is not an acceptable sanction. Moreover, it will provide no incentive for the Colombian administration to address the current crisis and bring an end to the violent assassination of Colombian trade unionists.

In general, experience suggests that the labour provisions in trade agreements, whether in side agreements or not, are unlikely to lead to concrete improvements for workers and trade unions. In our view, the labour rights provisions in the Canada-Colombia FTA are not sufficiently robust to even begin to address the serious labour and human rights situation in Colombia.

Finally, I want to take you back a little bit to the report that this committee produced in June 2008, entitled Human Rights, the Environment and Free Trade with Colombia, when it was considering the potential impact of the Canada-Colombia agreement. The report made several good recommendations unanimously, including the following recommendations.

4: 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.

That was the recommendation of this committee in June 2008.

The Liberal trade critic has proposed an additional text, an amendment. I'm not exactly sure of the exact content of this proposal, but it was read into the record, and what was read into the record reads as follows.

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 is, in our view, undeniable that the amendment or addition to Bill C-2 proposed by the Liberal trade critic utterly fails to comply with the recommendation that this very committee had adopted in June 2008.

It utterly fails in at least three ways.

First, the recommendation of the committee was that the human rights impact assessment be carried out before Canada considers signing, ratifying, or implementing an agreement with Colombia. The proposal currently before this committee, of course, is that the reports be produced after the agreement is already signed and ratified.

Second, the recommendation of this committee was that the assessment would be independent, impartial, and subject to levels of independent scrutiny. The proposal now before this committee and under Bill C-2 is that the human rights reports would be prepared and submitted by the signatory governments themselves. Although there is not total clarity on who exactly is going to prepare these reports, in our opinion, the proposed human rights reports are not independent in any sense of the term as contemplated in this committee's June 2008 report.

Third, and most importantly, it was clearly the case that unless the recommendations in this committee's report were satisfied, then Canada should not implement a free trade agreement with Colombia. That is to say, if the conditions of the report were not satisfied, there would be real consequences. However, the amendment currently proposed by the Liberal trade critic has no consequences whatsoever, or that I am aware of, if in fact it emerges that the human, environmental, and labour rights situation in Colombia fails to improve, or in fact gets worse, once the Canada-Colombia FTA is signed. As such, without any penalty or enforcement provision at all, it is unclear to us if the amendment to the legislation has any real benefit. Rather, it seems to us that the additional paragraph is, frankly, window dressing.

In our view, the situation on the ground in Colombia has not changed substantially since June 2008. Therefore, we fail to see the basis upon which this committee would simply abandon the recommendations made in June 2008 and advance and recommend the implementation of this trade agreement.

Thank you very much.

[Denis Lemelin, National President, Canadian Union of Postal Workers]

I will give my presentation in French. I also have a document that was translated in both languages.

On behalf of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee on Bill C-2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Good afternoon. Welcome to the fourteenth meeting of this session of the 40th Parliament of our Standing Committee on International Trade.

Today we're going to continue our consideration 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.

To assist us today, we have as witnesses, first, from the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers, Mark Rowlinson.

Welcome, and thank you for coming.

From Pulse Canada, we have Carl Potts, whom we've had before. He's the director of market development.

Welcome back, Mr. Potts.

We also have with us Murad Al-Katib, a board member at Pulse Canada.

We also have, from Spirits Canada and the Association of Canadian Distillers, Jan Westcott, president and chief executive officer.

Welcome back again, Jan, and thank you for coming.

We also have with us CJ Hélie, the executive vice-president of Spirits Canada.

From the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, we have with us Denis Lemelin, the national president.

We are going to hear brief opening statements from each group. I hope these can be kept within 10 minutes, because I'd really like to give all of the members an opportunity to ask questions today.

As we do have other business on the agenda, I'm going to get going right now. Following your statements, we'll start immediately with questions. We'll try to keep the first round to 10 minutes, and if we have time for a second round, we will go to five minutes for each round of questioning.

Without further ado, I think we'll get started on Bill C-2 and ask for opening statements. As I'm facing the witnesses, I may just start on my left with Mr. Potts.

We'll hear from Carl Potts from Pulse Canada for an opening statement. Thank you.

[Jean-Michel Laurin, Vice-President, Global Business Policy, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee today on behalf of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters to discuss Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement bill.

I believe this is the third time, and I have to admit I also hope it's the last time, that I'm appearing before the committee on this issue. Our position on this important trade agreement hasn't changed, but I'll try to be as original as possible in my opening remarks.

Before I start, I'd like to say a few words about the association and the members I have the privilege to represent. Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters is Canada's leading trade and industry association and the voice of manufacturing and global business in Canada. We represent businesses in all sectors of manufacturing and exporting activity across the country. Our mandate is to promote the competitiveness of Canadian manufacturers and the success of Canada's goods and services exporters in markets around the world. Small- and medium-sized manufacturers constitute the bulk of our membership.

Our work is focused on the issues that are most critical to our members, such as manufacturing competitiveness, U.S. business opportunities, international markets, people and skills, energy, and the environment. We're particularly interested in Bill C-2 because manufacturing is an export-intensive business, as my colleague just explained. Overall, manufacturing accounts for two-thirds of Canada's exports. In fact, the majority of Canada's industrial production is exported, so access to export markets is a priority for our organization.

As you know, the recession has hit manufacturers and exporters more harshly than any other sector of the Canadian economy. For our members, the recession was mostly felt between August 2008 and August 2009. During that 12-month period, our export sales fell by 32%, our manufacturing sales fell by 20%, and manufacturing production overall declined by 17%. Overall, more than 180,000 jobs were lost in Canada's manufacturing sector last year alone. Since 2005, manufacturing employment has fallen by 420,000, or approximately 20% of the manufacturing workforce in Canada.

As we head into recovery, we are realizing that there are significant structural changes that are reshaping market conditions here in Canada, but also in global markets. As a result, new strategies are required on the part of business leaders and public policy-makers alike to ensure business success and to enhance productivity and economic growth. We all need to focus on what it takes for businesses to maximize the value of global supply chains, improve manufacturing competitiveness, encourage investment and innovation, and take advantage of new opportunities in domestic and international markets.

One of the most significant changes we are witnessing right now is a shift in market power and economic growth potential away from the developed markets of North America, Europe, and Japan and towards the emerging markets of China, India, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. In fact, for all countries, but especially for those with an open economy, such as Canada, economic recovery depends on developing new business opportunities in emerging markets. In turn, that rides on the ability of businesses to effectively sell their goods and services in these growing markets. We therefore need to continue to negotiate meaningful market access, investment protection, and tax agreements with other countries, such as Colombia, and this is why our association supports Bill C-2.

Trade between Canada and Colombia is actually complementary. Two-thirds of our exports to Colombia are manufactured goods, such as trucks, auto parts, fabricated metal products, turbo propellers, newsprint, and other paper and cardboard products. On the other hand, most of our imports from Colombia are energy products, such as oil and coal, or food products, such as coffee, bananas, and flowers.

However, Canada's exports to Colombia continue to face somewhat high tariffs that hinder competitiveness in that market. For example, Canadian exporters face tariffs averaging 12% on industrial goods and 17% on agricultural products when selling to Colombia. While Colombia enjoys almost completely open and duty-free access to Canada, with approximately 85% of their products entering our market duty-free, our ability to export to their market remains limited.

In fact, in many cases tariff rates are a real barrier to entering that market. Passage of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement would get rid of those tariff barriers and provide Canadian manufacturers and exporters with preferential treatment over competitors around the world.

Moreover, on top of immediately eliminating nearly all of Colombia's tariffs on manufactured goods, the free trade agreement would help reduce non-tariff barriers and strengthen investment rules. Despite those trade barriers currently in place, Canadian businesses exported $600 million worth of goods to Colombia last year. From 2005 to 2008—so, right up to the beginning of the recession—Canada's exports to Colombia jumped by more than 58% over the four-year period.

The Canada-Colombia free trade agreement has the potential to have a significant positive effect on Canada's exports to Colombia, for mainly two reasons. First, as I mentioned, exports of Canadian products would grow as a result of the reduction and elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers; second, the free trade agreement would help preserve existing Canadian exports that would otherwise be lost if Colombia maintained its expansion of free trade agreements with other nations or groups of countries that compete with Canada in manufactured goods, such as the United States and the European Union.

Colombia offers excellent opportunities for Canadian exporters. Colombia and other trading partners recognize this, and Colombia has embarked on a very aggressive bilateral trade agenda involving the United States, as I mentioned, the European Union, the European Free Trade Association, and some of their other trading partners. These countries, especially the United States and those in the European Union, are some of our main competitors.

Implementing this agreement quickly would help us secure a position in this market and give us a competitive advantage over other countries, because we would be an early mover.

On the other hand, or on the defensive side, implementing the Canada-Colombia agreement is unlikely to result in significant new increases in Canada's imports from Colombia beyond those that can be expected to occur anyway, so it doesn't really put our industries at risk. In the case of many trade negotiations, there are obviously concerns about increased competition for Canadian industry, but in this case, because our trade is very complementary, those defensive concerns are not necessarily present.

We expect that Canadian imports from Colombia will continue to increase, but the principal drivers of that increase will be the expansion of Colombia's oil production and the continuation of the duty-free treatment that most Colombian exports already enjoy in Canada.

In conclusion, we believe that this agreement is good for Canada and good for Colombia. It's time that Parliament passed the legislation for the agreement to come into force so that Canadian exporters can benefit from improved market access and improve their presence in Colombia.

Thank you very much. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

[Carlo Dade, Executive Director, Canadian Foundation for the Americas (FOCAL)]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I would like to thank the committee and yourself for inviting me to share some ideas on the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

I've been before the committee two or three times before, so I will actually keep my remarks at or under five minutes to allow more time for the questioning. I will keep my remarks, too, focused on the bill before the committee, Bill C-2, which focuses on a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia. Should there, however, be questions or interest about proposed amendments or other ideas that the committee is considering, I'd be happy to discuss those, either in the actual or the hypothetical.

In terms of the free trade agreement with Colombia, as I've stated before, context is important--for Canada, Canadian competitiveness, jobs, and the situation of the domestic economy. We've seen since the breakdown of the Doha Round and the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas negotiations an aggressive move by countries throughout this hemisphere to sign bilateral agreements. In that regard, Canada has lagged behind, unfortunately.

We currently have, in effect, five agreements that cover seven countries. Just within North America, the United States has 11 agreements--and is aggressively negotiating many more--that impact 16 countries. Mexico has 12 agreements and is negotiating more—we've heard recently that they're talking with Brazil—and their agreements cover 46 countries.

So even within North America, Canada is falling behind in terms of international trade competitiveness, yet the trade agenda continues. It's not as if the problems that the U.S. has had with the Colombia free trade agreement have prevented it from moving to other agreements, such as the trade preferences for the Pacific, or the TPP agreement, where the United States is looking at a new trade regime between countries that line the Pacific—Colombia, Chile, Costa Rica, etc.—with countries of the Asian Pacific Rim.

So the trade agenda continues, and it continues aggressively. It's extremely important that Canada participate.

Our choice in participating is factored on two bisecting trends and two bisecting interests. One, in places where we have existing trade, we're facing competition...and also the intersection of countries that have an interest and a willingness to quickly negotiate. We've seen this in the case of Panama, where negotiations took three or four rounds, and in the case of Peru, which also moved to aggressively and quickly negotiate with us. We see that, too, in the case of Colombia.

So the reasons for us to be in Colombia are twofold: there are opportunities and it's important for Canadian competitiveness, and the Colombians have shown a willingness to negotiate.

In terms of the importance for Canada, you can look at it sector by sector, province by province. In agricultural products, Alberta has $60 million worth of exports to Colombia; Saskatchewan close to double this, at $117 million, and these are only wheat, barley, and pulses. Quebec is sending $40 million a year of machine parts, including flight simulators and autos; and Ontario, $67 million in similar products. Even in paper and cartons, Nova Scotia, with $23 million, has an important market for that province's paper and carton industry, the wood industry, which has been suffering lately.

Finally, let me note that there is obviously a strong business case for the agreement. Investment will benefit; trade will benefit. It's important for Colombians. You've had Colombian unions here. The flower exporters, I believe, were before the committee explaining the importance of the agreement.

It's important, therefore, that if one is looking to restrict trade with Colombia or to prevent this agreement, given the importance of jobs in Canada, given the importance of exports in provinces across this country, one would need a very good reason. Obviously the human rights situation in Colombia is of great concern, but for it to have an impact on trade with Canada, you would really have to make a strong and compelling case, or even any case, that the products we sell, the commerce in which we engage, has an impact on human rights in Colombia negatively or even positively. Despite the fine work that CIC has done, and others, we really haven't seen this link.

Let me just quote briefly Federico Guzmán. I suppose you know Federico Guzmán, a lawyer in Colombia. Federico was in Canada in February, speaking about an Amnesty International human rights report. He was on The Current. The broadcast is available online—another fine job by Anna Maria Tremonti.

On February 27, the first part of the broadcast, five minutes in—if anyone would like to go and check the tape—he was asked specifically by Anna Maria about the impact of trade between Canada and Colombia on human rights.

His response was interesting. He said there's no real impact between trade; the impact comes from large mega-projects in Colombia--and impacts on displacement and other issues that we've heard.

Anna Maria followed up and asked him if there were indications or any evidence of specific violations or involvement by specific Canadian companies. Mr. Guzmán replied that, no, as of yet there were not, but should there be any violations, well, then, the Government of Canada really needed mechanisms in place to deal with these, should they occur.

Again, if we're looking at an important potential trade market, if we're looking at jobs back home, we really have to look at preventing the hypothetical--with perhaps some regime to identify problems should they arise, but, as yet, we have not found evidence. And this is from someone speaking on the Amnesty International report in Canada.

Finally, the exchange at the beginning of the committee was really interesting--the idea of having witnesses come in, and the difficulty and the shortness of time, and hearing from Canadians who are concerned about this.

Based on that exchange at the beginning, I have an idea for the committee. While it's very convenient for us, even in short periods of time.... I had about 24 hours to respond, too. There's a report waiting on my desk that CIDA, or someone else, will kill me for not getting to them. Be that as it may, it's great to have the opportunity to walk down the street and come here.

Given the interest of Canadians across the country, perhaps it would be more interesting for the committee to go to places such as Kindersley, Saskatchewan, or Brooklyn, Nova Scotia, or Pointe-Claire, Quebec, to talk to people on factory floors, people who are trading with Colombia, people whose jobs and future employment are perhaps tied to this agreement, and ask them about the impact of their products--the beans they sell, the wheat they sell--on human rights in Colombia, and have an explanation at these plants, on these farms, and elsewhere about the work that the committee is doing.

Thank you.

[Gauri Sreenivasan, Policy Coordinator, International Trade, Canadian Council for International Co-operation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity.

Gerry Barr, president and CEO of CCIC, sends his regrets. We were given barely 24 hours' notice, making it impossible, unfortunately, for him to change his schedule or agenda.

I think it's important to flag at the outset that there is tremendous interest on the part of many civil society and human rights organizations to appear to discuss Bill C-2 and to propose amendments, which we have yet to see on paper. Most are still awaiting news of possible hearings.

The process to inform people with such short notice does present great problems. I think we need to be fair so that groups can see that there is in fact an openness to participation and debate, as has been promised in the House.

CCIC believes very strongly in the potential for trade to lift people out of poverty, if it brings benefits to vulnerable populations and allows states that are willing to promote development outcomes and protect the environment. But trade can also lead to dislocation of marginal groups, and it can lead to heightened exploitation or violence. There are no automatic relationships. The details of the agreement matter, and the local context matters.

As you know, there has been a lot of public controversy about this agreement because of the human rights crisis in Colombia. In our view, a country with such deep levels of violence does provide special obligations of due diligence for Canada as it seeks to promote increased trade and investment.

I want to speak to three areas today. I want to provide a reminder of some of the key human rights concerns. I want to highlight from an analysis of the actual text of the agreement, which is now out and which CCIC commissioned with legal experts. This is not the theory of trade, but an analysis of the actual trade deal on the table. And I thirdly want to speak to the issue of a human rights impact assessment, which is such an important area.

I am going to spend a little less time on the human rights concerns, because I think Yessika has just given a very moving and important overview.

There is a lot of different conflicting information out there on the human rights situation. In the end, I think members of Parliament have to decide which sources of information you are going to listen to.

We focus ourselves on independent and highly respected human rights organizations and on those working with the most marginalized in Colombia. From these sources, the picture is pretty clear. There are improvements in the area of kidnappings, and there's an increased feeling of personal security in major urban centres in Colombia. But there are continued and unacceptably high levels of violence and violations, importantly violence in which the Colombian state is deeply implicated. Yessika has spoken very well on the issue of paramilitary violence.

I think it's important to flag. We have noticed a lot of discussion in the House and in the media about violence in Colombia just being about the drug economy and among drug lords. What is not being underscored enough--and this is why I think you need to hear from Colombian human rights activists--is how the government of Colombia itself is deeply linked to that violence, and it's not in a minor way.

Yessika has just highlighted the frightful revelations of the last year in which the president's intelligence unit, the DAS, is now clearly exposed as having masterminded massive illegal surveillance, which included Supreme Court magistrates and human rights organizations. The illegally obtained information was used to provide hit lists to the paramilitary to attack trade unionists, human rights defenders, who were attacked, murdered, and whose children were threatened. The direct linkage between the role that the state was playing to develop information to give to paramilitary, who in turn attacked civil society organizations in Colombia, provides an important reminder of the nature of the violence. It is not just fights among drug lords.

I think it is also important to underscore that the rise of paramilitary activity has coincided with significant increases in the rates of internal displacement. Since 1985, it is estimated that there are now 4.9 million people displaced in Colombia, second only to Sudan.

Why is that issue important for the trade agreement? It is key because violence and displacement are directly linked to the struggle for control over land, both for narco-trafficking and for the development of natural resources, including minerals, oil, and gas. Canadian companies are heavily involved in these sectors. There is a direct and reasonable concern about the likelihood of even unknowing Canadian corporate complicity in the occupation of land that was obtained through violence.

I want to quote from the UN special rapporteur for internally displaced peoples, who noted that there is a widespread perception among displaced people in Colombia that “while displacement may originally have been caused by armed conflict, the taking over of their lands by large corporations is at least a side effect, if not part of a policy of forced displacement”.

So I think we have a lot of reasons to be concerned about the linkages between violence and the state, between violence and displacement over land and resources, and then the question of who is going to access those lands and resources for profit, which is the direct question of commercial relationships for Canada.

Let me talk about the trade deal on the table now. In response to some of these concerns, the Canada-Colombia trade deal has been described and explained to Canadians as a different kind of trade deal, as a deal that has top-notch safeguards and that addresses human rights. So that is why we waited for the release of the text and we undertook collaboratively with legal experts the job of examining the text.

What happens when you layer this particular trade deal onto the context of violence? It is not to say that the trade deal causes all the problems, which existed before the trade deal even arrived. The question is what is the likely impact of the trade deal in this context?

In our view, from looking at the agreement as negotiated, the deal turns out to be actually a fairly typical and aggressive market access agreement. The safeguards in the side agreements are quite ineffective.

Let me go over a couple of examples. On the substantive trade measures, there's a very important investment chapter, which provides Canadian investors in mining, oil, and gas with unprecedented new powers of enforcement in the Colombian context. These kinds of protections didn't exist in the bilateral relationship between Canada and Colombia before: new powers of enforcement to secure access to resources that would discourage contestation of their projects despite the highly contested nature of land in Colombia.

In our view, the arrival of those new powers of enforcement can act, and would act, as an anti-democratic force in Colombia inasmuch as they it provide a disincentive to strengthen human rights laws--for example, if the Colombian government wanted to introduce regulations to deal with the illegal seizure of lands once investors were already on.

Professor Penelope Simons from the University of Ottawa, whom I really encourage you to bring as an expert on commerce and investment, has underscored that the text also has no obligations on corporations to screen their security forces, conduct human rights training, or disclose any payments to the host-state government or to guerrilla forces.

There are no provisions currently existing in Canada, as this committee recommended in 2008, requiring the home state--that would be Canada--to create a right of action or to ensure access to our courts for victims of human rights violations that were committed by our corporate nationals. So the investment treaty focuses on investor protections and provides heavy threats of enforcement to secure their operations and no corresponding binding responsibilities and no recourse for victims who feel aggrieved by corporate actions in Colombia.

We talked briefly about the agriculture market access session. Again, the CCIC brief, which is in front of you--I'm happy to take more questions on that later--shows that a very aggressive market liberalization of Colombian agricultural sectors would accelerate displacement in vulnerable communities. We looked specifically at the areas of grains, wheat in particular, and pork, because a lot of studies have been done on the impact of the U.S. deal in these areas, and our products trade very competitively with the U.S. in those areas.

Based on Colombian analysis, the Canadian FTA would likely have a very negative impact on production and jobs in Colombia, undermining, for example, the livelihoods of about 12,000 local wheat farmers and possibly eliminating up to 39,000 jobs in the informal pork sector. The deal, interestingly, virtually eliminates the Colombian government's access to safeguard measures to protect farmers' livelihoods and incomes. In our analysis there is no evidence of a human rights friendly or developmentally friendly agreement here.

The side accords have been widely touted, but are they effective? Again, I would encourage you to call Steven Shrybman, a well-known environmental lawyer who has done the legal analysis of this. In a word, the environmental side deal you have before you in the Colombian agreement doesn't even match NAFTA standards. It may provide a legal disincentive to raise environmental standards. The labour side accord offers no independent means of enforcement for labour unions who are raising complaints.

The whole mechanism of the labour side accord, which has been pitched as a safeguard for violation, relies exclusively on the goodwill of the governments, the two parties with the least incentive to air dirty laundry, to enforce the accord.

Even if either of the governments decides to enforce and to send a complaint up to an arbitration panel, at best it can provide fines, which in fact would be resources to be fed back into programs likely run by the Colombian government. Unions in Canada and Colombia have denounced this kind of side accord as a response to the context in Colombia. In other places or other countries there may be a less severe labour scenario and the opportunity to propose papers and have a government hear your complaints may be an issue, but in Colombia this kind of side accord, which provides no independent recourse for unionists, is not seen as a safeguard.

Let me come to the last area, because it is really important. That is the question of a human rights impact assessment. The initial scoping study that we did of the agreement has led to a very strong demand from civil society, which has been taken up by Parliament, for an independent human rights impact assessment to check the validity of the safeguards and to check the nature of the provisions in the agreement before proceeding with implementation.

It's really important for Canada to do this due diligence. Other countries, such as the U.S., Belgium, and Norway, are approaching their trade deals with Colombia slowly and looking much more in depth at human rights issues. I noticed Mike Michaud, a Democrat in the U.S. Congress, just sent a letter about his concerns about the Canadian deal.

With the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and with recent initiatives, human rights impact assessments have really moved into the mainstream of the debate on trade, and this is a really positive thing. The challenge now is to do the process credibly. What is a credible human rights impact assessment? Civil society has spoken to the need, at a minimum, for an independent assessment to be undertaken on the deal, and for the results of the assessment to be addressed before implementation. This was also the demand of this committee in 2008.

We actually await more details and a copy of the proposal as presented by the Liberal Party. We've seen the transcript in Hansard that has been accepted by the government. That's all we have to date.

I want to offer some initial comments on that. We would be interested to understand if that is an amendment that is proposed to be added to the agreement itself, to Bill C-2. How would that work legally?

As it currently stands, although the idea of the human rights impact assessment is so dear and important, the current proposal lacks credibility. There are three key issues that I would like us to discuss.

The assessment has to be prior. A human rights approach demands that we seek to avoid measures that can lead to human rights violations before they happen. It's true that it's more challenging than an assessment after the fact, but there are a lot of precedents. Think of environmental impact assessments. Think of the European Union's commitment to sustainable impact assessments. These are all done as prior impact assessments, and it's what speaks to the need and importance for Canada of avoiding violations, not documenting them after they've happened. A prior assessment is the first key thing.

Second, the assessment has to be independent. It must be at arm's length from those making decisions on the trade agreement. It has to be undertaken by a team with human rights and trade expertise and employ a human rights methodology that is transparent, consultative, and participatory.

Again, this is not a weird, outrageous claim. Look at the European Union; for its social impact assessment, it commissions independent teams that report back to an oversight body. Their model may not necessarily be ideal, but the important principle is respected. It's not acceptable for government officials who are committed to the trade deal that they have negotiated to assess the impacts. This is doubly true in Colombia, where government has shown a marked aversion to those who report on human rights issues and has attacked them.

The third issue is that the assessment has to be oriented to results and action. It needs to have precise and directed conclusions and recommendations for actions. There has to be a commitment in the amendment that actions and recommendations would be acted upon, rather than a commitment to table a report that would just be read and put on the shelf.

Speaking to the important principle, in our view the current proposal is too unwieldy. It actually claims to address the entire trade deal and claims it will document all impacts. It's not practical. We think it would be more realistic to identify specific aspects and provisions that Canada is concerned about, look at the impacts of those specific measures, make recommendations on them, and then commit to taking action on those recommendations. It has to be done empirically; it can't be done by sitting at a desk and assuming what the impacts are.

To sum up, we need a commitment in principle to act on the human rights impacts recommendations. We need results and action, we need the assessment to be prior, and we need the assessment to be done independently, and those are three key issues that we don't see right now.

I'd urge you to invite legal expert Dr. James Harrison of the U.K. to appear before you as a witness. He set out a series of important benchmarks to assess human rights impact assessments.

I think with the discussion of assessment, we have an opportunity to—

Balanced Refugee Reform Act

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the bill that the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism recently introduced in the House.

This refugee bill was eagerly awaited and badly needed. No one will be surprised to hear that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was very helpful to my fellow Vietnamese who immigrated to Canada at the same time as I did.

When people ask me about my background, they ask me three questions. First, they ask me where I come from; second, whether I remember the war; and third, whether I was one of the boat people. It is clear that Quebeckers and Canadians understand and agree with the principle of refugees.

This debate coincides with the 35th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. Many people from my country came here as refugees and became prominent citizens, like the refugees from other countries who came and made Quebec and Canada better.

The current act is quite out of date and sometimes gives refugee claimants a bad name. It is high time we modernized it.

On March 30, the federal government introduced Bill C-11 as part of its reform of the refugee system. If it were passed as it stands now, this bill could have a serious negative impact on refugees. It is not enough to pass a law to improve what is not working. What we must do is find a balance and create something that will work.

The Bloc Québécois has asked the government to provide the committee with the regulations so that we can do an exhaustive study, because many measures announced as part of this reform are not included in this bill.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of studying this bill in committee, and I am proud to say that I will study it carefully, because I am the assistant critic. The member for Jeanne-Le Ber is the Bloc Québécois critic, and he does a very good job, by the way. We make a great team, and the people of Quebec can be glad to have a team like ours, because we will see to it that the flaws in this bill are corrected.

We are happy that the government is finally looking at implementing the refugee appeal division. However, we are disappointed that it is not fair, because not all applicants will have access, which we believe is discriminatory.

When people from designated safe countries are denied at the first level, they will not have access to this appeal division. Even if the government assures us that all files will be examined individually, there is no guarantee that there will be no mistakes.

My colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber pointed this out. We know the statistics of some IRB members. Some of them flatly reject 90% to 95% of the applications they receive, while others show more flexibility. A decision made by one man or one woman is arbitrary. That is why it is not fair that refugees from designated safe countries will not have access to the refugee appeal division.

Another thing: which countries will be designated safe by the minister and the government?

The government is currently working on Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia. The government tells us that a free trade agreement with this country is no problem because Colombia respects human rights.

However, Canada accepts Colombian refugee seekers who claim their rights have been violated in Colombia. Will the minister put Colombia on the list of safe countries? I wonder.

On the one hand, the government says it wants to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia because it is a safe country. On the other hand, it accepts political refugees from that same country because their rights have been violated. What will the minister choose? Will the minister decide to list it as a safe country?

That is why we think that the idea of safe countries is questionable. We do not know where the minister will put Colombia and other countries that do not respect the human rights of women or homosexuals—these are recognized rights.

Even though the Conservative government sometimes has difficulty acknowledging them, these rights are still recognized in Quebec and Canada. What will the minister decide? Will he designate certain countries as safe even though they do not respect human rights, women's right or the rights of homosexuals? What category will these countries be in? It worries me.

A civil servant will make the decision. Applicants from designated safe countries will have no right to appeal. That is far too radical considering that the decision will have been made by a single person. It is possible that an applicant's individual rights will not be respected. He will not have all the rights that other people with the same background but who come from different countries will have.

Statistics for certain board members are alarming. We should not find this kind of unfairness when the decisions are made by civil servants.

It also says that an immigration officer will have 8 days, as opposed to 28, to refer a refugee claim to a first interview with a department official.

Some people are traumatized when they arrive here. They have been abused and pressured. Some come from very corrupt countries. They do not trust the government in the country they came from. When they arrive here, they are told that in eight days they will have to explain their situation to a government official. They have left a corrupt country where their rights were violated. They are told that they have eight days to prepare to explain their situation. That is not very long for people who have suffered such great trauma.

Then, the second hearing happens 60 days later. Do not forget that many refugee status claimants arrive here having left their houses, their families and their jobs with no preparation whatsoever. They did not bring any documents to prove what they are saying. They have to get those documents.

As MPs, we occasionally write to embassies in Africa. Although we have more resources than refugees or applicants, it takes a fairly long time for the mail to get there as well as for the reply to come back.

What will we do when the person does not obtain the documents required for their defence within 60 days? Will their application be refused automatically? Will this person be penalized because they could not provide the necessary documents?

At present, it takes 19 months and now we are talking about 28 days. Perhaps we could find a compromise. I believe there is enough flexibility to do so.

At present, more than 45% of refugee claims are accepted. When refused, the failed claimants can ask the Federal Court for a judicial review. This court presently accepts 13% of applications. Where an error was made in the decision, 2% of requests are allowed. In total, 60% of applicants are successful in the end. The tragedy lies in the fact that many failed applicants have found work, married, had children born in Canada and have learned the language. In other words, they have fully integrated in the host society.

The current backlogs are unacceptable for 40% of the claimants who will be forced leave Canada. This government is largely responsible for these backlogs. Indeed, since 2006, we have gone from 20,000 to 60,000 backlogged claims. We know that over a third of the board members could have rendered decisions, but there are many vacant positions, which has caused this backlog.

As my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber put it so well earlier, we cannot help but wonder if these delays are arranged on purpose in order to stay within certain quotas set by the government. What will they do in the future to stay within those quotas? Will they deny more claims? This will not serve Quebec or Canada.

We must ensure that this new legislation does not discriminate against claimants and does not deny more claims because they are processed faster. That would be tragic, both for the claimants and for our current system.

It is definitely time to reform this legislation, but that does not mean it should be reformed in a slapdash manner. We can take the time to reform it correctly. There is a difference between saying that it should have been done a long time ago and saying that we will do it too fast, which could lead to other injustices. If we did that, we might improve what is not working, but we would risk undermining the parts that are working. We must ensure that this bill does not create new injustices.

In committee, my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber and I will ensure that when the time comes to vote on this bill in the House, it will be much improved and will respect the needs of claimants as much as possible. We no longer want to hear that, according to statistics, 60% of claims are completed and are successful. It is sad to hear people say that refugee claimants are abusing the system.

It is an essential system that is desperately needed, but the current legislation is outdated.

[David Plunkett, Chief Trade Negotiator, Bilateral and Regional Relations, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to appear before this committee and speak to Bill C-2, an act to implement the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and the parallel agreements on labour cooperation and the environment.

This Bill implements the legal framework and legislative amendments required to deepen the economic and social relationship between Colombia and Canada.

You've already identified my colleagues who are with me. As you may be aware, Carol Nelder-Corvari is also our chief negotiator for this deal.

Canada and Colombia currently have a significant commercial relationship, with trade in excess of $1.3 billion and hundreds of Canadian companies doing business with Colombia. Key Canadian products such as cereals, including wheat and barley, machinery, pulse crops, paper, and motor vehicles are key exports to Colombia, and ensuring their continued competitiveness was a key reason for pursuing an agreement with Colombia.

Under this free trade agreement, Colombia will eliminate tariffs on nearly all Canadian exports. Their removal is important for Canadian exporters, particularly given that Colombia has concluded other trade agreements with key Canadian competitors such as the United States and Europe. By implementing this agreement, our exporters will have a competitive advantage to continue to grow in this market, particularly if Canada’s agreement is implemented before the United States and Europe implement their own deals.

Before turning to other benefits for Canadian businesses, it is important to highlight a recent market access development. On April 9, 2010, ministers Van Loan and Ritz announced that Colombia had reopened its market to Canadian cattle. This announcement followed Colombia’s January 2010 decision to reopen its market to Canadian beef. Canadian beef and cattle exports had previously been banned from the Colombian market due to BSE. Canadian industry has responded very positively to Colombia's decision to resume trade, and this development will complement the tariff reductions negotiated by Carol and her team in this agreement.

Moving beyond trade in goods, this agreement will lead to new commercial opportunities for our investors and service providers. Over 50 Canadian companies have invested in Colombia, principally in the mining, oil and gas exploration, and manufacturing sectors. In 2009, the stock of Canadian investment in Colombia reached approximately $773 million. These investments are leading the way for exports of Canadian-made machinery such as mining equipment and heavy transportation equipment. Once the FTA is implemented, a stable legal framework will be in place for Canadian investors in Colombia.

Canadian services exports to Colombia are in the area of $40 million to $50 million a year and are concentrated in the financial, mining, engineering, and petroleum extraction sectors. Upon implementation, Canadian service providers will be treated the same as Colombian service providers and will enjoy a secure, predictable, transparent, and rules-based trading system. Moreover, Canada obtained the same level of market access from Colombia as they provided to the United States. As a result, Canadian service suppliers will be on a level playing field with their American counterparts in Colombia.

As a comprehensive free trade agreement, obligations are also contained in the agreement on a wide variety of other subjects including financial services, government procurement, electronic commerce, telecommunications, and temporary entry of business persons. While these subjects may not be in the forefront of discussions regarding the benefits of the trade agreement, they are important components to ensuring that Canadian businesses are able to operate efficiently and competitively in the Colombian market.

As you are aware, in keeping with Canada's approach to free trade agreements, environmental and labour aspects of the economic integration were addressed through agreements on labour and environment. These important agreements contain strong obligations and clearly demonstrate that for Canada and Colombia, trade liberalization does not come at the expense of labour rights and the environment.

To conclude my part, Canadian businesses are not alone in recognizing opportunities in Colombia. In a World Bank study, Doing Business 2010, Colombia ranks as one of the top 10 business environment reformers. It ranked 37th in the category of “ease of doing business”, and it also ranked fifth out of 183 countries with regard to its ability to protect investor rights through the application of the rule of law. Clearly this is a country where opportunities for businesses are only going to increase.

Overall, the free trade agreement will strengthen our bilateral commercial relationship. This agreement has the support of key exporters and investors across Canada, many of whom have appeared before this committee. This is a high-quality and comprehensive trade agreement, and it will allow Canadian businesses to compete and excel in the Colombian market.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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—

[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.

[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?

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-Columbia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the House for the umpteenth time about the implementation of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, the infamous Bill C-2, which the government insists that we pass without discussing any of the human and social considerations about which the public has sent us so many emails.

Clearly, the Bloc Québécois will say for the umpteenth time that it is against this free trade agreement.

Earlier I heard my colleagues from other political parties praising this agreement and its resulting business and export opportunities. I do not know where they are getting this from because there is not a great deal we can export to Colombia. It is an extremely poor country, which imports very little. It exports a bit of grain, but that is about it.

They are not mentioning the real reason they absolutely want to conclude a free trade agreement with Colombia. Below its soil there are desirable minerals. The motives for this agreement are the minerals found underground in Colombia. No one has said so directly here in the House, except of course the opposition parties who have nothing to hide.

This agreement contains a chapter on investment protection, which will make life easier for Canadian investors who invest in Colombia, particularly in the mining sector.

Over the years, the Conservative government has signed a number of agreements with different countries, and the primary concern of all these agreements has been the return on investments.

We believe that this provision has always put investors' profits ahead of human and social rights. It is very dangerous in a country such as Colombia, a country where labour or environmental protection laws are haphazard. When a law is enacted to protect the Canadian investor, it is at the expense of a people or a country.

Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in the world, and certainly in Latin America. Human rights are not important to Colombia.

During the many weeks that we have been discussing this agreement, the government has constantly repeated that the agreement it will sign with Colombia also has two side agreements—one on labour and another on the environment. We know very well that side agreements are ineffective. They are not part of the free trade agreement, which means that investors can—with impunity—destroy Colombia's rich environment, displace people in favour of mine development, and continue to murder trade unionists or NGO workers who defend human rights.

Today, we received an email from a Colombian-Canadian living in Montreal. He told us that human rights violations are rampant in Colombia. He also said that one of the most serious accusations against the Uribe government involves the biggest spy scandal in Colombian history perpetrated by the administrative security department.

It involves the secret police of President Alvaro Uribe's government. This citizen forwarded a copy of a 166-page document that was discovered. It indicates that Mr. Uribe's government wanted to create controversy around NGOs and link them to drug trafficking organizations. It is clear: that is what it says in the Uribe government document. When we are told in this House that the Colombian government—

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it looks as if there will not be free and fair elections in Colombia on May 30.

The international pre-electoral observation mission, an international organization which is in Colombia observing the first round of elections, cites the following violations so far: human rights violations; illegal and armed groups interfering in the electoral process, creating fear and intimidation; and illegal campaign financing, using federal social programming to influence and coerce citizens. It has found a number of problems already before the presidential election on May 30. It is also calling for the Canadian government to back away on Bill C-2 until after the elections.

In light of these observations by this international organization, is the member content with her and her party's stance on Bill C-2?

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

Mr. Speaker, on this last day before elected members of the House are muzzled by the Conservative government, I want to add my voice to that of my colleagues who have spoken so far in opposition to Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia.

The Canadian government's main motivation for entering into this free trade deal is not trade, but rather investments. This agreement contains a chapter on investment protection that will make life easier for Canadians investing in Colombia, especially in mining.

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-conceived.

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.

When it comes to the environment, one need only look at the Conservative government's track record to know that it is not a top priority.

By protecting Canadian investors against any improvements in living conditions in Colombia, Bill C-2 could well delay the social and environmental progress that is needed in that country. This is where the government's Bill C-2 has serious shortcomings.

Colombia has one of the worst human rights records. To advance human rights in the world, governments generally 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. Not only is the Canadian government giving up the carrot and the stick, but it is handing them over to the Colombian government.

The Conservatives are showing once again what little regard they have for human rights by supporting a country where workers are treated like merchandise and their rights are easily violated.

The government keeps telling us that it has also negotiated a side agreement on labour and another on the environment. We know that these types of agreements are ineffective. They are not part of the free trade agreement and investors could with impunity destroy Colombia's rich environment, displace people to facilitate mine development and continue to murder trade unionists.

We should also mention that the free trade agreement between the United States and Colombia, signed in 2006, is also stalled on the issue of human rights. This agreement will not be ratified by Congress until Colombia strengthens its legislation to protect minimum labour standards and union activities.

The Canadian government, which boasts about following in the footsteps of its American big brother in many areas, including the environment, and waits for its decisions, is missing out on the opportunity to follow its lead in this case.

Colombia is Canada's fifth-largest trading partner in Latin America and the Caribbean. It is the seventh-largest source of imports from 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, which has meant a smaller share of trade with Colombia than with other countries in the region.

Canada exports primarily cars and car parts, and grains, which represented 23% and 19% respectively of our 2007 exports, and which primarily favour Ontario and the prairies. Most of Canada's investments in Colombia are in the mining industry.

In light of this information regarding trade between Canada and Colombia, we are having a very hard time understanding why Canada would want to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia. When two countries enter into free trade agreements, it usually means they are special trading partners who trade sufficiently to make it worthwhile to lower trade barriers.

Let us be candid: Colombia is not a very attractive market, considering that trade between the two countries is quite limited. The main products that Canada sells there, like grain from western Canada, have no difficulty finding a buyer 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.

The real danger is that with Colombia, the Conservative government is handing responsibility for deciding what is in the best interest of the people over to multinationals. That is not reassuring.

Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in Latin America. The Conservatives keep saying that the human rights situation in Colombia has improved significantly. It may be less catastrophic than it was a few years ago, but it is still far from ideal.

If we take a close look at the situation in Colombia, we see that it is one of the worst places in the world for respecting workers' rights. Trade unionists are targeted because of their activities. They are threatened, kidnapped and murdered. The statistics are devastating. Since 1986, 2,690 trade unionists have been murdered. Although these murders declined somewhat in 2001, they have increased since 2007. That year, 39 trade unionists were murdered and another 46 were murdered in 2008, an 18% increase in one year. According to Mariano Jose 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.

Colombia does not have a legal framework to govern collective bargaining. In fact, about 95% of the public sector workforce is not covered by collective bargaining legislation. Colombian civil society obviously opposes this agreement. The Coalition of Social Movements and Organizations of Colombia delegation is refuting the claims made by the Colombian and Canadian governments: the human rights situation in Colombia has not improved.

I, along with my Bloc Québécois colleagues, will be voting against this bill, which puts business interests ahead of human rights in Colombia.

(The House resumed at 12 noon)

The House resumed from March 30 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.

Bill C-2—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary warfare is the unprecedented delay and obstruction filibuster that Bill C-2 has been receiving at the hands of the New Democratic Party in particular.

Our rules contemplate that each member can speak once. As a result of there being two separate sessions of this Parliament, this bill has been spoken to by 38 members of the New Democratic Party, yet that party only has 37 members in the House. That is the most interesting definition of denying them an opportunity to speak that I have ever heard.

The New Democratic Party has embarked on a process of delay and obstruction at every stage of this bill. Those members do not want to see the bill advance. If they wanted to see the bill advance, if they wanted to make amendments to it, they would have an opportunity to do that at committee.

Let us get this bill through second reading. Let us get it to committee where members can have a opportunity to speak to it and participate and make amendments, as the Liberal Party has indicated it wishes to do. We have indicated an openness to the Liberal Party in doing so. Let us get on with doing some real work and delivering some results for Canadians.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too am opposed to what I would describe as the government muzzling us on Bill C-2. The government is trying to shove down our throats an agreement that has to be debated before it can be adopted.

It is somewhat ironic that the government is trying today to muzzle us when the Prime Minister promised, during the election campaign, that there would be a full debate on all international agreements signed by Canada. Now he wants to block debate on these issues.

My question is for the minister. How can he try to muzzle us when, across the border in the United States, parliamentarians are slowing down and trying to find out more about the impact such a free trade agreement might have on such things as human rights and the environment?

How can the minister, who goes on about harmonization with the United States every chance he gets, try to muzzle us today when across the border they are doing everything they can to slow down the adoption of a U.S.-Colombia agreement?

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

moved:

That in relation to 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the second reading stage of the bill;

and fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day designated for the consideration of the said stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by numerous citizens from new Brunswick and the east coast of Canada calling on the government to carry out a human rights impact study when it comes to free trade with Colombia. They are saying to the government that we need a fair trade agreement with Colombia, not a free trade agreement.

I would impress upon all members of the House to realize that there are literally tens of thousands of people who are signing petitions when it comes to Bill C-2, the free trade bill on Colombia, formerly known as Bill C-23. Even though we have seen it stop and start again, Canadians across this land from coast to coast to coast are clearly saying no to Bill C-2.

They are saying that we need a human rights impact study carried out before we enter into any agreements. I am pleased to present this on behalf of them.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the bill and follow the hon. member from the Bloc.

As the members know, the bill was introduced last year as Bill C-57, but after Parliament prorogued it was reintroduced on March 24 as Bill C-8.

For people who are watching today, I will give a little information about the bill. This is an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the agreement on the environment between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the agreement on labour cooperation between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

The volume of the speeches in terms of intensity has dropped a lot compared to the speeches a few days ago on Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

Clearly from our perspective in the NDP caucus, we certainly do not see the situation in Jordan being anywhere near as dire and bad as what we see with regard to the situation in Colombia.

Having said that, we see some concerns we can address as far as Jordan is concerned. We have reports from the U.S. Department of State dealing with the 2009 reports on human rights practices, which I will get into during my speech, and also a report by a lawyer from Jordan indicating problems with honour killings in Jordan and what is going on there to stop that from happening in Jordan.

Certainly there is room for improvement, once again, but it is not as dire a situation as we are dealing with in Colombia.

The critic for the NDP, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, indicated this morning that we will be looking at this and are prepared to have the bill move to committee and deal with these issue at committee, because that is obviously where we are going to have to resolve some of these issues as to what the true situation is in Jordan as far as human rights are concerned and how we might better be able to amend or reconstruct the bill to deal with the situation in Jordan as we find it now.

I note that the volume of trade with Jordan is not large. In fact it dropped in 2009 from what it was in 2008. To get a flavour for what type of trade we are dealing with, I simply consulted the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade in which he indicated that many Canadian companies have a solid presence in the Jordanian market. Interestingly enough, a company that I have been familiar with for many years, the Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, for instance is one of Jordan's top foreign investors. I did not know that.

It is joined by companies like RIM, Research In Motion, the manufacturer of the BlackBerry that we are all tied to; Bombardier; SNC-Lavalin; Four Seasons Hotel; and Second Cup coffee shops. Many others are active in Jordan.

The member who spoke before me dealt with the components of the trade between the countries. They are diverse. It is everything from forestry to agriculture, from food to machinery, as well as communications technologies and apparel.

Canada's expertise in nuclear power is another sector of interest to the Jordanians, especially as they are embarking on a nuclear energy program for their country. The member did talk about over $90 million in 2008 in trade between the two countries, although as a matter of fact I believe it was $92 million. Once again, that dropped substantially last year.

Canada is a supplier to Jordan of a range of goods, including paper, copper, vegetables, machinery and wood. In addition, Canadian and Jordanian exporters have access to respective markets eliminating tariffs on a number of key products, and world-leading Canadian sectors, such as forestry and manufacturing, agriculture and agri-food will benefit as well as pulp and paper.

We get an idea, looking at his presentation, as to what sorts of products we are talking about here that are trading between these countries.

As I indicated, we are talking about a fairly small amount of trade. Jordan is a country of 5.1 million versus Colombia, which I believe is in the 40 million range, and has the smallest GDP among middle-eastern states. The economy remains dependent on foreign aid. Interestingly enough, Canada contributed about $7.9 million in foreign aid in 2006-07.

The fact of the matter is that, on practically every debate about free trade agreements in this House, we have had the Conservative speakers question the NDP about why we do not like the agreement or what kind of agreement they have to come up with that would make us happy. Of course we respond to them that we are not in favour of their free trade approach nor have we ever been. We are in favour of a fair trade approach.

I would think that over time, whether it is with the government or a future government, we are going to see agreements renegotiated over time, in keeping with what the Bloc members have mentioned in their speeches. We are going to be looking at more multilateral approaches to fair trade, and we are going to be taking into account some of the elements that we in the NDP have been suggesting should be in fair trade agreements. For example, we have been suggesting new rules in agreements that promote sustainable practices and domestic job creation. We never seem to consider domestic job creation when we are negotiating these agreements.

When we are doing bilateral agreements, there is usually an imbalance of power in the arrangement. Our negotiators are trying to negotiate exactly what is best for us, not necessarily what is best for the local economy of the people we are negotiating with.

In addition to sustainable practices, we should be looking at domestic job creation and healthy working conditions, and while allowing us to manage the supply of goods, we should promote democratic rights and maintain democratic sovereignty at home.

The question is how we can promote fair trade and, as I indicated, new trade agreements that encourage improvement in social, environmental and labour conditions, rather than just minimizing the damage of unrestricted trade.

The federal and provincial procurement policies, which stimulate Canadian industries by allowing governments to favour suppliers here at home, supply management boards and single desk marketers, like the Canadian Wheat Board, headquartered in Winnipeg, can help replace imports with domestic products and materials.

The way the multilateral trade agreements have developed over the years is that we have potentially a flooding of a local market, as we have with the free trade agreements with Mexico and Colombia. For example, with tomatoes to Mexico and foods to Colombia, it basically put farmers, who have been self-sufficient for many years, out of business.

We destroy a solid farming community in a place like Colombia and we flood the market with cheap produce, which makes our farmers happy in the short run but at the end of the day we are not looking at the overall effect and the long-term damage to the local people. What we should be looking is developing agriculture on a local basis. We should be efficient and grow as much of our own products as possible. Obviously, we need to export some of our products and some products just do not grow in certain places. I mentioned the other day about importing bananas into Canada because we do not grow them here. We can export products that people do not have in other areas.

However, wherever possible, if a country can produce a product locally then we should be encouraging that in our practises and in our trade agreements.

Local community and individual initiatives to buy fair trade imports and locally produced goods are really important. As I indicated before, companies like Starbucks, which I am becoming increasingly familiar with almost on a daily basis, do tell people that they buy their coffees on a fair trade basis. People, especially young people, are more than willing to pay a fair price for coffee or whatever product they are selling, if they can be assured that the people at the other end are getting a fair wage and a fair return for the product.

People like to feel good about themselves. They like the know that if they buy an article of clothing, shoes, sweaters or whatever that it was not manufactured under sweat shop conditions. They like the idea of helping to bring up our economy and the economy of the producing country.

However, the bilateral agreements that we have seen so far are essentially extensions of the Ronald Reagan mantra and ideology of a race to the bottom, that we drive markets down and prices down to the lowest common denominator and we think that will be the ultimate in efficiency and that we will have a healthy economy because of it.

What has been the effect? The whole American mid-west is suffering greatly because jobs are being exported. We are exporting not only plants and the jobs that go with them out of Canada and the United States but we are exporting entire industries that were the backbone of our economy, our country and this continent for a number of years. There might be some short-term benefits but in the long run it is not better for the country as a whole.

The bottom line is that we need to become self-sufficient not only for ourselves but also for the people we are trading with.

We in the NDP feel fair trade policies are important. Even some members of the Conservative Party caucus feel that protecting the environment is the way to go by the use of domestically and locally produced goods. If a product is produced locally rather than sending it thousands of miles across the continent, there will be less freight costs, fuel costs and less carbon will be produced. Promoting environmentally conscious methods for producers is something that benefits all of us and it is something that we should be working toward.

The free trade policies that we have adopted, that we have fostered over the last 10, 20 years as a government, have basically resulted in increased pollution to the environment and a bigger concentration of multinationals.

The environmental side agreement of NAFTA, for example, has proven to be largely unenforceable, particularly when compared with protections for industries and investors.

A system of fair trade can encourage the growth of Canadian jobs, both in terms of 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 for the bottom that has resulted and the loss of Canadian manufacturing jobs. I dealt with that issue before about this kind of neo-conservative, and I guess liberal, ideology of racing to the bottom thinking that somehow that will solve the economy's problems.

Free trade rules, on the other hand, have hurt Canadian job quality. Since 1989, most Canadian families have seen a decline in real incomes. I know the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has spoken at length about that point many times, not only here in the House but at other speaking engagements he has had across the country.

Fair trade can also protect labour rights by fostering the growth of worker co-operatives and labour unions. Like the environmental side accord, we have a co-op in Winnipeg that anyone can join. Every year I get a cheque for $800 or $1,000 on gasoline purchases and the price of the gas is the same at all of the gas stations. It is the same price for the product and yet the co-operative sends rebates to the consumers of the product.

For example, NAFTA's labour agreements have gone mainly unenforced, getting industries that are willing to violate workers' rights giving incentives to relocate Canadian jobs. Fair trade policies that favour co-ops, unions and equitable pricing will protect workers in the developing world who might otherwise be exploited and would take away reasons for Canadian producers to export jobs.

Fair trade rules will also protect society and human rights around the globe. That was a very large concern in our debate just last week with regard to the Canada-Colombia free trade deal.

In the few minutes I have left I want to deal very quickly with the whole issue of the 2008 human rights report on Jordan produced by the U.S. Department of State. We say right at the outset that Jordan is not Colombia. Jordan does not have as many obvious human rights abuses as Colombia but there is potential for concern.

In addition to that report, we have a report prepared by an attorney, Ms. Nimry from Jordan, who explains in detail the whole issue of honour killings. The committee needs to look into that issue and find out why we are looking at an average of 25 honour killings a year in Jordan. We recognize that the Jordanian government is taking steps to deal with the issue but it is still happening. In some areas of Jordan, a woman's life is at risk if she talks to a man who is not a relative or if she refuses to marry someone who is chosen by the family or if she marries someone with whom her family does not approve or if she marries a man from a different religion.

I could go on with excerpts from this particular report. It is very interesting reading and it is something that we need to look at.

The Liberals, once again, might want to go holus-bolus and marry up with the Conservatives to try to run this through as quickly as possible to meet their free trade agenda but we in the NDP have no intention of letting things go that quickly. We want to ensure this bill goes to committee and is properly dealt with there.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised in the House a number of issues on the Colombia deal, and I sense that he has some similar concerns with regard to the Jordan situation vis-à-vis human rights.

Last week the government seemed amenable to an amendment to Bill C-2, which in the record says:

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.

I had to read the amendment again and I am still reading it, and I do not yet clearly understand what it means. If it does mean something and it would be helpful in terms of getting us over this hurdle of human rights concerns, I am wondering whether a similar provision in the Jordan trade deal might be applicable or appropriate in the circumstances. I am not sure. I do not think so, but maybe the member has some comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-8, which is the implementing law for the trade agreement between Canada and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

I will start by referencing the delay the government has put on. We have heard a lot of rhetoric around this deal as we have heard from previous deals the government has put forward. However, it is important to do a reality check. The government had a green light from all four corners of the House from the very beginning to bring it to committee. There are some major concerns that I will raise and reference a little later on.

I think it is fair to say that the controversy around Bill C-2 and the Colombia agreement is very clear and palpable on the floor of the House. With the Jordan agreement, all four corners of the House wanted to bring it forward, have it debated and sent to committee where we could have heard from the many witnesses who have an interest in this. The committee could then have made the necessary amendments.

However, for eight months the government has refused to bring it forward. For eight months it has hidden behind the Colombia deal and stalled on this bill. Far from agreeing with the rhetoric that this is another important step forward in trade policy for the government, we need to ask why the government stalled for eight months on this when it was given the green light to at least bring it to committee within a few days. All four corners of the House asked for it to be brought forward and the government said no, that it would not do that.

This speaks to a larger problem, which is the complete incoherence of the government's trade policy and industrial policy in general. For four years we have seen the kind of legislation the government brings forward. It is fair to say that the NDP has been front and centre in standing up to what the government has brought forward, but the delay around the Jordan bill just shows the dilettantism of the government when it comes to trade policy.

This is no small issue. When we look at the last 20 years, since the implementation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the real income of most Canadian families has gone down not up. The real incomes of the two-thirds of Canadian families who comprise the middle-class and poor Canadians have gone down right across the country.

The only ones who have actually profited and seen an increase in their real income over the past 20 years, since the first implementation of these agreements, have been the wealthiest of Canadians. The wealthy 10% have seen their incomes skyrocket. One-fifth of Canadians, the wealthiest 20%, now take most of the real income in this country.

To say that the free trade agreements that have been brought in by the Liberals and Conservatives have led to instant prosperity is simply false. Statistics Canada puts the lie to those pretensions that this is somehow a coherent and smart industrial and economic strategy. There has been no economic strategy, no real focused trade strategy and the result has been that most Canadians are poor.

We need to ask about the actual record of the government since it came to power. We saw the softwood lumber sellout, which killed jobs right across this country, including 2,000 in the two communities in my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster. We have seen the shipbuilding sellout, which was opposed by the NDP because we heard from hundreds of shipyard workers from across the country, including Quebec, Atlantic Canada and British Columbia, who said that this wold have a huge negative impact on their industry.

The government did no impact studies. It was just flying by the seat of its pants. It was out-maneuvered by Liechtenstein. I hesitate to say it, but it is true that Liechtenstein, a tiny country in Europe, actually out-maneuvered the Conservative government.

We saw the softwood sellout, the shipbuilding sellout and the Colombia trade deal, which we can discuss another day because I know we should stick to Jordan, but the government's record is extremely poor.

What are our competitors doing? Our competitors are investing in export promotion support. The United States, Australia and the European Union are spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year in providing support for their export industries and export promotion supports. What are we doing? If the government actually wants to go beyond its dilettante approach on trade issues, what is it doing?

I was in Argentina last week with a number of hon. members, including my colleague from Honoré-Mercier, and we found out, astoundingly, that the Conservative government's total budget in export product promotion support for the emerging market of Argentina, a country of 40 million people and the wealthiest market in South America, is $400 a week. That is less than the average dépanneur in Quebec and the average corner store in Burnaby—New Westminster will spend for a marketing radius that is a few blocks on either side.

That is repeated across the board. In the United States we spend paltry cents on the dollar compared to other countries, like Australia. Its total budget for export promotion support is half a billion dollars. Our total budget is a few million dollars. This is what is wrong with the government's approach. It simply does not provide the kinds of supports that other major industrialized countries, our competitors, do.

What the NDP has been saying ever since the Conservative government came to power is that it needs to change that approach. The government simply cannot go to these trade agreement ribbon cuttings and expect that the job is done or will be done. Most Canadians are the poorer for it. Canada is making less and less as a result. We had our first export deficit in 20 years a few months ago. Obviously, there is something wrong with this approach.

Even if these trade agreements were fair trade based as opposed to the old NAFTA template model, do the trade agreements themselves make a difference? Obviously not, because with a number of these bilateral agreements our exports have actually gone down in those markets after being signed. In every case, imports from the countries that we have signed with have gone up. In other words, those countries have managed to profit from the agreements signed with Canada but in Canada's case, exports have actually gone down. How can we sign an agreement and not have the follow-up or strategy to bolster our exports? That is, indeed, what has happened.

The problem with the government's overall approach is that it not only has no industrial strategy but it also does not have an export-oriented focus and it is not willing to invest Canadian government funds in the way that other countries do to bolster their industries.

As there has been some rhetoric flying around the House this morning on this agreement, I should note that this whole idea that Canada should not be trying to protect and sustain certain key industries is something that every other industrialized economy has adopted and put forward as part of their industrial strategy. The Conservative government is seemingly selling out every industry in our country, but France, the United States and every other country are focused on investing in their key industries.

The NDP gets criticized by the Liberals and Conservatives for bringing forward buy Canada strategies but that is where the rest of the world is. It is ensuring it has a strong foundation.

Far from making things together, which is sort of the spin, the buzzwords that we hear from the Conservatives, Canadians are making less and less, exporting more and more raw materials, whether it is raw logs or raw bitumen, across the line, and those jobs end up elsewhere. That is the fundamental problem with how the government approaches economic issues generally and trade policy in particular.

Now we can talk about the more specific aspects of the Jordan agreement. As I mentioned earlier, this agreement needs to have a thorough vetting at the committee stage and amendments need to be brought forward for reasons that I will mention in a few moments. What we are endeavouring to do is to get this to committee so we can hear from labour activists, human rights advocates and from those who are concerned about women's equality because those are all issues that have been cited in some of the many reports that have come up about problems with Jordan.

It is fair to say that Jordan has made progress in a number of different areas. Jordan is certainly not Colombia with the horrific death toll, disappearances and killings of labour activists that are a tragic daily reality in Colombia with paramilitaries tied to the government and the Colombian military. In a very real sense, Jordan has tried to make progress and I will mention some of that progress later on.

However, the agreement itself is a NAFTA template style agreement, with investor state provisions that we have raised concerns about before, and labour and environment cooperation agreements that are toothless, which is the overall problem and the reason we will need to bring strong amendments to this bill at the committee stage.

There is no doubt that Canadian values are betrayed when we have toothless components around labour rights and environmental stewardship. Most Canadians want to see very robust protections there. We also undermine our own Canadian values when we subject the kind of democratic decision-making with an override, which is the investor state provisions of NAFTA. We have raised this issue before in the House. This is simply, in our minds, not the appropriate route to go.

Given the framework of the agreement, which is inadequate and is a template from which other countries have moved away and are looking at more fair trade approaches to their trading relationships, what is happening in Jordan? What are the issues?

I would like to cite three reports. The first report is from the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor which was released a couple of weeks ago on March 11. It is the 2009 country reports on human rights practices in which it cites Jordan and states:

Restrictive legislation and regulations limited freedom of speech and press, and government interference in the media and threats of fines and detention led to self-censorship, according to journalists and human rights organizations. The government also continued to restrict freedoms of assembly and association. Religious activists and opposition political party members reported a decline in government harassment; however, legal and societal discrimination remained a problem for women, religious minorities, converts from Islam, and some persons of Palestinian origin. Local human rights organizations reported widespread violence against women and children. The government restricted labor rights, and local and international human rights organizations reported high levels of abuse of foreign domestic workers.

The report goes on to cite some of the specific areas of concern around respect for human rights. I think it is important to mention those reports and to flag some of the comparisons with other countries.

Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life

There were reports during the year that the government or its agents committed unlawful killings.

On November 8, Saddam Al Saoud died of injuries allegedly sustained in police custody at the Al Hussein Police Station. On October 17, police arrested Al Saoud during a fight between street vendors in Amman. On October 18, authorities transferred an unconscious Al Saoud to a private hospital. Al Saoud's family said police caused Al Saoud's injuries when they hit him on the head with a gun. The Public Security Department (PSD) investigated the case, arrested six police officers, and charged them with two felonies: death caused by hitting and abuse of PSD regulations. At year's end cases against the officers were ongoing.

They also cite one other case, that of Fakhri Kreishan, who died of injuries sustained during an altercation with police in the southern city of Ma'an. Again police prosecutors investigated the case, arrested the police officer and charged him with two felonies. The case before the police court was ongoing.

In terms of unlawful deprivation of life, we have two incidences. It is fair to say that, in both cases, the police officers have been charged. That is important and it contrasts with other countries, most particularly Colombia, where the ongoing slaughter, and there is no other way of putting it, of human rights activists and labour activists was treated with impunity, where 95% of the cases did not lead to any sort of prosecution at all. In Jordan's case, the two cases have been followed up with charges.

Disappearances is category B. There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances, and that is welcome. Again it contrasts with other countries. I will take Colombia as an example, where there have been widespread disappearances, hundreds of people who have simply disappeared in politically motivated kidnappings or killings done by paramilitaries tied to the Colombian government and the Colombian military. In Jordan's case, there were no reports of politically motivated disappearances in 2009.

Category C is torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The report continues:

The law prohibits such practices; however international NGOs continued to allege that torture and mistreatment in police and security detention centers remained widespread. Nevertheless, some domestic NGOs claimed that recent reform efforts had reduced cases of torture and mistreatment in police and security detention centers.

The fact that NGOs are reporting that is welcome, and of course we contrast that with other countries. I will take Colombia, for example, where the Colombian Commission of Jurists has pointed out widespread cases of sexual abuse perpetrated by the Colombian military and by paramilitaries tied to the Colombian government.

For the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, there are obviously some concerns; however there are some indications of improvement.

I would like to move on to Human Rights Watch. Its “World Report 2010: Harsher Climate for Human Rights” cites concerns around migrant domestic workers and the abuse of women in Jordan. It states:

In 2010, Jordan should:

Strike clauses from the law that allow for punishment-reducing mitigating circumstances for “honor” killers.

Ease restrictions in the law governing the operation of nongovernmental organizations to bring it into compliance with international standards on freedom of association.

Revise regulations governing migrant domestic workers to comply with international labor and human rights standards, and set up a mechanism to investigate allegations of abuses against workers.

—again, a concern about domestic workers—

Strengthen accountability for torture by moving jurisdiction over acts of torture by police agents from the Police Court to civilian courts.

Stop withdrawing the nationality of Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin.

These are concerns raised by Human Rights Watch.

The final report I would like to cite is done by Lubna Dawany Nimry, who is an attorney at law in Jordan, raising concerns about the treatment of women. She states that the number of so-called crimes of honour, and there is no other way of describing it except as abuse of women, averages about 25 a year.

She does reference the fact that civil rights activists were speaking out loudly and fighting this phenomenon and mentions that some members of the royal family have participated in demonstrations against article 98 and article 340 of the penal code. She sites that in some areas of Jordan, a woman's life is at risk if she talks to a man who is not a relative. She says very clearly that there is a need for substantial revisions to the code in Jordan to assure women's equality.

For those reasons, we raise concerns about this agreement.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to questions and comments again, I will remind hon. members that we are debating Bill C-8, the free trade bill between Canada and Jordan, not Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. Clearly there would be issues that would overlap the two, but questions that deal specifically and explicitly with other legislation are out of order and will not be accepted.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and comments.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of independent studies, particularly in relation to Bill C-2, in order to evaluate the agreement's impact on human rights in the countries involved.

My colleague also spoke about fair trade, which is an issue I feel strongly about, as does the Bloc Québécois. It is not overly complicated and, if we made the effort, it would be very easy to engage in fair trade. Fair trade has three pillars: respect for the environment in all dealings, respect for the economy—agreements must be economically viable—and respect for the social rights and societies involved in the agreements.

If the Government of Canada included these few guidelines and principles in its international trade policies, Canada's image in terms of globalization would be transformed.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin speaking about Bill C-8, I would like to congratulate the wonderful initiative of those who organized Earth Hour. On Saturday, more than 10 million Canadians and nearly a billion people throughout the world symbolically turned out their lights for an hour from 8:30 to 9:30 p.m. In Montreal, Hydro-Québec turned off the logo on its head office. Even the Canadian Parliament participated. In all, more than 3,400 cities in more than 125 countries took part in Earth Hour.

Since we know how important the fight against climate change is to the Conservatives, we do not need to talk about the importance of rallying together to send a clear message to our representatives. We need to be giving this issue more attention. I would also like to take a moment to mention the exceptional work of my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie in the fight against climate change.

Having said that, let us return to today's topic of debate, the free trade agreement between Canada and Jordan. The Bloc Québécois generally supports this bill. However, we believe certain aspects should be revisited. The Bloc Québécois has come to this conclusion because, as always, it methodically studied this agreement and concluded that, for the most part, it respected the values of our party, and hence those of Quebeckers.

Last week, I rose in the House to denounce the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement because it does not in the least respect the principles defended by the Bloc Québécois—fundamental principles such as human rights and workers' rights, as well as respect for the environment. I can assure the House that we will rise and speak out as long as a treaty or government decision does not respect this moral standard.

In this case, there is no indication of a transgression of these principles and we even salute the efforts that may be undertaken. However, we must ask ourselves why sign an agreement with Jordan when our trade with this country only represents $92 million in goods? More importantly, trade with Quebec only represents a meagre $32 million.

Nevertheless, we believe that this agreement is necessary to balance our support in this part of the world. Knowing full well that Canada has already approved a free trade agreement with Israel, it is important, considering the tense political situation in the Middle East, to send a clear message to this region that we are open to fair trade and agreements with all nations in the region. This could even promote better relations between the East and the West and open doors to certain eastern countries that wish to cultivate better economic relations with the West.

Nor should we ignore the considerable efforts made by Jordan to modernize its government and its economy. These efforts will help deal with the difficulties created by the incredible gap between rich and poor. We should herald these efforts. Implementing this agreement would send, once more, a clear message to other Middle Eastern countries that it is important that they modernize their governments and economies.

A moment ago I said that Jordan is not a major player in terms of trade with Canada and Quebec. Despite that, the Bloc Québécois nevertheless believes that this agreement would be beneficial for Quebec. As the private woodlot critic for the Bloc Québécois, I am extremely troubled by the forestry crisis, which affects so many Canadian workers and especially Quebec workers. It is especially troubling knowing that nearly $10 billion was invested in the Ontario auto industry, while next to nothing has been invested in Quebec.

For some time now, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for loans and loan guarantees at the market rate for the Quebec forestry industry, as well as a comprehensive policy to support and modernize the forestry industry, including a policy to use wood in the construction of federal buildings. Bill C-429, introduced by my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, will help with that.

Furthermore, private woodlot owners in Quebec have been the forgotten ones in this forestry crisis. They need to be taken care of as well, perhaps through some sort of tax measures. Accordingly, the creation of a registered silvicultural savings plan would be a very important tool for these private woodlot owners. This could also one day, I hope, make it possible for them to export pulp and paper around the world, particularly to Jordan, the subject of our debate here today.

Despite everything I just said, the Bloc Québécois sees this agreement as a positive step for the Quebec forestry industry. Let us not be idealistic: this agreement is in no way a concrete solution to the Conservatives' inaction when it comes to the forestry industry, particularly in Quebec. However, the fact remains that this agreement would mean significant gains for this industry, one that has been in crisis for far too long.

There was $32 million worth of trade between Quebec and Jordan in 2008. Of this amount, $25 million was for our pulp and paper industry, which is a significant amount. Since Jordan has an obvious lack of forestry resources, because of its climate, and since the Quebec pulp and paper industry has been ignored by the Conservative government for a long time, the agreement being debated right now is an interesting solution to compensate for the lack of resources in Jordan and the Conservatives' passive attitude towards this industry.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Québécois and I think that there are some points that will have to be reviewed and debated in order to justify an agreement of this nature.

As deputy natural resources critic for the Bloc Québécois, I, along with my Bloc Québécois colleagues, think that we absolutely must ensure that Quebec's significant water resources are clearly excluded from the agreement, to ensure that Quebec remains in control of its water resources. Although this is not mentioned in the agreement itself, this condition absolutely must be included in the agreement.

We will have the opportunity to examine the agreement more closely in committee over the next few weeks.

Although the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement is unacceptable in terms of agriculture, that is not the case with this agreement with Jordan. In contrast to Bill C-2 concerning Canada and Colombia, because of the small size of Jordan's market and the type of agriculture practised there, there is not likely to be a negative impact on either our Quebec agricultural producers or agricultural producers in Jordan. It is very important for us to respect our own agricultural producers, as well as those in the countries with which we are signing or trying to sign an agreement.

I am a farmer, and it is important to farmers to consider the particular agricultural situation in countries and help them develop. In Quebec, the Union des producteurs agricoles approved this agreement and said that it did not pose any problems. We could talk about farming for a long time in the House.

It is alarming to see what the Conservatives are doing about such a crucial issue. The government is definitely showing its ignorance and incompetence. Farming as it is practised here could be improved with some practical, low-cost, workable measures. There is no shortage of ideas; the Bloc Québécois has presented a whole list of practical solutions. There is a shortage of political will, though, especially among the Conservatives.

Knowing the government's intentions and where farming figures on its priority list, we find it hard not to be worried about the future of farming in Canada and especially in Quebec.

But let us come back to the free trade agreement between Canada and Jordan. The Bloc Québécois also condemns the Conservative strategy of signing bilateral agreements with other governments instead of the multilateral agreements we have long been suggesting.

The Bloc Québécois firmly believes that a multilateral approach is a better way to develop fairer trade and respect the interests of all the countries of the world.

In order for trade to be mutually beneficial, it must first be fair. The free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia is hardly fair, but the Conservatives, like the Liberals, do not seem too concerned about that.

A trading system that leads to the exploitation of poor countries and dumping in rich countries is not viable. The Bloc Québécois cannot accept a system of free trade that would be based on the lowest common denominator. We also cannot accept free trade agreements where the absence of environmental or labour standards puts a great deal of pressure on our industries, especially our traditional industries. It is very difficult for them to compete with products that are manufactured with no regard for basic social rights.

To make trade agreements fairer, the Bloc Québécois is urging the federal government to revise its positions in trade negotiations in order to ensure that trade agreements include clauses ensuring compliance with international labour standards as well as respect for human rights and the environment.

The Bloc Québécois believes that if Canada wants to maintain its credibility on this front, it should immediately sign on to the International Labour Organization's principal conventions against various forms of discrimination, forced labour and child labour, as well as those in support of the right to organize and collective bargaining.

Those are the issues we should focus on in our trade agreements. It is clear that the Conservatives—and lately, the Liberals, with their obvious complicity concerning the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement bill—have no desire to consider these issues.

The Bloc Québécois' support for Bill C-8 is a one-time-only offer. We will continue to keep a close eye on agreements signed between Canada and other countries. If Canada fails to respect the fundamental principles that our party stands for and the interests of the Quebec nation, we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, will stand up to criticize such agreements and do everything in our power to cancel or change them.

We will never ignore such legitimate issues, and we will never support such injustices, as the Liberal members have done with the Colombia free trade agreement.

I hope that the federal government will consider these principles in future agreements. That should go without saying, but the members opposite seem to have forgotten these humanitarian ideas.

All the same, every time the Conservative Party or any other party in power chooses to ignore these issues, the Bloc Québécois can be counted on to call them on it and defend these principles. This is about respect for human rights, for workers' rights, for the environment and for Quebec's interests.

Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to this bill. At the outset, I want to note that the Liberals and the Conservatives seem to be onside, once again opposing this legislation. We saw them yesterday join together as one to try to support Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. Today we see them join together to try to stop Bill C-444.

At second reading we are dealing with the principle of the bill. I would think the Conservatives and particularly the Liberals should be open-minded enough to at least want to send the bill to committee so they could debate it, discuss it and try to amend it, If they do not agree with it at that point, after the amendment process is concluded, by all means, they can come back to the House and vote against it. However, to simply preclude the possibility of the bill going to committee is a very bad choice on their part.

The member who spoke for the Conservatives pointed out that we did not need a new regulatory body, that we did not need duplication of existing regulations. However, he is not prepared to give us the chance to even debate the issue further, to explore the issue in committee, perhaps call witnesses to the committee, look at the issue from all different angles and perhaps come up with a solution that would make everyone happy in the House, particularly the member who introduced Bill C-444. He is prepared to shut the door tight right at the beginning, defeat the bill and move on.

I do not think that is a good approach, particularly since the government finds itself in a minority situation. By the looks of it, it will always be in a minority situation. I see there are signs that it is beginning to accept that fact. There are some signs that it is tentatively making approaches to the opposition. I see it selectively dealing with the Liberals on the Canada-Colombia free trade issue and certainly dealing with other parties on other issues. I applaud it for that because it means it will survive longer as a minority government and it will, at a certain point, learn how to govern properly in a minority situation.

Up until now, it has been more or less a disaster for the government in the minority situation. Clearly from the very beginning, it could never accept the idea it was a minority and so it gave up on the idea, very early on, of trying to make a minority government work. It is going to take it a while to learn. There are some signs it is learning, but this is not one of them. The government should at least be open-minded enough to send the bill to committee.

My colleague from Vancouver Kingsway also spoke on this issue earlier today. He had indicated that the bill opened up a potential debate for members of the House to deal with public broadcasting and cultural policy in the country. My party and I are very strong believers in public broadcasting. I am a very strong supporter of the CBC. Many members here are of the same age or older than I am and will know that when we were growing up we only got one channel. It was the CBC and it was in black and white, so we had a very positive view of CBC programming in those days.

Things have developed and things have changed over the years. We now have multiple stations competing for the viewers and we have introduced the private sector.

The government, that is basically very dedicated to whatever the private sector wants, the private sector gets, is tied to deregulation. If we could redraw the map from a Conservative point of view, we would sell off or dismantle the CBC, turnover the whole market to the private sector, and while we did all of that, we would dismantle all the regulations. We would allow free enterprise to run its course.

We would have a situation develop where we would have the big guys gobbling up the little guys to the point where we would have just one or two broadcasters, media giants, in Canada and that is in fact what has happened.

Then we get to deal with the whole issue of the too big to fail syndrome. We have a situation right now with CanWest essentially going into bankruptcy because the original owners and founders of the company managed to load the company with $5 billion of debt. Then when the market downturn happened and the economy dove a couple of years ago, the bond holders were forced to take over the company. Now we see them basically selling off the assets to other corporate takers and that process is ongoing at this point.

Coupled with that we find ourselves in the middle of an extreme recession and the government announced last year that it was planning to sell off crown assets to, I believe, realize $2 billion.

I am not aware that it was able to do any of that last year, but I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is listening very attentively and taking notes, I might add, and I am certain that this coming year the government will find a way to realize that $2 billion and maybe more by selling off public assets.

We on this side of the House have suggested that one of those public assets that it may be interested in selling off might be the CBC.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to offer my condolences to the hon. House leader for the official opposition, given the fiasco that occurred in the chamber last Tuesday night when some of his members did not know how to vote. I can certainly sympathize with the embarrassment that I am sure he felt.

On the issue of the documents, which I think would be more likely a question for question period rather than contained in the order of business question, as posed to the government House leader on Thursdays, I would point out that it has always been the intent, and it has been our commitment as a government, to make all legally available documents available to the opposition and, through the opposition and Parliament, to Canadians at large when they do become available, which is what happened this morning. The documents were in their original form. Some of them were in English and some were in French and we made that known at the time we tabled them this morning. We asked for permission, acceptance, approval and agreement of all opposition parties, and they gave that approval before those documents were tabled in the House of Commons.

I find it a little ironic that the opposition has all along been demanding these documents and yet, when we make them available, they criticize us for doing so.

As for the issue of the House business for the upcoming week to carry us through to next week, we will continue today with Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-3, gender equity in Indian registration, and Bill C-2 will be the backup bill should we need it tomorrow.

Next week we will continue with the bills from this week but we will also be introducing the budget implementation bill and it is our intention to begin debate on that bill at second reading.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[Graeme Norton, Director, Public Safety Project, Canadian Civil Liberties Association]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. On behalf on the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, I thank you very much for inviting us here today to share our thoughts with you.

For those of you not familiar with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, let me say that we're a national, non-profit civil liberties watchdog and advocacy organization that was founded in 1964. Our core mandate is to promote respect for and observance of fundamental civil liberties and human rights and to ensure the protection and full exercise of those rights and liberties in Canada. Our work involves research, advocacy, litigation, and public education. Our membership consists of several thousand paid supporters from many walks of life.

The CCLA recognizes that organized crime can do great harm to society. Such crime can disrupt the social fabric of our communities and cause threats to our economic and personal security. It can lead to proliferation of violence and take a tremendous and tragic toll on those who are affected, both directly and indirectly.

The CCLA does not have an expressed position on organized crime per se. We do, however, believe that any steps taken to address this phenomenon must, like all laws, be necessary and effective and infringe as little as possible upon the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

It is from this perspective that we have considered several of the specific proposals and tools this committee has looked at for combatting organized crime. I'm going to briefly address three of those proposals in my presentation this morning, and hopefully I'll be able to do my best to answer questions you have on any other tools for fighting organized crime that you've looked at in the course of your review.

First, I'd like to address the issue of mandatory minimum sentences, which I know this committee has considered in some detail, both within and beyond the organized crime context. The recent passage of Bill C-2 and Bill C-14 have introduced more mandatory minimum penalties in Canada, some of which have been directly targeted at organized crime offences. Also, the forthcoming reintroduction of what was previously Bill C-15, the government's drug crime legislation, will bring further attention to the mandatory minimum issue in the coming months.

With regard to mandatory minimum jail sentences, it is the CCLA's position that such sentences are not an appropriate tool for fighting crime in Canada. This is our position irrespective of the crime for which the sentence may be imposed, and we base this position on three primary observations.

First, mandatory minimums create the possibility that the court will be forced to impose a predetermined sentence in a case where that sentence is unduly harsh. This could result in an offender receiving an excessive sentence, leading to an injustice in that particular case.

Second, mandatory minimums are not effective. Indeed, the majority of studies that have looked at this issue have found that few people are even aware of mandatory minimum sentences, and that where they do exist, they have not proven to be a successful deterrent to crime.

Third, mandatory minimum sentences can distort the justice system by transferring discretion from judges to police and prosecutors. Where a judge has no choice but to impose a certain sentence, the real determination about the level of punishment an offender receives will be made through decisions that occur before a trial even begins, such as whether to charge at all or whether to proceed summarily or by way of indictment.

Given these realities, the CCLA urges the committee to recommend against the further use of mandatory minimums as a crime-fighting tool for organized crime.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying how much I appreciate your sending me the photocopy of the rules that govern our operations in the House, in particular the rules on the scope and asking of the Thursday question and my response.

Hence, I am going to hesitate this week from launching into a full-blown debate with my hon. colleague about prorogation and the fact that so many of his colleagues seem not to understand that prorogation is over and the House is back in business.

When it comes to the business leading up to next Thursday, I would note that we will continue today with the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on second reading of Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act , known as Sébastien's Law.

Monday, March 22, will be day three of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Tuesday will be the last supply day for the opposition. Hopefully, we will get some meaningful motions put forward by the official opposition and they will show up for the debate.

We will continue with the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, followed by Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

If time permits, we could start Bill C-3, An Act to promote gender equity in Indian registration by responding to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia decision in McIvor v. Canada (Registrar of Indian and Northern Affairs).

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

Mr. Speaker, I really do not know where to begin. I think you would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. House leader of the official opposition seems to be making the Thursday question longer and longer. In fact, he is ending up making speeches as opposed to just asking a question about future government business. Let me just add some points as briefly as possible, in response to some of the questions he posed.

First, on the issue of prorogation, I think I did reply at some length last week when his deputy House leader asked the question, because he was unfortunately detained, I am sure, somewhere and not able to ask the question himself last Thursday. I would not suggest, as he has, that he was AWOL, of course. At any rate, on the issue of prorogation, very clearly this is a mechanism that governments have used from the very beginning of Confederation. We have said this repeatedly. On average, it has been about once a year that prorogation has been used to end a session of Parliament and begin a new one.

I would point out to my hon. colleague that under a previous Liberal administration, it was used a couple of times and 15 sitting days were lost. He would be able to do the math. He alleged during his remarks that prorogation was actually from December to March. In fact, we only lost 22 sitting days and, of those, 10 have been restored. With the acceptance of all parties in the House, we have agreed to set aside two of the constituency break weeks and instead do the business of the House here in Ottawa. Therefore, in reality, we have lost 12 sitting days during this prorogation, unlike the Liberal Party in past parliaments that on more than one occasion lost 15 sitting days, and they did not think there was anything wrong with that. They thought that was the way they would go about doing their business.

As I said last week, very clearly what they are upset about is that prorogation was used once before to prevent Canadians from facing an illicit, and immoral, I would add, coalition of the three opposition parties to seize power just weeks after Canadians had gone to the polls and re-elected the Conservative government with an increased mandate. We want to be very clear about that use of prorogation.

I will get to the order of business, but first, we will continue today with our very important address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I note that the hon. House leader for the official opposition, even though his own leader spoke at some length this morning, does not think, obviously, that those remarks were worthwhile, because he questions whether we should in fact be debating the Speech from the Throne. However, we will continue with debate on the Speech from the Throne. There are many members, I am sure, on both sides of the chamber who want to make some points about that great speech.

Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-2, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week shall be opposition allotted days. I am looking forward with bated breath as to what the opposition parties think should seize the nation, what issues they will bring forward. I hope it is not to discuss things like prorogation, but rather some substantive issues with some policy suggestions of how they want to see Canada go forward. It will be interesting.

To the very point about allotted opposition days, the opposition House leader knows very well that he and his colleagues in the opposition parties got together and deemed it necessary to impose upon me as government House leader certain parameters where I have to allot certain opposition days in a certain timeframe. Hence, his allegations that he would not like to see opposition days are pretty ill-founded, when it was his idea that he cooked up to begin with.

To the other point on how to go about fixing the present situation where, because of the Standing Orders, we see that we should have begun the supply cycle on March 1, I would like to make the following statement, because we do, as he points out quite correctly, eventually need to fix the supply cycle with a special order.

As background I refer to pages 881 and 882 of O'Brien and Bosc where it states:

From time to time, circumstances may require a deviation from the normal supply process and cycle. For example, because of an unscheduled adjournment or a prorogation or dissolution of Parliament, the main estimates might not be tabled and referred to standing committees before the March 1 deadline, or the interim supply or the main estimates might not be concurred in by the June 23 deadline. In those cases, the Standing Order provisions relating to the business of supply (such as those respecting the timetable for the tabling of estimates, their reference to standing committees and their return to the House, the concurrence motions and the appropriation bills) no longer apply.

This is the exact situation that we find ourselves in today. We currently have no mechanism to vote on the main estimates and supply. O'Brien and Bosc offers a solution on page 882:

Such situations may be dealt with by temporarily suspending the relevant Standing Orders. There may be an arrangement worked out between the government and the opposition parties to finalize supply as expeditiously as possible. Typically, this involves adopting a special order--

We have a typical problem with a typical solution. It has always been worked out in the past. I am sure it will be again.

If the NDP, for example, is tempted to deny consent for a special order to protest against prorogation, I point out that prorogation is a legitimate constitutional right, as I have said, exercised by Conservative and Liberal governments at the federal level and, in addition, by NDP and PQ governments at the provincial level.

The average duration in fact of a session of the NDP government in Manitoba has been 9.7 months. Yes, members heard me right: 9.7 months on average. René Lévesque's record was 10 months. Both of those governments had six sessions in one legislature, meaning they prorogued five times in a single legislature.

None of the members of the coalition of the prorogation outrage could even meet their own standard, I would submit.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

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

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)