Bill C-20 (Historical)

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

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

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements on environmental and labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and done at Ottawa on November 5, 2013.
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 agreements 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 entered into between Canada and the Republic of Honduras.
Part 3 of the enactment contains coordinating amendments and the coming into force provision.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Nobody is talking about wanting the Wheat Board back, Mr. Speaker.

However, what we are saying is that the minister failed to understand the total supply chain, and he ultimately has the responsibility for the mess in western Canada at the moment.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will get back to the topic at hand, which is the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. It is a great pleasure to rise in the House to speak to the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. I will spend a few minutes talking about the concrete benefits this trade agreement would provide to Canadian businesses exporting to Honduras.

The NDP trade critic has criticized this agreement by saying that trade with Honduras is insignificant and that the government is exaggerating its benefits to Canadians. In 2013, Canada exported more than $45 million worth of merchandise to Honduras. This fact serves to further highlight why this agreement is so important for Canadian workers, producers, processors, manufacturers and exporters. What that member fails to realize is that every dollar of our exports directly supports our economy and Canadian jobs, and that is in no way insignificant.

During 13 long years in office, the Liberals signed only three trade agreements, but in eight years, our Conservative government has concluded agreements with 38 countries, and we are negotiating many more, including the trans-Pacific partnership.

That is why today I would like to share with this House the impact this agreement would have on Canadian companies and exporters.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is a high-quality, comprehensive agreement that would bring tremendous benefit to our economy. A free trade agreement with Honduras would give Canadian exporters, investors, and service providers preferential access to a dynamic and fast-growing economy with recorded GDP growth of 3.5% in 2013.

Once implemented, the agreement would improve market access for Canadian exports in the Honduras market by lowering trade barriers. The elimination of tariffs would create tremendous opportunities for increasing Canadian exports to Honduras.

Once the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement was in place, Honduras would eliminate tariffs on over 68.4% of all Canadian goods and services. The remaining tariffs would be phased out over five to 15 years. This is significant, considering that Canadian exports of non-agricultural products are currently facing tariff peaks of up to 15% in Honduras.

The elimination of the vast majority of tariffs would benefit Canadian workers from coast to coast to coast, including producers of forest products, pharmaceuticals, machinery, automotive parts, information and communications technology, and aerospace products.

Let us look at the impact of the agreement on some of the specific sectors of our economy. For Canada, the industrial machinery sector represents an important sector for exports to Honduras. In 2013, Canada exported $4.3 million worth of merchandise to Honduras. The Honduran market could be of interest for companies located throughout Canada, from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island, including Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec.

In 2013, Canada's top exports in this sector included furnaces and ovens, refrigerating equipment, pumps, and machinery parts. The elimination of Honduran tariffs of up to 15% under this agreement could open up new export opportunities.

Companies producing plastics and chemical products are employing Canadians throughout our country. Companies presently in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan are already exporting Canadian products to Honduras.

In 2013, Canada exported $6.6 million worth of chemical products and almost $2.6 million worth of plastics to Honduras. With tariffs of up to 15%, it is clear that the complete elimination of Honduran tariffs in these two sectors could allow Canadian companies to export a wider range of products, such as paints, varnishes, plastic tubing, and plastic packaging products.

Canada is an important manufacturer and exporter of high-quality wood and pulp and paper products worldwide. We are blessed with a vast and abundant forest resource, and our workers, producers, and manufacturers in provinces such as Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta, and Nova Scotia possess the technical expertise and ingenuity to transform this natural resource into value-added products. In 2013, Canada exported $1.5 million worth of forest products to Honduras. The elimination of all tariffs by Honduras of up to 15% in this sector could unleash important gains for Canadian forest products.

Canada has one of the world's most valuable commercial fishing industries. While Canadian exports of fish and seafood to Honduras have historically been low, Honduras' high tariffs of up to 15% on these products are certainly a factor that has contributed to this situation. The complete elimination of Honduran tariffs on fish and seafood under the agreement would allow Canadian fishers and fish and seafood producers from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, for instance, to fully capture all the export opportunities the Honduran market has to offer.

If Canadian businesses have been able to sell their products to Honduras despite these tariffs, imagine how much more successful they will be when their products gain preferential access. It is undeniable that by creating new export opportunities in these sectors, this agreement will help foster greater economic growth.

There are many more examples I could cite, but the fundamental point is that the tariff elimination driven by this agreement would create the potential for increased Canadian exports to Honduras, and that is good for all Canadians. Pursuing new trade opportunities is a win-win for Canada and its trading partners. Canadians benefit from the jobs, prosperity, and consumer benefits that come from increased trade, and that is why it should not come as a surprise to the members of the House that Canadian companies are in support of this agreement.

Throughout the negotiations, government officials consulted with the private sector, and the message was consistent and clear: Canadian companies want this deal. If Canadian companies are telling us that they want their government to implement this agreement, why would we, as elected officials, deny them these benefits? Canadians value the real and tangible benefits that trade brings to our country, and that is why Canadian companies support our government's efforts to forge new trade opportunities around the world.

Closer economic integration with Honduras promises to deliver further gains for Canadian exporters, investors, consumers, and the economy as a whole. For all these reasons, I ask all hon. members to support the implementation of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as much as I am enjoying this conversation with my colleague through you, I would like us to come back to reality.

Members are exaggerating the economic benefits of this bill on a free trade agreement with Honduras, and I will leave it to the subject matter experts to talk more about that.

I am concerned about the human rights aspect of this free trade agreement. According to Human Rights Watch, Honduras suffers from rampant crime and impunity for human rights abuses. The murder rate, which has risen consistently over the last decade, was the highest in the world in 2013. Perpetrators of killings and other violent crimes are rarely brought to justice. The institutions responsible for providing public security continue to prove largely ineffective and remain marred by corruption and abuse, while efforts to reform them have made little progress.

What can my colleague tell Human Rights Watch, which is concerned about the human rights situation in Honduras?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been to Honduras and have seen the proud people who live in that country. All they want is a chance to sell their goods outside of Honduras. We are going to give them that opportunity from the perspective of a free trade agreement. We believe in engagement as opposed to isolation. When a country is isolated, it ends up having internal rifts. We believe that if we can include Honduras in an opportunity for free trade with Canada, it will be good for both countries.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I like about this debate is that there is a different way of dealing with trade when it comes to the Liberals, Conservatives, and New Democrats. New Democrats have never stood in the House of Commons and supported or voted in favour of a free trade agreement. On the other hand, the Conservatives seem to think that the only way to get trade is through free trade agreements.

We look at free trade agreements as positive and as a step forward, but we also recognize how important it is to continue to look at ways we can build on the trade we currently have. Prime Minister Chrétien, as an example I cited earlier, had the team Canada approach, with the hundreds of millions of dollars in trade generated because of it. It was not a trade agreement; it was a promotion of international trade, where Canada benefited.

Why does the member believe Canada today has a trade deficit? When the Conservatives took over the reins of power, the Liberals had given them a strong, healthy trade surplus.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but I do not know what it has to do with Canada and Honduras. I do know that during the Liberals' tenure in power, they only did three trade agreements. We still continue to fix those, so we will not be taking any lessons from the Liberals.

The reality is that this is a good agreement for both Canada and Honduras. It would boost economic prosperity in our country, and it would provide the Hondurans with an opportunity to export to Canada.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his very thoughtful presentation with respect to trade agreements. Picking up on one of the points the Liberal member just made, to put the NDP position in context, it is only fair to point out that the NDP has almost a perfect record over the last 50 years of opposing all trade agreements. To be fair, New Democrats always say that they like trade agreements, but all the ones that have been presented, they have had problems with.

They have almost a perfect record on this, going back to the auto pact, which was a huge benefit to southern Ontario. It was NDP members in the House of Commons and their leader who were calling it into question. I do not have to tell members how vociferous they were in fighting the U.S. free trade agreement, NAFTA, and on and on.

I know that the hon. member pointed out the NDP criticism with respect to this, but I think we have to put it in the context of where the NDP has been for the last 50 years, which is basically to oppose all trade agreements. Would the member agree?

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister could not have put it more eloquently. I completely agree with him that the NDP members for some reason do not quite grasp the fact that free trade agreements are a great opportunity, not only for Canadians but for other countries as well.

Our government has signed 38 free trade agreements since we have taken power, and we will continue to move forward with others. I hope the NDP will get on board and recognize the importance of free trade agreements.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There are three fundamentally important criteria for assessing the merits of trade agreements.

First, does the proposed partner respect democracy, human rights, adequate labour and environmental standards, and Canadian values? If there are challenges in these regards, is the partner on a positive trajectory toward these goals?

Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

The proposed free trade agreement with Honduras clearly fails this test. Honduras is a country with undemocratic practices, a corrupt government, weak institutions and a record of human rights abuses. It has low standards and insignificant strategic value.

Honduras is a very poor country with a history of repressive, undemocratic politics and a seriously flawed human rights record. Leftist president Manuel Zelaya's democratically elected government was toppled by a military coup in 2009. Since then, international observers have severely criticized the government's actions and the elections because they fail to meet acceptable democratic standards.

I recently received some information from a friend on Vancouver Island as a response to an op-ed that I had written on the Canada–Honduras trade agreement. He had just conducted a development and peace workshop about Honduras, and had spent six weeks in northern Honduras last fall on a personal accompaniment project with Father Melo Moreno, S.J., the director of an independent radio station and a human rights centre called ERIC.

This is what he wrote me when referring to Father Melo:

Either job puts him at the front of the firing squad and he lives with death threats and intimidation. As well some of his workers have received death threats. Twice I accompanied Melo to a prison near La Ceiba to visit a political prisoner—a peasant farmer who has been in jail for almost 6 years but a leader of a campesino community.

....Canada is very much present in Honduras through mining companies and through the sweatshops...which are there because labour laws and environmental protection laws are weak or non-existent thanks to the Free trade agreement conditions that Canada imposed.

I would like to read again from a paper entitled “Faith in Action: Padra Melo”, written by a woman by the name of Molly Holden. It says:

On October 9, Rev. Ismael Moreno Coto, S.J. popularly known as “Padre Melo” spoke to a group of Boston College students and faculty on the violence and ongoing human rights violations in Honduras, currently the 'murder Capital of the world'. His presentation, the Price of Truth: Human rights in Honduras since the Coup, addressed the struggles and successes of building a fair and inclusive society. In his testimony before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Committee of the US Congress in 2012, Padre Melo asked members of the Committee how freedom of expression could 'be defended in a country like Honduras where the biggest violators of the this fundamental freedom are the friends and partners of a “democracy” backed by the policies and agencies of the U.S. government?' Padre Melo stated that around 80% of cocaine imported to the United States comes through Honduras by way of Colombia. However, U.S. attempts to combat drug trafficking in Honduras (and elsewhere in Latin America) place power and money in the hands of the Honduran military officials and politicians who are deeply tied to the drug lords. In other words, drug traffickers, weakening the rule of law and increasing violence, control the Honduran government at all levels.

I would like to finish by sharing an article entitled “Canada profiting off the backs of Honduras' poor”, by the Troy Media publication columnist, Mark Taliano, who was part of a Canadian delegation that went to Honduras to observe elections. The article states:

In March of 2007, Gildan Activewear Inc., a Montreal-based textile manufacturer, decided to leave Canada for sunnier climes.

The company laid off hundreds of Canadian workers, and resettled where business was good: Honduras. The end result? Canada lost jobs and Honduras' asymmetrical, toxic economy, was further entrenched.

Honduran sweatshop workers are basically commodities and their status will likely remain unchanged, or get worse. The 2009 coup that removed the democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya was condemned internationally (even U.S. resident Obama declared it illegal), and the new regime dismantled or corrupted institutions that might be of benefit to humans (including constitutional judges), and created a heavily militarized and murderous environment. “Since 2010,”reported Raul Burbano, delegation leader of election observers from Canada, “there have been more than 200 politically motivated killings.”

In the meantime, Canada's Gildan profits from the misery. Gildan pays no taxes in Honduras, and the workforce (primarily women) is easily exploited. Unions and collective bargaining are not allowed and human rights are not a concern.

This is who we are dealing with in the free trade agreement.

It continues:

The Collective Of Honduran Women...a brave voice for freedom in Honduras, comprehensively documents the exploitation of workers. Spokespeople told us:

1) Workers produce T-shirts from about 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. four days a week, at jobs that are physically repetitive. Repetitive strain injuries are common, proper care is elusive, and injured workers are easily discarded.

Further, it states:

At Gildan, inspectors aren't allowed in to the plant, and workers are fired (or worse) if they try to organize unions.

2) One former worker explained that she would be given a cortisone shot to treat her calcified tendinitis, and then sent immediately back to work.

Later, it states:

It's no surprise then, that by age 25, chronic work injuries, coupled with poor medical treatment, often prevent workers from performing their fast-paced tasks.

Worse still, once a worker leaves Gildan, she is likely to have irreversible health problems which preclude her from finding alternate employment. Some women need crutches to walk; others can't hold their babies or do housework. Savage poverty imposes itself on their already precarious existences, and decimated social institutions perpetuate the misery.

Healthcare, schooling, and other social/public institutions are abysmal, and only those (few) with money get adequate service.

What are the drivers behind such misery?

Those who control the levels of power in Honduras are governed by interests that do not include the common good, consequently, society and the economy have been spirally downward since the coup.

Prior to the 2009 military coup, freedom and democracy were making inroads into the malaise, but now the power structure looks something like this:

At the top of this asymmetrical and entirely dysfunctional political economy are transnational corporations, including banks. They are seamlessly aligned with governments in Canada and the U.S. They tacitly, if not overtly, drive foreign policy decisions.

On the ground in Honduras looms the invisible hand of the U.S. military, viewed by locals as an “occupying force”, that arguably enables destabilization—drug trafficking has increased since the coup—and is allied with the corrupt dictator Juan Orlando Hernandez.

Locally, the nexus of powerful polities includes narco gangs, the police, the military, the para-police...and rich oligarch....

Corruption throughout society is so pervasive that people trying to make a living often have to pay extortion money not only too gangs, but also to the police.

Now, with a growing number of U.S. military bases and the murderous dictatorship of Juan Orlando Hernandez solidified, profits are basically guaranteed for transnational corporations.

As Canadians, we need to continue asking important questions. For example,

“Why are these “Free Trade” Agreements, such as the Canada-Honduras Free Trade Agreement, so secret?” and “Why have we chosen to profit from the misery of others?”

Once we get some answers, we might choose to pay a couple dollars more for our next T-shirt.—

This is who we are dealing with. This is the country we are trying to do a free trade agreement with.

By the way, in these agreements, we have provisions allowing companies to sue governments, similar to chapter 11 in NAFTA, if they are not treated to their liking. Theoretically, a Canadian company perpetuating injustices in Honduras could actually sue the Honduran government if it were not happy with the policies of that government.

Why are we signing an agreement with a country with this record of human rights abuse and that even allows our companies to continue this abuse in their country?

I think that is the question we have to answer here today before we talk about free trade with a country like Honduras.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the real concern that we on this side of the House have is not with this agreement, nor the CETA agreement, but just with the New Democratic Party's view of trade in general and its spectre that trade is bad for our country, despite two million jobs being attributable to NAFTA, which the NDP opposed. That member, in his own release on the European trade agreement, said that it would put the Canadian way of life under threat. Whether it is small trade agreements or large, the NDP's philosophical opposition to trade is that it is holding back our economy.

If that member is not in favour of even a huge agreement like CETA, is he not in favour of trade at all?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my hon. colleague is reading the stuff I have put out. That is excellent, and I thank him for that.

We have to look at trade agreements as benefiting our country first and foremost, and second, to look at what effect they will have on the countries we deal with. Here we are talking specifically about what is happening in Honduras, but I will go a bit further since my colleague mentioned CETA.

If someone were to come from another planet and say there are trade agreements being signed by this country that allow foreign corporations to sue our federal government so that our tax dollars go to fight these lawsuits or pay out to these corporations, we would think these were ludicrous. We have had companies suing our federal government, using our taxpayers' dollars, because they were not happy with our environmental laws or with what a provincial or municipal government was doing. Australia and other countries are removing provisions that something like Chapter 11.

If we include provisions in trade agreements that go against the best interests of our country, then we are bordering close to treason.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I asked a question of the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and I was really interested in his response. I wonder if that member concurs with the response by his colleague. Basically, I asked him if he were not in favour of having a free trade agreement with Honduras because of humanitarian concerns, would he not apply that same principle to trade in general? That is the essence of the question I asked him. The member responded by saying that if we use the same criteria for some of the countries we trade with, and with whom we do not have free trade agreements, then why are we trading with them?

Does that member agree with his NDP colleague?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, do we apply the same criteria to every country that we deal with? There is trade and then there is free trade. Canada has been a trading nation for many years. We continue to trade with some countries that are dictatorships and countries that violate human rights. But there is the idea of free trade.

When we sign a free trade agreement, there should be certain criteria. Regardless of the country, if it does not meet the criteria of a free trade agreement, then we should not sign an agreement with it. In spite of my objections to CETA, for example, Europe meets the criteria that we have established for free trade, as does South Korea, in regard to human rights. There is free trade, which is preferential trade, and there is trade, which we have with the Soviet Union and other countries.

I am not sure if that answered my colleague's question but that is my comment.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like me, members are concerned that we would be doing a trade deal with a country that is now the murder capital of the world. Since the coup, journalists, trade union workers, members of the clergy, anyone who is speaking out for justice and democracy is at risk of being murdered with no effort being made by the state to bring the murderers to justice. That means that this trade deal would sanction a government that is behaving in ways that we should not encourage.

Does my hon. colleague think there is still time to get the current administration to rethink this trade deal?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there always has to be time and we always have to hope.

Yes, I believe that the government could look at this agreement and say that it would give them some time to clean up these violations. We could send in a team to observe what is going on, have a look at our companies that are there, and make sure that they are observing the laws of Honduras. If all of that was put in place, then the government could sign on the dotted line.

That would be the reasonable thing to do. It would respect the people of Honduras and go against the human rights violations that are currently in place.