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.

Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this question of privilege about closure.

I am rising at my first opportunity on this question of privilege, given that between the Speech from the Throne in October and when we adjourned June 20, there had been 21 occasions on which closure of debate occurred, and I maintain that the exercise of my rights and the rights of my colleagues in this place have been obstructed, undermined and impeded by the unprecedented use of time allocations in the second session of the 41st Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, in presenting this fairly legal argument to you, I propose to leave out page numbers and citations because I have prepared a written version of this for your office and I hope that will be acceptable to you, that I skip page numbers in this presentation. Hansard may not have the numbers of the debates, but I hope there is enough context so people can find them.

I belive this excessive use of what is often called “guillotine measures” is a violation of the rights of all members of Parliament, but I would like to stress that there is a disproportionate impact on members such as me who are within either smaller parties, that is less than 12 members, or who sit actually as independents, because in the roster of recognizing people in their speaker slot, quite often those of us in the smaller parties or independents simply never get to speak to the bills at all.

My question, Mr. Speaker, bears directly on what your predecessor said in this place on April 27, 2010. He said, “...the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation”.

In the autumn of 2011, in a ruling concerning the member for Mount Royal, Mr. Speaker, you yourself said that to constitute a prima facie case in regard to matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation, you need to “...assess whether or not the member's ability to fulfill his parliamentary [activities] has been undermined”. At that moment in the same Debates, you had the occasion to reflect on “...the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members,...” and you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

I now have occasion to turn to other words that will guide us in this matter. From the Supreme Court of Canada in the Vaid decision, in the words of Mr. Justice Binnie, speaking for the court, he outlined the scope of parliamentary responsibility and parliamentary privilege for the management of employees and said, “Parliamentary privilege is defined by the degree of autonomy necessary to perform Parliament’s constitutional function”. He went on to say at paragraph 41 of that Supreme Court of Canada judgment:

Similarly, Maingot defines privilege in part as “the necessary immunity that the law provides for Members of Parliament, and for Members of the legislatures of each of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do their legislative work”.

I would repeat and emphasize that, because although the Vaid decision was on a different fact set, Mr. Justice Binnie spoke to our core responsibility as parliamentarians when he said that we must be able, as legislators, to do our legislative work.

Mr. Justice Binnie continued in the Vaid decision to say:

To the question “necessary in relation to what?”, therefore, the answer is necessary to protect legislators in the discharge of their legislative and deliberative functions, and the legislative assembly’s work in holding the government to account for the conduct of the country’s business. To the same effect, see R. Marleau and C. Montpetit...where privilege is defined as “the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfill their functions”.

Mr. Justice Binnie went on to find further references in support of these principles from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada.

These are fundamental points. The purpose of us being here as parliamentarians is to hold the government to account. It is obvious that no legislative assembly would be able to discharge its duties with efficiency or to assure its independence and dignity unless it had adequate powers to protect itself, its members, and its officials in the exercise of these functions.

Finally, Mr. Justice Binnie—again, for the court—said at paragraph 62, on the subject of parliamentary functions in ruling that some employees would be covered by privilege, that coverage existed only if a connection were established between the category of employees and the exercise by the House of its functions as a legislative and deliberative body, including its role in holding the government to account.

As I said earlier, this approach was supported by your immediate predecessor. In a December 10, 2009 ruling, the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Peter Milliken, said that one of his principle duties was to safeguard the rights and privileges of members, and of the House, including the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions, which is an indisputable privilege, and in fact an obligation.

It is therefore a fundamental principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy that the most important role of members of Parliament, and in fact a constitutional right and responsibility for us as members, is to hold the government to account.

The events in this House that we witnessed before we adjourned on June 20, 2014, clearly demonstrate that the House and its members have been deprived of fulfilling constitutional rights, our privilege, and our obligation to hold the government to account, because of the imposition of intemperate and unrestrained guillotine measures in reference to a number of bills. Over 21 times, closure has been used.

It is only in the interest of time that I am going to read out the numbers of the bills and not their full description. Bill C-2, Bill C-4, Bill C-6, Bill C-7, Bill C-13, Bill C-18, Bill C-20, Bill C-22, Bill C-23, Bill C-24, Bill C-25, Bill C-27, Bill C-31, Bill C-32, Bill C-33, and Bill C-36 were all instances where closure of debate was used.

In many of the instances I just read out, and in the written argument I have presented, closure of debate occurred at second reading, again at report stage, and again at third reading. The limitation of debate was extreme.

A close examination of the guillotine measures imposed by the government demonstrate that the citizens of Canada have been unable to have their elected representatives adequately debate the various and complex issues central to these bills in order to hold the government to account. Members of Parliament have been deprived and prevented from adequately debating these measures, through 21 separate motions for time allocation in this session alone. It undermines our ability to perform our parliamentary duties.

In particular, I want to again highlight the effect that the guillotine motions have on my ability as a representative of a smaller party, the Green Party. We do not have 12 seats in the House as yet, and as a result we are in the last roster to be recognized once all other parties have spoken numerous times. Quite often, there is not an opportunity for members in my position, nor for independent members of Parliament, to be able to properly represent our constituents.

Again, I should not have to repeat this. Certainly you, Mr. Speaker, are aware that in protecting our rights, as you must as Speaker, that in this place we are all equals, regardless of how large our parties are. As voters in Canada are all equal, so too do I, as a member of Parliament, have an equal right and responsibility to represent the concerns of my constituents in this place, which are equal to any other member in this place.

As speaking time that is allotted to members of small parties and independents is placed late in the debates, we quite often are not able to address these measures in the House. This would be fair if we always reached the point in the debate where independents were recognized, but that does not happen with closure of debates. My constituents are deprived of their right to have their concerns adequately voiced in the House.

Political parties are not even referenced in our constitution, and I regard the excessive power of political parties over processes in this place, in general, to deprive constituents of equal representation in the House of Commons. However, under the circumstances, the additional closure on debate particularly disadvantages those constituents whose members of Parliament are not with one of the larger parties.

Mr. Speaker, in the autumn of 2011, in your ruling considering the member for Mount Royal and his question of privilege, you said that one of your responsibilities that you take very seriously is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded. The principal right of the House and its members, and their privilege, is to hold the government to account. In fact, it is an obligation, according to your immediate predecessor.

In order to hold the government to account, we require the ability and the freedom to speak in the House without being trammelled and without measures that undermine the member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary function. As a British joint committee report pointed out, without this protection, members would be handicapped in performing their parliamentary duty, and the authority of Parliament itself in confronting the executive and as a forum for expressing the anxieties of citizens would be correspondingly diminished.

To hold the government to account is the raison d'être of Parliament. It is not only a right and privilege of members and of this House, but a duty of Parliament and its members to hold the government to account for the conduct of the nation's business. Holding the government to account is the essence of why we are here. It is a constitutional function. In the words of the marketers, it is “job one”.

Our constitutional duty requires us to exercise our right and privilege, to study legislation, and to hold the government to account by means of raising a question of privilege. This privilege has been denied to us because of the consistent and immoderate use of the guillotine in regard to 21 instances of time allocation, in this session alone.

This use of time allocation, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is unprecedented in the history of Canada, and infringes on your duty as Speaker to protect our rights and privileges as members. As you have said many times, that is your responsibility and you take it very seriously. However, these closure motions undermine your role and your duty to protect us. Therefore, it diminishes the role of Speaker, as honoured from time immemorial.

In fact, you expressed it, Mr. Speaker, in debates in the autumn of 2011, at page 4396, when you had occasion to reflect on “the Chair's primordial concern for the preservation of the privileges of all members..”, and when you added, “As your Speaker, one of my principal responsibilities is to ensure that the rights and privileges of members are safeguarded, and this is a responsibility I take very seriously”.

Denying the members' rights and privileges to hold the government to account is an unacceptable and unparliamentary diminishment of both the raison d'être of Parliament and of the Speaker's function and role in protecting the privileges of all members of this House.

In conclusion, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the intemperate and unrestrained use of time allocation by this government constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege of all members of this House, especially those who are independents or, such as myself, representatives of one of the parties with fewer than 12 members.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your consideration in this matter. I hope you will find in favour of this question of privilege, that this is a prima facie breach of the privileges and rights of all members.

International Trade

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, our government continues to advance the most ambitious pro-trade plan in Canadian history. It is a plan that will create jobs and economic opportunities for hard-working Canadians.

Last week the Minister of International Trade tabled the text of the Canada-Korea Free Trade Agreement in the House. It is a landmark agreement that gives Canadian businesses access to an important Asian market.

This evening we will also see Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, receive royal assent. The NDP voted against this free trade agreement every step of the way. That is no surprise. It has voted against all free trade agreements and there is no sign that it will be stopping that trend any time soon.

I am proud of our government's record on trade. We have reached agreements with 38 countries; over 13 years, the Liberals reached agreements with just three countries. Maybe they think that trade agreements just sign themselves.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another opportunity to respond to the Thursday question from the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

I know how proud he claims to be about showing up to work. In fact, though, the New Democrats seem to have a spotty record on that. Last evening, that very member rose to speak to our government's bill to protect our communities and exploited persons—that is Bill C-36—and after one whole minute he moved to adjourn the House. He said we should all go home. Maybe that is the parliamentary equivalent of taking one's ball and wanting to go home when one is unhappy with how things are going in another meeting.

In any event, we did all dutifully troop into the House to vote on that at 6 p.m. However, what was very revealing was that only 61 of those 98 New Democrats stood in their places to vote. A few of them were missing their shifts, oddly. We did not find that on the Conservative side. In fact, we just had two votes in the House, and the number of New Democrats who were not standing in their places was very similar to that.

Therefore, when I ask myself who is not showing up for work, I can say it is not the Conservatives not showing up; it is, in fact, the New Democrats.

However, following the popular acclaim of last week's Thursday statement, I would like to recap what we have actually accomplished in the House since last week in terms of the legislative agenda.

Bill C-37, the riding name change act, 2014, which was compiled and assembled through the input of all parties, was introduced and adopted at all stages.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan, act no. 1, was adopted at both report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was concurred in at report stage.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was passed at third reading. Of course, the NDP tried to slow down its passage, but Conservatives were able to get around those efforts, as I am sure the 50 New Democrats on vigil in the House last night fondly appreciate, and we were able to extend our hours because there were, again, not even 50 New Democrats here in the House to stand in their places to block that debate as they wanted to. So we did finish the Canada-Honduras bill that night, and were able to vote on it.

The government's spending proposals for the year were adopted by the House, and two bills to give these plans effect, Bill C-38 and BillC-39, were each passed at all stages.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, was reported back from committee, and several other reports from committees were also tabled. As I understand, we will see Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, reported back from the health committee in short order.

Finally, this morning we virtually unanimously passed a motion to reappoint Mary Dawson as our Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Sadly, though, the New Democrats did not heed my call last week to let Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, pass at second reading. We were treated, sadly, to only more words and no deeds from the NDP.

Turning to the business ahead, I am currently anticipating the following debates. This afternoon and tonight, we will finish the debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, at second reading. That will be followed by third reading of Bill C-24 and second reading of Bill C-35, Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law).

Tomorrow morning, we will debate Bill C-24, if necessary, and Bill C-18, Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading. After question period, we will get back to Bill C-32, and give the NDP one more chance to send the victims bill of rights to committee.

The highlight of Monday is going to be the report stage of Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act. Tuesday’s feature debate will be Bill C-2, the Respect for Communities Act, at second reading. Wednesday will see us finish third reading, I hope, of Bill C-6. During the additional time available those days—in addition to Thursday and Friday of next week—I will schedule any unfinished debates on Bill C-18, Bill C-32 and Bill C-35.

I will also try to schedule debates on Bill C-22 and Bill C-17, as well as other bills, such as Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-12, the Drug-free Prisons Act, at second reading; Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill S-2, Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-3, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; and Bill S-4, the Digital Privacy Act—which I understand we will receive shortly from the other place—at second reading.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, June 9, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-20.

The House resumed from June 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, 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, be read the third time and passed.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-20. I would like to thank my colleagues for being here and for allowing me to speak to this very important issue.

Incidentally, I would like to commend the member for Richmond Hill. He actually asked a few questions tonight. He took part in the debate, although I did not hear him speak. I would have liked to hear his take on things in order to ask him questions. It is all well and good to ask questions, but I would remind him that he is a government MP. As such, he could answer questions as well. Unfortunately, we have not heard his story. More accurately, his story seems to have evolved somewhat over the course of the evening.

I have here the Hansard from March 5, 2012. I was an MP. On page 892, we were talking about Bill C-23, 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. I invite my colleague to read it. I cannot read all of the names that are included because we are not allowed to name members who are present, but the NDP was there and voted in favour of the bill. I would also invite the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to read this and take note of it, because I hear time and time again that the NDP has never supported a free trade agreement. However, it is here, in black and white.

Even though we keep explaining it to the Conservatives, it seems they do not understand. We keep saying that when the government enters into its free trade agreements, it is not negotiating them well and it is not doing a good job choosing its partners. The objective is clear: move on to another scandal, talk about something other than the scandals and the corruption on that side. The government is signing all kinds of free trade agreements and is very proud of that fact. However, we must look at the facts. I remember talking about the free trade agreement with Panama. In that case, there were problems with tax evasion. In this case, with Honduras, there are human rights issues.

We are hearing rather peculiar questions from the other side. The Conservatives appear to be saying that human rights may not be that important after all, which means that they can be pushed aside. Of course, when the Conservatives go back to their ridings and talk with their constituents, they claim to support human rights, but when push comes to shove, during negotiations and discussions with a partner, they simply push these rights aside. I want to stress how important it is to consider human rights during negotiations. According to the Conservatives and the Liberals, once we sign a free trade agreement, the market will open up and everyone will be happy. They mean, of course, that everyone will be rich and happy.

This is not what happens in real life. I would like to remind my colleagues opposite of the agreement Canada signed with Colombia. Reports were produced afterwards. The Conservatives argue that by signing a free trade agreement, we are helping people in the other country. We have seen that the agreement with Colombia did not help at all, just the opposite, in fact.

What we are saying is that when the Conservatives go negotiating agreements left and right, they have to learn from their mistakes. They are poor administrators. They do not know how to negotiate agreements properly, and that is why those of us on this side of the House are opposed to those agreements. We have given them solutions and suggestions. We have made proposals and put forward amendments. Since they have a majority, they have always rejected our ideas.

It is important to me to be here tonight, to talk to them and tell them what they can do because more free trade agreements, such as the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, are on the way.

That is still under negotiation. Unfortunately, those of us on this side of the House do not have much information because the government is very secretive and lacks transparency, as usual. I suggest that my colleagues take a look at what happens in the United States. Their politicians have access to agreements and can read them. This is a time when they can negotiate something in return for the agreement.

One good example is Vietnam. I talked about this at second reading. Vietnam is part of the trans-Pacific partnership. The U.S. House of Representatives is putting pressure on its negotiators to ensure that they demand improvements in the realm of human rights and workers' rights in Vietnam before signing the agreement. That is meaningful action.

This should be a lesson to the Conservatives as well as the Liberals. We need to agree that a free trade agreement with Honduras is technically not that significant. It will not do a great deal for Canada as a trading partner. That is how they see it in the United States. They give a country a free trade agreement to help it improve its human rights record.

No one in this House can say that respect for human rights is not an issue in Honduras. Clearly, when a government rises to power after a coup and when journalists and opposition politicians are murdered, we know there are problems. Not once have I heard today, from either the Conservatives or the Liberals, that they disagree with what the NDP has said. They agree with us that there are problems in Honduras. However, the response of the Liberals and the Conservatives to these problems is to throw the dice and hope it all works out.

In contrast, the NDP says that we should take the lead. We are in a position to negotiate and demand change. It was for that reason that I entered politics. I wanted to change things. Quite frankly, I know that some of our Conservative colleagues also want to change things for the better. Unfortunately, I have not heard much from them to this point. I heard some questions, but I did not hear them defending their position.

I would like to have a debate with the Conservatives to know exactly how they think that signing this agreement will improve the plight of Hondurans and help improve respect for human rights.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that question has many elements.

I would have liked my Conservative colleagues to ask me some questions. I would have been pleased to hear what they had to say about this. However, they wanted to continue the debate until the bill is disposed of. However long it takes, I will defend human rights around the world at any hour of the day on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives are not showing up for work. We saw that this evening. Not one Conservative spoke to Bill C-24, which we debated a little earlier. As far as Bill C-20 is concerned, not one Conservative will defend their bill.

It is unfortunate, because I would have liked to have a debate of ideas on Bill C-20, but clearly, when the Conservatives adopted the motion to extend sitting hours until midnight, it was a licence for laziness. We see that today. The Conservatives are barely asking any questions, and they do not have the nerve to defend their bills. Then they will go back to their ridings, claiming that they worked late and hard and saying that they passed many bills. In fact, they did nothing. So far, they have missed almost 70 opportunities to speak and stand up for their constituents.

I would be disappointed if I lived in a Conservative riding and saw my MP unable to speak in the House and defend my interests. I would really be very disappointed for that and many other reasons.

Obviously, the Liberals, who are complacent about this bill—

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke to defend human rights around the world but, today especially, to discuss the implications of Bill C-20, the trade agreement with Honduras.

As we know, many statistics have been provided by various organizations on what is happening in Honduras. I will start my speech by presenting these statistics, which are quite alarming. I will then talk some more about whether or not we need more substantial economic ties with Honduras.

According to the 2012 democracy index published by the Economist Intelligence Unit, Honduras is now ranked 85th out of 167 countries, whereas it was ranked 65th in 2008. Today, Honduras is considered as a hybrid regime whereas it was previously considered to be an imperfect democracy. Therefore, conditions in Honduras have worsened. Independent observers have noted an intensification of violence and higher activity by organized crime and gangs associated with illegal drug trafficking. Countries such as Honduras and other Central American countries are transit hubs for drugs from South America on their way to Mexico and the United States.

According to the U.S. State Department, approximately 79% of cocaine shipments from South America end up in Honduras.

I will continue because there are many more statistics about this country.

According to The Economist, the countries in the northern triangle of Central America, including Honduras, form what is now the most violent region on earth.

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, there were 92 murders for every 100,000 inhabitants in Honduras in 2011, making it the most violent country in Latin America.

According to the United Nations, Honduras is also widely considered as the murder capital of the world with a record number of 7,172 homicides in 2012.

Since the 2009 coup, violence and repression have grown as never before. In 2013, there were on average 10 massacres per month, according to InSight Crime, a website dedicated to investigations that defines “massacre” as the murder of at least three people at the same time. In the past four years, less than 20% of homicides were investigated, and even fewer cases were prosecuted.

According to the Americas Policy Group, the considerable impunity masks political violence.

Since 2010, there have been more than 200 politically motivated murders. Honduras is now considered to be one of the most dangerous places on earth for journalists.

According to a 2013 Human Rights Watch report, Honduras is the country with the highest rate of journalists killed per capita. Twenty-three journalists were killed there in the past three years alone.

According to the 2014 report by PEN International, at least 34 journalists have been killed since the coup in 2009, and there is almost complete impunity for the perpetrators.

In June 2013, 24 U.S. senators signed a letter expressing concern about the human rights situation in Honduras and requested that Secretary of State John Kerry make every effort possible to help ensure that the Honduran November 2013 elections were free, fair and peaceful.

A total of 94 members of congress called on the U.S. State Department to halt all military aid to Honduras in light of its violent repression.

The leading Honduran human rights group has revealed that at least 16 activists and candidates for the main opposition party were assassinated since June 2012, and 15 more have been attacked.

What is more, on August 25, 2013, three Tolupan indigenous leaders were shot and killed. There are extensive documented cases of police corruption. Between January 2011 and November 2012 alone, the police carried out 149 summary executions. The perpetrators of these crimes enjoy almost complete impunity.

According to Honduran government statistics released by PEN International, police investigate less than 1% of crimes in Honduras. Imagine if that were the case in Canada.

I also consulted Amnesty International's website; the organization releases reports almost every month. Here are some headlines: “Honduras: Children's rights defender beaten, detained”, published May 12, 2014; “Honduran media worker murdered at his home”, published April 17, 2014; “Honduras: Further information: Brother of killed journalist at risk”, published March 4, 2014; “Honduras: Sex workers targeted and killed in Honduras”, published January 10, 2014; “Honduras: Honduran journalist shot and killed”, published in December 2013.

Nearly every month Amnesty International publishes reports about human rights violations in Honduras. We are not inventing these statistics. These facts have been documented; they are clear. This is real. The Canadian government says it wants closer trade ties with a country that the international community considers to be a thug when it comes to its own citizens' rights, democratic rights that everyone around the globe should have.

Everyone knows that we are going to oppose Bill C-20 for a number of reasons. I will speak more about those reasons later in my speech. However, it is quite clear why I will be opposing Bill C-20, which is designed to strengthen economic and trade ties with Honduras.

That country is currently considered one of the worst in the world in terms of human rights violations. Despite that, police, authorities and all those involved are complacent and let things slide. I do not understand why the government wants to send the international community the message that we will do business with such an irresponsible and rogue country.

What is more, the Canadian government is opting to do the exact opposite of other countries. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, who I am sure is listening closely to what I am saying, was a staunch advocate for Ukraine, and I hope he still is today. When certain regions of the country were invaded by Russia, he came to Ukraine's defence. Standing alongside the Prime Minister, he announced economic and political sanctions against Russia for its actions in Ukraine. That was the right thing to do.

Every MP here understands the importance of those kinds of gestures on the international political scene. As a country with a relatively significant role in international relations, we must opt for such measures. It has an important impact on international policy.

Economic sanctions were also imposed in other cases. Earlier, we mentioned Iran as a country on which we imposed economic and political sanctions. In the past, and perhaps today also, we talked about sanctions against North Korea. That is also a very oppressive and undemocratic regime. In such cases, Canada sometimes decides to impose economic and political sanctions. However, when we are dealing with Honduras, a country with one of the worst human rights records, there is no problem. Canada signs an economic and trade agreement as if nothing was happening in that country and everything was fine.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said we have been talking about it for years. He was Minister of International Trade years ago, and we have been talking about this issue for a long time. I said at the beginning that the 2009 coup changed a lot of things in Honduras. The economic and political situation may not have been the same when he was responsible for this file. It has probably changed a lot since that time. It is important to consider all the human rights violations in Honduras. I do not understand why we are now signing an economic agreement with such a rogue state when it comes to human rights. Therefore, we are going to oppose this bill at third reading.

I thank the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, who worked very hard on this bill. He did a superb job, particularly in committee, but also in the House, pleading for human rights, which should be defended around the world, including in Honduras.

I do not understand how the government can claim to be a champion of human rights when it is signing an economic and trade agreement with a country like Honduras. These two things cannot be reconciled. I do not understand how the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for example, can say that we respect and protect human rights around the world when we are concluding such an agreement with Honduras. I do not understand how the minister can reconcile these two things, because they are totally incompatible. All the statistics and all the facts prove it.

There are always three fundamental criteria for assessing trade agreements. Earlier, we were criticized for not supporting any economic agreements. We did support the agreement with Jordan. As a rule, we support trade with Europe. Europe has very high standards for human and workers' rights. We will take an official stand when we see the text of the economic agreement with Europe. However, we are not going to sign a blank cheque, as the Liberals did, regarding an economic agreement.

I want to get back to the three fundamental criteria for assessing trade agreements. Does the proposed partner respect democracy and human rights? Does it have adequate environmental and labour standards? Does it have values similar to Canadian values? If not, the country should not be one of Canada's economic and trade partners.

We can also look at whether the proposed partner is in the process of achieving these objectives. Honduras could have been in the process of achieving some of them. Canada could have decided to encourage this and to increase trade with this country.

However, it is clear that Honduras is not in the process of making improvements or achieving the Canadian values of respect for democracy, human rights and labour rights. Although it is possible to sign agreements with countries that are achieving these objectives, Honduras is headed in the opposite direction. International organizations that are present in many countries to ensure that they respect human rights have had some harsh words to say about Honduras.

In recent years, Honduras's rating has been declining. As I mentioned, the 2009 coup d'état caused a turnaround in the economic and political situation in Honduras.

That brings me to the second criterion for assessing trade agreements: is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? That is a very simple, yet important question. Does the country with which we are going to do business have a significant or strategic economic value to Canada?

Hon. members will agree that that is not at all the case with Honduras. Right now, this country ranks 104th on the list of Canada's export markets. In 2012, Canada exported only $38 million in goods to Honduras and imported $218 million, which represents a significant trade deficit. There is already talk of a significant trade deficit in Canada. With this type of agreement, which holds no strategic economic importance for Canada, our trade deficit will increase.

Canada is the second-largest foreign investor in Honduras. According to internal analyses conducted by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canadian economy will benefit very little from this agreement.

That answers the second question we must ask when determining whether a trade agreement is needed or whether it will be advantageous to Canada: is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? In this case, the answer is no, it is not.

The third question we need to ask when evaluating a trade agreement is this: are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory? That is the basis for evaluating a trade agreement. Are the terms of the agreement satisfactory? This question defines our way of looking at trade agreements.

The government often asks us why we never support these bills. However, we have supported some in the past. Taking into consideration these three criteria, the third criterion still does not allow us to approve the trade agreement with Europe because we have not yet seen the terms of that agreement. The third criterion involves determining whether the terms of the agreement are satisfactory. If we have not seen the terms, we cannot say whether or not they are satisfactory.

In closing, I would like to once more point out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives and the Liberals, who have the same position. On one hand, they are saying that they want human rights to be respected throughout the world and that they are prepared to impose economic and political sanctions on countries where those rights are not respected. Canada is always prepared to defend those countries.

Canada decided to welcome them with open arms and sign trade agreements, but what it is really doing is supporting countries that do not respect human rights. It is saying yes to Honduras, which is one of the worst countries in the world. None of this makes sense. The government's logic is impossible to follow, as is that of their supporters on this, the Liberals. They do not seem to understand how bad this could turn out to be for the Honduran people.

I would be happy to answer my colleagues' questions.

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, 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, be read the third time and passed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, 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, be read the third time and passed.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

In 2013, when I sat on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, we studied the case of Honduras at length. Therefore, I believe I have enough facts to oppose this bill, which is unacceptable.

The despotic regime that reigns in Honduras is characterized by its anti-democratic practices, its corruption, its failed institutions and its history of human rights violations. Canada should not be signing a free trade agreement with that country.

The NDP believes there are three fundamental criteria when considering a trade agreement. First, does the proposed partner respect democracy and human rights, acceptable environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? Second, does the proposed partner's economy have significant or strategic value to Canada? Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

The proposed agreement with Honduras does not meet any of these criteria, as we clearly showed in the previous debates, despite the fact that the Conservatives have used their majority to limit the time to review this bill. Only five hours of debate on a treaty that was negotiated over three years. This is ridiculous. I also find it difficult to understand why Liberal members would agree to signing an agreement with Honduras.

We are promoting an agreement with a brutal dictatorship, and I am choosing my words carefully. By signing this agreement, we are giving legitimacy to a regime put in place following a coup. The Subcommittee on International Human Rights heard several witnesses from Honduras and experts on this issue. I heard horror stories. Since the coup in Honduras, journalists, union representatives and people who are asking for greater democracy are being killed. In fact, they will kill anything they do not like in that country. Honduras is the murder capital of the world, and most of the murders are not even properly investigated by the police.

Professor Gordon of Wilfrid Laurier University, who testified before the committee, said that the possibility of a free election needs to be called into question. Some members of the opposition parties have been assassinated. In 2013, there was an average of 10 killings a month. According to Professor Dana Frank from the University of California, 80% of crimes in Honduras go unpunished. There are many documented cases of police corruption. Between January 2011 and November 2012 alone, the police carried out 149 summary executions of civilians. In January 2013, the United Nations asked for the removal of four judges of the Supreme Court of Honduras for violations of international standards and because there was a serious threat to democracy. In February 2013, the United Nations working group on the use of mercenaries indicated that the Government of Honduras had failed to properly regulate private security companies. These companies are involved in numerous cases of human rights violations, including murders, disappearances, forced expulsions and rapes.

Moreover, censorship is common in Honduras. It is alleged that journalists are corrupted and advertisements are manipulated to ensure that coverage is positive and to silence opponents.

According to the national human rights commission of Honduras, 29 journalists have been murdered since the coup.

This is the question I would ask: if Canadian mining engineers were murdered, what recourse would Canada have? It would have none. There is no justice and therefore murderers are not even prosecuted. It is in the interest of Canadian mining companies to have a certain legal framework in Honduras. I would ask them the following question: what good is a legal framework when there is no rule of law in the country?

Should Canada support, by means of a trade agreement, a government of thugs? The Honduran regime is corrupt. All the stakeholders have said the same thing and even the U.S. Senate acknowledged that this is unacceptable.

Will this agreement benefit Honduras? I seriously doubt it. Two years after the coup, 100% of the increase in income went to only 10% of the population, while poverty increased by 26%. This agreement will only benefit a corrupt elite.

Canada used to be a world leader in foreign affairs, renowned for its ability to help other organizations and other countries become more democratic, freer, fairer to its citizens and more respectful of human rights. However, agreements such as this one, supported by the Conservatives and the Liberals, will make us take a step backwards.

Entering into such an agreement with a corrupt government shows little concern for human rights and sends the message to similar countries that this is acceptable to Canada. The Conservative government and its partners, the Liberals, find that acceptable. We are debating an agreement with a brutal regime, and closure has been invoked.

We are trampling democracy, here and elsewhere, and I am sad to see the Liberal members supporting this process. The Conservative government imposed closure 68 times to end debate. Is that a sign that the government is turning away from democracy?

The agreement with Honduras was negotiated without any transparency and despite repeated requests from stakeholders in various sectors of Canada's economy. The Government of Canada was never willing to make the text of the agreement public during the negotiation process. Given these concerns, I am disappointed that my colleagues from the other parties want to support this treaty. This agreement is stained with the blood of Hondurans.

We risk damaging Canada's international reputation if we enter into a partnership with such a regime. My constituents of Brome—Missisquoi sent me here in the hope of building a different Canada.

In light of the facts that we have been able to show despite the time allocation brought in by the Conservatives, I will not support Bill C-20. I hope that Canadians will remember that the Liberals and Conservatives voted in favour of a tree trade agreement with a brutal dictatorship.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Sudbury for sharing his time with me. I would also like to commend my hon. colleague from Beaches—East York for his wonderful speech. Anyone who listened to it understood right away what it was about.

I would like to delve right into the main theme of my speech on Bill C-20. I will start by taking a brief look back in history. I will not go back as far as the 19th century, but it is important to point out that Honduras has been an independent country since 1821.

Honduras has therefore been an independent nation for 193 years. It has made progress and has had highs and lows, but it has carried on. Recently, there have been a lot of problems in the country that have significantly lowered the quality of life for its residents. The biggest blow was the coup against democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in 2009.

The military then conned the people and ruled for several years until another election was held. The existing government does not really represent any true segment of Honduran society. There is a lot of corruption and human rights are violated. In short, there is no real guarantee of living a decent life there.

When I see the Conservative government bragging and saying that it is going to sign a free trade agreement with Honduras, it is a disgrace to anything that might be considered good about international free trade.

Why? Despite all the advantages and disadvantages of international trade agreements between countries, I believe that the Conservatives look only at the economic aspect of it, the matter of profit and what they can get out of it, since traditionally trade with Honduras has always resulted in a negative balance. We know that. The figures have been mentioned before. It makes no sense. This agreement is of no real economic value to Canada, and the Conservatives are not abiding by the main criteria, as we have already discussed here.

One of those criteria stipulates that the proposed partner's economy must be of significant or strategic value to Canada. However, that does not seem to be the case here. Another criterion stipulates that the terms of the proposed agreement must be satisfactory. That too is not the case.

No good economist would enter into the negotiation of a trade agreement, whether it be between countries or strictly local, without analyzing far more criteria.

Among those criteria, aside from the economic aspect that I was just talking about, there is also the qualitative criterion. The NDP caucus wants the Conservatives to understand that this is the criterion they are failing to meet. They are not taking it into account. What will be the consequences of this free trade agreement that they are trying to sign with Honduras?

Across North America, 25 recognized organizations tried to warn the Conservatives about the risks of signing this agreement. They did not listen. These organizations fully explained and documented the tangible societal consequences this agreement would have. They warned the Conservatives that signing this contract would fuel the social conflict that currently exists. Everyone here knows that, and it has been said many times.

Honduras is having problems right now. Inequalities are getting bigger every year. I do not think it is good business to sign a free trade agreement with a country in that situation. A developed country such as ours, with one of the largest economies in the world, should not engage in this type of negotiation when we know that it will only benefit a small oligarchy in that country. It is because Canadian imports are huge and exports to Honduras amount to nothing.

Another thing that has been swept under this black rug—or perhaps blue if it is a Conservative rug—is an ulterior motive, and that is to allow the ruling oligarchy to become richer.

When the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade merged, they studied this agreement. In their report, they concluded that there was a worthwhile aspect to this agreement. Unless I am mistaken, basically, there was protection for Canadian mining interests in the region.

This free trade agreement will produce results similar to the trading outcomes Honduras has had with the United States, particularly with a company called Rosario Mining, which wreaked havoc wherever it went.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-20. I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Laval.

I need to begin my comments by strongly underscoring that the New Democrats recognize the importance of trade to our economy, however, we favour expanded trade opportunities and have a long record of supporting Canada's manufacturers and exporters in seeking new opportunities at home and abroad.

With that being said, the New Democrats would prefer to see increased trade with nations that respect Canadian values, particularly when it comes to the protection of human rights and safe working conditions. Further, we believe these trade agreements need to have clearly defined benefits to the Canadian economy such as increased job growth here at home.

The New Democrats support a strategic trade policy where we restart multilateral negotiations and where we sign trade deals with developed countries that have high standards and with developing countries that are on a progressive trajectory, countries like Japan, Brazil, South Africa, for example. These are countries that we should be signing free trade agreements with, not countries like Honduras where drug traffickers operate with near impunity, human rights are regularly abused, democracy is under threat and where there are very low labour and production standards that have the potential to hurt the Canadian economy in a race to the bottom for wages and workers' rights.

To be blunt, Honduras is a country with undemocratic practices, a corrupt government, weak institutions, low standards, insignificant strategic value and a record of human rights abuses. NGOs have documented these serious human rights abuses. Killings, arbitrary detention of thousands of people, severe restrictions on public demonstrations, protests and freedom of expression and interference in the independence of the judiciary are all well established.

Transparency International ranks it as the most corrupt country in Central America and a major drug smuggling centre with known linkages between the ruling party politicians, the police and trafficking.

Expert testimony at the Standing Committee on International Trade reinforced the concerns of the New Democrats about human rights abuses in Honduras and substantiated our refusal to support an expanded trade agreement with a government that was directly involved in perpetrating these abuses against trade activists, journalists and members of the LGBT community.

The executive director of PEN Canada stated:

—not only have Honduran institutions failed at protecting basic human rights for its citizens; there is a history of government involvement in these human rights abuses. Our research shows that the state not only failed to investigate crimes against journalists; in many cases state actors were themselves complicit in these crimes.

Not only is the regime in Honduras a habitual offender of human rights, its policies have also almost exclusively sought to increase what is already the most stratified country in Latin America.

Dr. Rosemary Joyce, an internationally recognized Honduran expert and professor at Berkeley University, stated:

Starting the very day of the coup in 2009 and continuing today, the most salient governmental issues have been the steps taken to enrich a small wealthy elite at the expense of the majority of the Honduran population, leading to the highest level of inequality in Latin America.

Finally, in June 2013, 24 U.S. senators signed a letter expressing concern about the human rights situation in Honduras and requested that Secretary of State John Kerry make every reasonable effort to help ensure that Honduras' November 2013 elections were free, fair and peaceful.

Further, 94 members of congress have called upon the U.S. State Department to halt all military aid to Honduras, in light of its violent repression of political activity.

What we are seeing is a government steadfastly determined to enter into a trade agreement with a corrupt, abusive regime whose sole aim has been to enrich the small cadre of loyalists and friendly business elites at the expense of the remaining 99.9% of Honduran society.

I strongly believe that entering into this agreement would only reinforce the stranglehold of the regime and would be counter to values which Canadians believe our government should be promoting abroad.

Canadians expect our federal government to be a leader on the world stage. That is why most Canadians agree that giving preferential trade terms to corrupt, undemocratic countries that suppress dissent, violate citizens' human rights, and facilitate drug trafficking is the wrong approach to trade policy.

Let me reiterate. New Democrats recognize the importance of trade to our economy. We favour expanded trade opportunities. However, in determining our support for a trade deal, we also consider the fact that trade agreements must provide clearly defined benefits to the Canadian economy, so let us look at the impact the Canada-Honduras trade deal would have on the Canadian economy.

Currently Honduras accounts for less than 1% of our trade and is Canada's 104th-largest export market in terms of value of exports. In 2012, merchandise exports totalled a meagre $38 million, while imports were $218 million, meaning there is already a significant trade deficit between our economies.

Obviously, given these figures, Honduras is not a strategic trade partner. Therefore, a failure to ratify this agreement would not have an adverse impact upon the Canadian economy, while the ratification of the agreement would have no discernible impact upon Canadian exporters.

Since the Conservatives took power, Canada's export performance has suffered badly, going from a significant trade surplus to a huge deficit. My Conservative colleagues often brag about the number of agreements they have signed, but the fact is that they have not finalized even one agreement with a major market that would offer significant benefits for Canadians.

In fact, leaked reports from the Department of Foreign Affairs reveal the Conservatives' pursuit of insignificant agreements like this one with Honduras has tied up resources and compromised Canada's ability to secure agreements with high-standard economies that would offer real opportunities, such as Japan.

This speaks directly to the Conservatives' record on trade. When they came to power, they inherited a current account surplus of $18 billion, but eight years later, Canada's current account deficit stands at $62 billion. That represents a negative swing of $80 billion and an average decline of $10 billion a year.

Canada's trade record vis-à-vis that of our international counterparts emphasizes the failure of the Conservative government to increase export-driven trade, which historically has been a key driver of our economy. Here, between 2006 and 2012, Canada had the worst current account performance when our trade performance is compared with 17 other countries around the world.

While the Conservatives continue to chastise the NDP's position on supporting balanced, mutually beneficial trade agreements, their record on trade, just like their record on so many other important economic files, speaks for itself.

In conclusion, I believe this is the wrong trade deal at the wrong time. Honduras' record on human rights is atrocious, its leadership is corrupt and continues to use the country's public institutions to benefit a select few, and there is no significant advantage for the Canadian economy in signing this deal.

Instead of focusing on marginal trade deals such as this one, we should be looking to strengthening our trading relationships with economies that can offer real benefits to Canada in terms of both cheaper imports and increased exports of manufactured goods, not just raw materials.

That is why I will continue to oppose the bill in Parliament.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be in the House this evening with the opportunity to speak to Bill C-20, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, and to the other agreements on environmental co-operation and labour co-operation as well.

By way of starting, let me provide a little context for this discussion, taking it away from Honduras and this specific agreement to talk about the broader trade agenda and trade record of the government.

When the Conservatives came into power in 2006, they were spotted an $18 billion current account surplus. That is to say that trade was enriching us as a country, setting aside for the moment the issue of the equity of the distribution of that account surplus. It was indeed a surplus to the tune of $18 billion, no paltry sum.

Today, eight years on, under the Conservative government, we have a current account deficit of $62 billion. That leaves us with a nice round swing number of $80 billion as the negative swing, the delta, the loss, whatever one wants to call it. Part of the problem here is that we are trading raw or barely processed exports, reducing the importance of value-added exports in this trading mix.

Clearly, the government, with its sole, exclusive focus on the export of resources, is causing economic challenges for us in Canada.

I recently had the occasion, as the chair of the Canada-Bangladesh Parliamentary Friendship Group, to talk at the University of Ottawa on development issues for Bangladesh specifically.

The panel invited to speak at the invitation of its His Excellency Kamrul Ahsan was made up of experts with various backgrounds and specialities. It gave me cause to look closely at the trading relationship between Canada and Bangladesh. It would seem to be fairly typical of what is going on with Canada's trading regime. It is not a particularly huge trading relationship, with just over $1 billion worth of goods coming in from Bangladesh and about half of that going out of Canada destined for that country.

What is noticeable is that, apart from a couple of helicopters, Bangladesh is sending to us value-added goods, mainly in the form of garments, but that is not to ignore the development of their own shipbuilding industry and a flourishing pharmaceutical industry. In return, we send them natural resources and unprocessed agricultural products.

It is interesting to note that Honduras has a trade account deficit, but it seems that Canada would be one of the countries with which it has a trade account surplus.

This kind of dismal trading record, established under the government, earns one special recognition. Between 2006 and 2012, Canada had the worst current account deficit when we compared our trading performance against 17 similar countries around the world.

Before the optimists leap to the thought that maybe we have reached the bottom, that the bleeding has stopped and things are on the mend, let me advise that in 23 of the last 24 months, we have experienced a merchandise trade deficit. It brings to mind the definition of madness put forward by, I think, Einstein: to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.

That is what we are seeing with the government, tonight and when we discuss trade agreements, talking about how many of these agreements it has signed. Here we go again with Bill C-20.

Contrary to the 14-second soundbites that come from across the floor, we are not anti-trade over here. That would be to take an ideological position and eschew all practical considerations and objectives. That is not what we are about.

That is what those guys do over there, and what the Liberals do, too, as we have seen tonight, although they like to confuse it by saying that they are concerned. They seem to think that free trade agreements are something like hockey cards or some other kind of collectable, and we should just keep signing them and then make triumphant noises, and then collect another one as though that was the end in itself. Never mind that with each one they sign, the current account deficit seems to actually deepen.

The Conservatives do not even read them first. The content does not seem to matter either. The outcome does not seem to matter. Nothing seems to matter, other than getting one signed.

In the grandest farce of all, we have had multiple announcements of the agreement on the comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union. The government just could not wait to announce that one; it said there were just details, i's and t's to be crossed and dotted.

The leader of the third party leapt out of his seat enthusiastically at the news to express his admiration and support for the government landing the deal. Nobody on this side of the House, the Liberal leader included, has even read the deal to be able to determine whether or not it is a good deal, worthy of celebration, a deal that might enrich Canada and Canadians. The irony is not lost on us that we have the Liberals tonight calling to see the Honduran deal when they celebrated the European deal sight unseen.

There is a simple reason for all of this. There is no deal. The Conservatives made an announcement about nothing, and the Liberals applauded them and congratulated them heartily upon their announcement of a deal that does not exist.

Word is that our Prime Minister is scrambling furiously over in Europe now, trying to rescue a deal, but we wish him well in securing a deal that would serve Canada and Canadians well. That, after all, would be the only point of such a trade deal, would it not? That is actually a real and open question. We know the answer from the Conservatives and the Liberals. They have answered by way of their actions, their embrace of a deal that is more phantom than real, a deal they have not read because it does not actually exist.

That is the simplistic, ideological reflex of those parties, both the Conservatives and the Liberals, the reflex that Einstein called madness, the reflex that sees a $62 billion current account deficit, more dollars leaving this country through trade than coming in, the reflex that takes us back to a time we were trying to grow out of, the time when we did what was easiest, the time when we did what the rest of the world wanted us to do: just dig it up and ship it out, rip it and ship it, as we say, or grow it and throw it. In support of all of that, of course, they cite an economist born in 1772 as support for this ideological reflex they have.

Therefore, it is time for a change, time for a more thoughtful, purposeful look at trade and what it ought to do for Canada, a look at our objectives. It is time for a look at trade that is sufficiently nuanced to be able to distinguish between partners and the kinds of agreements that are suitable for different trading partnerships.

The comprehensive economic trade agreement may be a template suitable for a large, sophisticated, and developed market like the European Union. We do not know that. We will see whether it serves us well when we get a chance to read it, if we ever do, but that same agreement may not serve as a particularly useful template for a trading agreement with Honduras. Indeed, a trading relationship with Honduras may not even be the appropriate way to engage with Honduras.

Our party believes that there are three fundamentally important criteria for assessing a trade agreement. One, is the proposed partner one that respects democracy and human rights, and does it have adequate environmental and labour standards? If the answer is not clearly yes, then the question becomes this. Is the proposed partner on a positive trajectory towards those goals, at least? Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significance or strategic value to Canada? Finally, if the answer to that strategic question is yes, then the question becomes very much a practical one. Are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory? In other words, did we get a good deal? Will Canada benefit from this agreement? Against these assessment criteria, Bill C-20 runs into problems right off the bat.

Let me turn now to have a closer look at Honduras. Let us see not just who we are doing business with, but who it is that we are actually proposing to treat preferentially through the passage of the bill.

If we look at the first criterion, on the issue of democracy or respect for democratic rights, we know that the democratically elected government of President Zelaya was toppled by a military coup in 2009, which was widely condemned around the world, including by all Latin American nations, the European Union, the United States, and the UN General Assembly. We know that 94 members of the U.S. Congress have called upon the U.S. Department of State to halt all military aid to Honduras in light of its violent repression of political activity.

If we go to the Economist Intelligence Unit and its report on Honduras, its 2013 Democracy Index ranks Honduras 85th out of 160 countries, which represents no change from the 2012 index. It remains, as my colleague for Toronto—Danforth said earlier in his speech, a “hybrid” regime. That score reflects deficiencies in most categories, “... owing to its low level of institutional development, a weak judiciary, high levels of corruption...and unabated drug- and gang-related violence...”. That is a quote from the Economist Intelligence Unit country report on Honduras.

If we go to other sources, such as the Human Rights Watch, we see that in December 2012 the Honduran Congress arbitrarily dismissed four Supreme Court judges and passed further legislation empowering itself to remove justices and the Attorney General. Again, in November 2011, the Congress passed an emergency decree allowing military personnel to carry out public security duties, which has since been extended. This is the so-called trade by rule of law where Supreme Court justices get dismissed, just like that.

Now all of this spills over into issues plainly of human rights. The Human Rights Watch report on Honduras, as part of the World Report, begins with the sentence: “Honduras suffers from rampant crime and impunity for human rights abuses”. That is where we start, with that report.

Others, including Tasleem Thawar, executive director of PEN Canada, actually gave testimony at the Standing Committee on International Trade on April 10, 2014, which was not too long ago. She said:

...not only have Honduran institutions failed at protecting basic human rights for its citizens; there is a history of government involvement in these human rights abuses. Our research shows that the state not only failed to investigate crimes against journalists; in many cases state actors were themselves complicit in these crimes.

Again, from the Human Rights Watch 2014 report:

Journalists, peasant activists, and LGBTI individuals are particularly vulnerable to attacks, yet the government routinely fails to prosecute those responsible and provide protection for those at risk.

It goes on to say that:

Impunity for serious police abuses is a chronic problem. Police killed 149 civilians from January 2011 to November 2012, including 18 individuals under age 19....

...a May 2013 investigation...suggested police involvement in at least five extrajudicial executions or disappearances...

...more than 90 LGBTI people were killed between 2009 and 2012, and many more subjected to attacks and harassment. The alleged involvement of Honduran police in some of these violent abuses is of particular concern.

All of that is out of the Human Rights Watch report from 2014.

On the issues of environment and labour, I have to express deep skepticism about these co-operation agreements based on some recent inquiries that I made in the form of questions on the order paper.

The Department of Public Works and Government Services advertises the fact that it has a policy to ensure that the goods the department procures are manufactured in compliance with local labour laws, so I asked the minister whether the department procures garments from foreign markets and, if so, from where. The answer is that the government procures garments from around the world, including China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and indeed Honduras.

I also asked if the departments knew what factories these garments are made in. The answer came back from every department, “no”, with the exception of public works, which said that it was third-party information.

They disavowed knowledge of where these garments were made, rendering the government's policy absolutely impossible to implement and making a mockery of the whole policy and the whole exercise, and this paper social responsibility exercise is perpetrated by our own federal government on these issues. Now we are asked to look at so-called labour and environmental co-operation agreements and find some sense of satisfaction and comfort in those.

My immediate interest in asking these questions had to do with the collapse of the Rana Plaza building that housed a number of garment factories in Bangladesh. That collapse killed 1,135 workers and injured another 2,500, adding to the long column of tragedies, deaths, and injuries in the garment industry.

However, at least in Bangladesh there is broad agreement that the employment laws and the labour laws and the building code are decently formulated laws and that if they are properly implemented in the future, they would provide protection to workers.

Not so in Honduras. According to the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center, Honduran trade unionists are routinely threatened, intimidated, harassed, and even murdered for attempting to form unions, and criminals are rarely brought to justice. Since the 2009 coup, 31 trade unionists have been assassinated and more than 200 injured in violent attacks.

It is worth noting that in response to other questions on the order paper, the minister for public works responded that they have done no audits for compliance with local labour laws because they had no information to warrant such audits. Never mind the factory collapsing and killing 1,135 people. Never mind the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center having the basic facts of intimidation and assassinations of trade unionists right on its website. All of that should trigger some interest in whether government-procured garments are actually being made in compliance with local labour laws.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left? Two minutes. I see the House leader finds that funny. He has a strange sense of humour, as we have noted over the last three years.

Let me skip to my conclusion, because I do not want to miss that.

Clearly, when one looks through the criteria that our party has spelled out for assessing whether a country qualifies for preferential trading treatment, we can see that Honduras fails quickly and does not qualify. It is worth noting that even if it did not fail on the first grounds, it fails on the second grounds, which have to do with the significance of the economy or the strategic value of an agreement in providing a preferential trading relationship with the country. Honduras is currently Canada's 104th export market in terms of value of exports.

Over the 2007-2012 period, annual Canadian exports to Honduras averaged just $50 million and annual Canadian imports from Honduras averaged $161 million. From the current account deficit, we see that we cannot manage even an equal trading relationship with Honduras under this government. Even internal DFAIT analyses confirm that only marginal benefits to the Canadian economy are expected from the deal. There is in fact nothing to recommend this bill.

It would be a mistake, however, to suggest that the passage of the bill would be a benign act. Let me finish with a quote from Stacey Gomez, the coordinator of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation. She says:

We have long maintained that under the right conditions, trade can generate growth and support the realization of human rights. These conditions simply do not exist in Honduras. Canada should refrain from signing the FTA with Honduras until there is a verifiable improvement in the country’s democratic governance and human rights situation. Until these things are achieved, the Canada-Honduras FTA will do more harm than good.

This bill represents an ethically bankrupt notion of relationships and engagement. It is nothing other than an ideological reflex unpackaged. It suggests that free trade, that is trade with no meaningful conditionality, somehow in and of itself alleviates instead of exploits corruption and poverty, that somehow it will build government capacity instead of exploiting its absence, and that business, in the absence of labour law, will voluntarily leave surplus behind in Honduras, helping social and economic progress in Honduras. Of course, we do not believe that any of that is true.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-20, with some experience in Honduras. I was a member of the Comisión de Verdad, one of the two truth commissions set up after the coup in 2009. I stepped down when I was elected to the House, but I have been following it ever since, including the report that the commission put out in October 2012, which I may refer to now and again.

It is important to give some human rights context. My colleagues have given lots of reasons why human rights, rule of law and the overall governance structures in a country matter for a free trade agreement. However, it is important to remember that 65% of Hondurans live in poverty and around 46%, almost 50%, live in extreme poverty. As our former ambassador to Costa Rica and Honduras, Neil Reeder, said, “It suffers from extremely unequal income distribution”.

It is a country that not only has serious problems meeting the social and economic rights of its population, but it has become a very repressive state, even though there is the veneer of democracy since the coup and the subsequent election six months after the coup. In 2013, Human Rights Watch's report indicated that 23 journalists had been killed since 2010, and in 2014, PEN International's report told us that 34 journalists had been killed since the coup in 2009.

Before the committee, COFADEH, probably the leading human rights organization in Honduras, led by Bertha Oliva, told us that it had documented at least 16 activists or candidates from the main opposition party before the most recent election, the party that is called “LIBRE”, had been assassinated since June 2012, and 15 others attacked.

The Economist Intelligence Unit, which basically does surveys every few years on countries and their overall state of affairs, downgraded Honduras from what it called a “flawed democracy” in 2008, even before the coup, to a “hybrid regime” in 2012. That is a regime that is not even actually a democracy. From all my experience in the country after eight visits, I can attest to that as being an accurate qualification.

My colleague from Toronto Centre has mentioned on occasion, as did my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca in his speech, that the situation of the LGBTQ community in Honduras has long been one of great precarity. It was never great, especially for transsexuals who were always subject to extreme violence. However, after the coup in 2009, between 2009 and 2011—only a year and a half, because it is only the first part of 2011 that these numbers count for—35 members of the LGBTQ community were assassinated in ways that were associated with the fact of their membership in that community and the fact that by and large that community supported the efforts of the previous administration and were against the coup. At some level, the coup also resulted in a general opening up or licence for others, such as paramilitary groups and conservative forces in society, to kill with impunity.

I would like to pay tribute to three people before I go on to some of the economic issues.

Walter Trochez is kind of the symbol of the LGBTQ community in Honduras. I talked to his apartment mate about the night that he died. He was murdered by being shot. The apartment mate received Walter's final call just before he lost his life, literally saying “They killed me, they killed me”. This had been preceded by endless encounters with the police where he had been detained, and abductions as well by hooded men. In all of those instances, every one of the three or four instances that the Comisión de Verdad documented, he was taunted with the fact that he was a marica or maricon, which excuse me, translates as “faggot”.

[Member spoke in Spanish and provided the following translation:]

Faggots are not worth anything. Faggots do not have rights.

At the same time, when he was abducted by four armed men and had managed to escape from them, they linked him to the resistance to the coup, so ultimately he was killed for the fact that he not only was an active human rights advocate for the LGBTQ community but also he dared also to support at the political level the resistance to the coup.

I would like to salute Walter Trochez as a symbol of that community's suffering.

I would also like to speak about Eddy, who was the lead security guard for the Comisión de Verdad. He was almost the one person who lost his life during the Comisión's time. We had a couple of Honduran commissioners who had to flee the country, and he almost lost his life.

He was approached by four men with pistols in their hands who tried to shove him into a car in the middle of the street, with all kinds of onlookers. Brave as he was and knowledgeable as he was about what would happen if he ever got in the car, he made a bolt for it. The men shot after him as he was running down the street. He escaped, not without psychological trauma, but with his life.

The last person that I want to pay tribute to is Eva, who is a constituent in Toronto--Danforth. She was recently accepted as a refugee in Canada, having been shot multiple times while tending her small business in Tegucigalpa, by somebody dressed in plaIn clothes, but who all the neighbours identified as a policeman.

That is the kind of context at a broad human rights level. It is important to know that economically, Honduras is an extremely problematic country to be investing in and to have our corporate actors going down and expecting to be doing good, rather than harm.

As the Comisión de Verdad reported—and I will be translating from page 47 of the report—career politicians serve and have served businessmen and leaders of political clans in their demands, creating and reproducing the discourses and the beliefs of the entrepreneurial or business classes and the industrial classes without actually generating conditions for economic prosperity for others. New interests, as well, have begun to interact with the political parties to the point that they have been working with global economic classes to propose whole zones, called “model cities”, that would be completely free from Honduran governance. They would effectively be multinational capital sovereigns.

There is this interpenetration of the six to nine traditional families and the newer groups interacting with various global interests. Frankly, all analyses indicate how they have completely captured the state apparatus, both of the main parties, the executive in terms of the civil service, and, I am sorry to say, much of the judiciary and the police.

In that context, it is important to note that the situation in Bajo Aguan is kind of emblematic. It is one of the worst situations, but it is also emblematic of what can happen.

In February 2014, Human Rights Watch published a report called “There Are No Investigations Here”, documenting how between 150 and 200 homicides in the Bajo Aguan region were alleged to have been committed by security forces hired by large landowners. Many of those landowners are cultivating the land for agri-industrial business in African palm oil for global markets.

The report also shows how there is absolutely no police, prosecutorial, or judicial protection for the campesinos who have been murdered in this fashion.

Only a few months ago, the World Bank Group ombudsman ruled that the World Bank itself had inappropriately invested $15 million of a promised $30 million in a group called Corporación Dinant, which is owned by the Facussé family. The ombudsman said that the World Bank Group should never have given money to that operation because of the involvement of Dinant in conducting, facilitating, and supporting forced evictions of farmers in Bajo Aguan and violence against farmers in and around the plantations, including multiple killings.

I would end by saying that the UN Working Group on Mercenaries in February 2013 also ruled that private security forces in the hands of the larger agricultural and other corporations in Honduras had been responsible for, or there are reasonable concerns that they are responsible for, serious repression in that country. That is the pattern. That is not an environment in which Canadian companies at this time should have any involvement through a free trade agreement.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with my colleague from Toronto—Danforth.

It only feels like yesterday that I spoke to this bill. In fact, it was two days ago and it was on this very bill.

I want to begin by saying how disappointed I am that we are ramming this bill through, a bill that has everything to do with the need to respect democratic processes—which we are not doing through this agreement and which is not happening in Honduras—and the need to delve into what this trade agreement is all about. Fundamentally, it is a trade agreement that will not bring benefit to Canadians but will benefit a few people in specific sectors that are close to the government.

I am concerned, not just as a Canadian member of Parliament but as a Canadian, that Canada is embarking on a journey and into a relationship with a country that in recent years has proven its complete disregard for the principles that guide us in this place: democracy, respect for the rule of law, and human rights. We are engaging in a relationship to benefit the very same people who have imposed an oppressive regime that in some cases has been involved in persecution and is as far away from the Canadian value set as we can get.

I rise in this House in consideration of not just the benefit to Canadians, which is not being realized through this free trade agreement, but also of the reality that Hondurans face. While Honduras is not a country that I have had a chance to visit, I have had the experience of travelling in Central America and seeing or hearing first-hand a very dark history that people in countries across Latin America have had with military coup d'états, with the fight for democracy, with the fight for human rights. Sadly, while many Central American countries, such as Chile and Argentina, have shaken off that dark history, Honduras has just recently re-embarked on that same undemocratic dictatorial path.

As we know, Honduras is a very poor country with a seriously flawed human rights record and a history of repressive, undemocratic politics. The democratically elected government of left-leaning President Manuel Zelaya was toppled by a military coup in 2009, and subsequent governmental actions and elections have been heavily criticized by international observers as failing to meet acceptable democratic standards. In 2009, five short years ago, Honduras underwent a military coup, and it continues to be a repressive and regressive environment. Thanks to the current government, this is the country we are now going to engage with as part of this free trade relationship.

We have heard a lot of talk about the underground economy. We have heard about the predominance of the drug trade. We have heard about the lack of legitimate and positive economic opportunities for the people of Honduras. We have also heard how this free trade agreement will not do anything to change that reality. In fact, in many ways it will continue to legitimize a regime that is oppressive toward the Honduran people. As a New Democrat, I am proud to stand with my party in opposition to this bill.

We believe that there are three fundamentally important criteria to assess trade agreements, including this one.

First, does the proposed partner respect democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If there are challenges in this regard, is the partner on a positive trajectory toward these goals? We know that Honduras has failed in this regard.

Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? We know that there is particular interest from the Canadian government in the mining sector and in certain agricultural sectors, but by and large, given that Honduras only represents about 1% of our trade, this will not make or break the Canadian economy by any stretch of the imagination, so this proposed agreement does not meet the second criterion.

Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory? Again, it is a resounding fail.

This trade agreement, like every trade agreement that is negotiated by the current government, has been behind closed doors, without the kind of transparent process that we, as parliamentarians, ought to be able to access but, more important, that Canadians ought to be able to engage in.

For all of these three reasons, for all of these three failures, we in the NDP cannot support this free trade agreement.

I want to read into the record some words of people who are very close to the situation in Honduras who have come before Parliament and have spoken very strongly against this agreement.

Stacey Gomez, coordinator of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation's Americas Policy Group, said:

We have long maintained that under the right conditions, trade can generate growth and support the realization of human rights. These conditions simply do not exist in Honduras. Until there is a verifiable improvement in the country’s democratic governance and human rights situation, the Canada-Honduras FTA will do more harm than good.

The Committee of Relatives of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras said:

One of the main concerns in Honduras is the consistent trend of killings, physical attacks and threats against human rights defenders – including: Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant and peasant leaders, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) activists, lawyers and journalists. All these attacks are carried out with almost total impunity.

Carmen Cheung, a researcher in the International Human Rights Program, said to the committee, on April 10:

These past five years have seen a dramatic erosion in protections for expressive life in Honduras. Journalists are threatened, they're harassed, attacked, and murdered with near impunity, and sometimes in circumstances that strongly suggest the involvement of state agents.... Among the journalists and human rights defenders we spoke with, there is a pervasive sense that they are under threat, and that the state is, at best, unable or unwilling to defend them, or at worst, complicit in the abuses.

These are chilling words from people who are not speaking in the abstract. They work closely on the ground with labour activists, with journalists, with lesbian and gay activists, with indigenous peoples. They know the cost of human life, the cost to democratic rights, freedom of expression, freedom of association, that this military coup has meant to the people of Honduras. They are saying, unequivocally, that “We cannot support this free trade agreement”.

I want to particularly emphasize the comments made by Ms. Cheung and made by the Committee of Relatives of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras with reference to how state agents are complicit in these abuses.

The current government wants to enter into a relationship and support the state agents who, we are hearing here, are involved in these kinds of human rights abuses.

My question is, what has happened to Canada, a country that over years and through the hard work of Canadians in their insistence that the respect for human rights needs to guide our international work, whether it is trade or our involvement in multilateral institutions, that the importance of human rights is fundamental to who we are as Canadians is clearly not represented in the government's actions through Bill C-20, through this free trade agreement but, furthermore, in a range of actions that the government has shown over its tenure?

That is why I am proud to rise in this House and share the words of human rights activists who are calling upon us to oppose the free trade agreement, who are demanding better for Canadians, who are demanding better for the people of Honduras. I am proud to stand with the party that, in this House, night after night, day after day, is fighting for the very principle that so many Canadians believe is so important to us: human rights and the fundamental principle of democracy.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand from my colleague’s previous speech on Bill C-20, concerning the free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras, that for the Conservatives, it is quantity that counts, and not quality. Canadians know that we have to negotiate trade agreements that offer winning conditions for Canada, which is precisely what the Conservatives have not done.

I would like to say that I oppose this bill. I also had the pleasure of being a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, where we examined this bill. First, let me reiterate that the NDP is in favour of international trade. We want to trade with other countries. We want to sign agreements with democracies around the world that can help Canadian manufacturers and contribute to our economy. However, our approach is not the same as the Conservatives’. We believe we must negotiate agreements that meet important criteria.

I would like to speak to the House again about the three criteria that all free trade agreements must meet to earn the support of the NDP. First, we have to ask whether the proposed partner respects democracy and human rights principles. Does the partnership enable both countries to establish and apply adequate environmental and labour standards? If that is not the case, is it really a good idea to support the trade agreement? In that case, the answer is no.

Second, we have to see whether the proposed partnership is of significant value to Canada and whether it will really benefit us. It is clear that the Conservatives have not done their homework on this subject. In fact, Honduras currently ranks 104th among Canada’s export markets, in terms of export value. We know that it is an economy even smaller than the economy of Ottawa-Gatineau. That gives us an idea of the strategic value of trade with Honduras.

Third, we have to determine whether the terms of the proposed agreement are satisfactory. This is also not the case for the free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras.

Like me, people may wonder why the government chose Honduras to negotiate a trade agreement. This is a question that a number of Canadians are also asking themselves. My Conservative colleague boasted about the number of free trade agreements the Conservative government has signed. In fact, that shows how desperate the Conservatives are, since they are working from a weakened position on the international scene.

I would like to give a brief summary of the reasons why they came to negotiate a free trade agreement with that country, which has such a small economy and flouts human rights.

We know that once Canada had barely managed to sign a multilateral agreement with the Central American economies as a whole, it looked to the weakest political player, Honduras, to negotiate a specific agreement as part of what is an ideological pursuit of free trade agreements.

In August 2011, the Prime Minister announced the conclusion of negotiations between Canada and Honduras, and in November 2013, the Minister of International Trade and his Honduran counterpart signed the free trade agreement.

Therefore, the reason that an agreement had to be negotiated with a country like Honduras, a country that, moreover, does not respect human rights and has virtually no reliable democratic institutions, is that negotiations with the other countries in the region had failed.

I am now going to explain how the economic benefits of a free trade agreement with Honduras are minimal. It is not as the Conservative member said. According to internal analyses done by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canadian economy will apparently get very little from the agreement. We can see that the Conservatives do not even pay attention to the reports produced by their own department.

As I said, Honduras currently ranks 104th among Canada’s export markets, in terms of export value. The 2011 statistics show that the total value of exports of goods was only $38 million, while imports came to $218 million, which represents a substantial trade deficit.

We wonder whether the Conservatives even took the time to do an impact analysis, to see whether there are really any benefits from this agreement, particularly knowing that tariffs are already very low with Honduras. In fact, a majority of tariffs are below 5%. We wonder why the Conservatives are in such a hurry to negotiate this agreement.

The witnesses raised another concern at the Standing Committee on International Trade, which is the lack of transparency.

We know that the agreement was negotiated with no transparency at all. In spite of repeated requests by civil society in Canada, the Government of Canada did not release the texts of the agreement during the negotiation process.

I would like to digress a moment, if I may. We can see that the Conservatives have taken a particular approach to negotiating free trade agreements: they do not consult adequately with Canadians. They do not consult with civil society, with workers, with first nations or with other groups, and they do not make the text public.

The Standing Committee on International Trade also studied our free trade agreement with Europe or the European Union. During these meetings, witnesses stated that the consultations had not been extensive enough.

I would like to quote what was said by Jerry Dias, Unifor’s national president:

...we've been critical of the way this deal has been negotiated, without the full and meaningful participation of trade unions, environmental NGOs, and other groups in Canada's civil society.

The text of the free trade agreement with the European Union was made public in other jurisdictions. U.S. decision-makers had access to the draft texts, and European parliamentarians too had access to these texts. The Conservative government asked for our trust and prevented us from having access to these draft texts.

I think this lack of transparency is deplorable. It concerns me a great deal because it has become a habit of this Conservative government. It is a habit that prevents civil society groups from consulting with members of Parliament, giving advice to the government and providing the negotiators with facts and information that might help them in negotiating free trade agreements in the best interests of Canadians.

It should also be mentioned that the token environmental impact assessment of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement, which was released in October 2013, omitted any assessment of the impact of Canadian investment in Honduras. Those figures were deemed confidential.

In addition, the side agreements on the environment and labour are inadequate. A number of witnesses at the committee meetings said so. The reason they are inadequate is that they are not accompanied by any real measures for enforcing them. In fact, as we say, they lack teeth. They lack the power to be enforced.

According to the section on investments in the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement, companies can sue governments in international tribunals, something that undermines the ability of governments to make decisions intended to safeguard the public good.

Canada’s federal government must be able to make decisions that safeguard the public good without businesses having a veto over them. This is necessary.

Now, I would just like to go to the heart of my argument, which concerns human rights, because this is something that is very important to me and something that we have discussed on numerous occasions in this debate.

We can talk about the economic impact of this free trade agreement. However, Canada also has a duty to behave responsibly on the international scene. It has a role to play in promoting human rights, and as members of Parliament, we must encourage the government play this role.

In 2011, in Honduras, there were to 85.5 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. This means that in 2011, Honduras was the most dangerous country in the world. This is a very serious matter. I would like to say more about the issue of freedom of the press and explain how grim the human rights situation is in this country.

Journalists and human rights advocates have a pervasive sense that they are under threat, and that the state is at best unable or unwilling to defend them or at worst complicit in the abuses, which is also the general feeling of a large majority of the population. Between 2003 and 2013, there were only two convictions, even though 38 journalists were murdered. That represents an impunity rate of 95%.

It is worth noting that, according to the witnesses who came to the parliamentary committee, there are likely no real investigations in Honduras. That makes it complicated to assign responsibility for the murders of those journalists. We were able to hear witnesses from PEN Canada, a civil society group that studies human rights and journalists' rights.

PEN Canada submitted a report to the committee. The report is entitled “Honduras: Journalism in the Shadow of Impunity”; unfortunately, it is available in English only. I strongly suggest that everyone listening this evening read that very informative report. It contains a lot of useful information. The report specifically looked into the stories that the journalists were covering at the time they were murdered, and found common themes, like corruption, political intrigue, and organized crime.

In terms of the government’s participation, because of the links between organized crime and Honduran security forces—whether the police or the army—it is very difficult to separate the acts of violence committed by those non-state actors from the human rights violations committed by agents of the state. In some cases, we have seen that circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that the state was either complicit in, or was actually behind, the murder of journalists.

When we look at countries in the region, we see that Honduras is in a worse situation than Canada’s current trade partners in the region. Honduras is not like the other countries. We really must see it as an exception.

To give you an idea of our situation compared to other countries, it is important to note that, according to Freedom House’s global freedom of the press index for 191 countries, Canada ranks 29th.

Chile is ranked 64th; Peru, 89th; and even Colombia, another country that is grappling with drug trafficking, is ranked 112th. Honduras is ranked 140th out of 191 countries, tied with Egypt, a country where the rights of journalists have been repeatedly violated since the protests of a few years ago.

This agreement is not in keeping with the course of current affairs in Canada. When it comes to freedom of the press, Honduras has a track record that is far worse than its neighbours or Canada's other preferred trade partners.

PEN Canada also pointed out that a lot of the topics that are putting journalists in danger include business, investment and trade. All evidence suggests that journalists who write about far more controversial and sensitive subjects, such as the environment, natural resources and land disputes, are at a far greater risk than their colleagues of being victims of violence or murder.

The Conservatives keep saying that signing a free trade agreement will improve the human rights situation in Honduras. Honestly, do they believe in magic? Not only have Honduran institutions been unable to protect the fundamental human rights of Hondurans, but the government has a history of being involved in human rights violations.

When I asked Karen Spring, who testified before the committee, whether she thought the free trade agreement would have a positive or negative effect on human rights issues, this is what she said:

I would say even the enforcement mechanisms that are established in Honduras under Honduran law are not being enforced in any way given the high impunity rate, so I would say the human rights situation will be negative if we encourage further economic interests in sectors that have traditionally been linked to mass human rights abuses that haven't been mediated by the state.

I also asked Ms. Spring whether she thought Hondurans would benefit from the agreement. This was her answer:

...I would say foreign companies, foreign investment, and the 10 to 12 [Honduran] families who have traditionally run the Honduran economy and political arena [and who will benefit].

According to the experts, not even Hondurans will benefit from this free trade agreement.

Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to discuss other subjects. I oppose this bill and I hope my colleagues will too.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in support of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement today.

Since 2006, our Conservative government has been focused on the priorities of Canadians: creating jobs, growth, and economic opportunities for all. One of the ways we have been achieving real results for Canadians is through opening new markets for Canadian businesses.

The Canadian economy relies on international trade. Our companies, over 40,000 of them, are already exporting. As the global economy becomes more and more interconnected, value chains grow and more of our businesses become active internationally. In Canada, one in five jobs is dependent on exports. Today trade-related activity represents more than 60% of Canada's gross domestic product.

Canadian companies are among the best in the world. Not only can they compete, they can succeed in the global marketplace. Our government is creating conditions to support the success of our companies, and we owe it to them to take action.

Canada has always been active in international trade. With the global economic crisis and the toxic threat of greater protectionism, the need for open markets has now become clearer than ever.

Canadian businesses have expressed broad support for trade and investment agreements. These agreements directly benefit small and medium-sized businesses for whom red tape and delays can be particularly burdensome. Our Conservative government continues to be a strong advocate on the world stage for free and open markets. In fact, the Minister of International Trade recently announced that Canada will join 13 World Trade Organization members, including China, the European Union, Japan, and the United States of America, in negotiations toward a new World Trade Organization plurilateral agreement on environmental goods. More open trade in environmental products will increase the availability and lower the cost of environmental goods, such as hydraulic turbines, air handling equipment, water treatment technologies, and waste management or recycling equipment. It is an ambitious agreement that will significantly facilitate the achievement of the green growth and sustainable development objectives of the World Trade Organization economies by creating a win-win situation for trade and for the environment.

Rather than take a wait-and-see approach and hope for the best, Canada decided to proactively focus on diversifying our trading relationships through regional and bilateral free trade agreements. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade, 2013 was the most successful year for trade in Canadian history.

Last October our Conservative government reached an agreement in principle on the Canada-European free trade agreement. It is a great achievement, I might add. This is a major milestone on Canada's international trade negotiations agenda. Through the Canada-Europe free trade agreement, our companies will gain preferential access to a market of over 500 million affluent consumers and a collective gross domestic product of $17 trillion. A Canada-European Union joint study concluded that the agreement would increase Canada's GDP by $12 billion annually and would grow bilateral trade by 20%.

In addition to this historic agreement in principle with the European Union, since 2006 we have concluded agreements with the European Free Trade Association, which includes Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, Lichtenstein, and with Peru, Colombia, Jordan, and Panama. We most recently concluded negotiations with Korea. We are also working expeditiously to conclude negotiations with the members of the trans-Pacific partnership as well as bilateral agreements with Japan and India.

To help Canadian investors, since 2007 we have concluded or brought into force 22 new or updated foreign investment protection and promotion agreements. These are just a few examples of our international trade achievements to date.

Contrast this with the Liberal record on trade, signing only three free trade agreements, agreements that are being broadened and modernized by this Conservative government, and having expensive political photo ops without any proven results or follow up, unfortunately. We have left behind that decade of Liberal trade neglect. To do this, we conducted consultations right across this great country. We engaged around 400 business and industry stakeholders. These were not just large corporations but the small and medium-sized businesses that are the lifeblood of the Canadian economy.

This is why we are so proud of the global markets action plan we launched in November 2013. This is not a bureaucratic exercise. It is a concrete plan for Canadian business developed with Canadian business. The global markets action plan focuses on our international economic engagement by identifying priority sectors and markets. It also underscores the importance of economic diplomacy, and of course, it aims to help Canadian small and medium-sized companies expand their global reach.

Through this government's initiatives, we want to support Canadian companies, whether they export goods or services or want to invest, to be competitive in these new markets.

Speaking of new markets, our government has long recognized the growing importance of the Americas. The Prime Minister confirmed this when he made that region a foreign policy priority in 2007. Increased trade and commercial engagement is part of the Prime Minister's vision for a more prosperous, secure, and democratic hemisphere, and it makes sense to Canadian businesses too. Total trade between countries in the Americas and Canada increased 34% from 2007 to 2013, not to mention that Canadian direct investment was up 58.6% from 2007 to 2012, a big jump.

How does Honduras fit into our ambitious free trade plan to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians? That is a very good question. In 2011, the Prime Minister announced that we had successfully concluded free trade agreement negotiations with Honduras. I would like to note three key reasons why it was important for Canada to conclude this agreement.

First, Canadian companies were already at a competitive disadvantage in Honduras, and that is a fact. Since 2006, American companies have benefited from having an established free trade deal with Honduras.

Listen to what César Urias, director, Latin America, for Canada Pork International, said to the international trade committee during its study of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. He stated:

In 2004...Canada exported 1,345 metric tons estimated at $2.2 million, approximately one-third of Honduras pork imports. By 2006, Canadian pork exports dropped to zero as the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States free trade agreement...came into effect.

This unlevel playing field was made even worse when the European Union concluded its free trade deal with Central America, including Honduras, in 2010. That free trade agreement has been provisionally applied with Honduras since the summer of 2013. Our companies need to catch up with our U.S. and EU counterparts. The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would put them on a level playing field, a level playing field for which they have been asking.

Take as an example what Vincent Taddeo, vice-president international for Cavendish Farms, said. He stated:

The Canadian government must make the timely establishment of free trade negotiations a greater priority and ensure a more level playing field for our exports and exporters; ...be proactive and aggressive in negotiating and conducting other free trade agreements.

I can assure our pork farmers, producers, and workers at companies like Cavendish Farms that this Conservative government is heeding their call.

Second, when we negotiate a free trade agreement, we are looking at the potential for trade in the future. From 2009 to 2013 our two-way merchandise trade with Honduras grew 59.2%. This trend speaks to the potential for further growth of our trading relationship with Honduras. Once the free trade agreement enters into force and our companies begin to see the benefits of tariff elimination, imagine the enhanced opportunities for Canadian business. When our businesses trade, they create jobs and opportunities for workers here in Canada.

To take a snapshot of what this agreement would mean for our pork producers, I will again refer to Mr. César Urias' comments when he stated:

The free trade agreement with Honduras is estimated to generate sales of $5 million to $7 million in the first year following implementation.

That is just in the first year. Stories like that from our industry prove why this agreement needs to be passed and as soon as possible. I repeat: as soon as we can.

What the anti-trade New Democratic Party does not understand is how broad the benefits would be for Canadians, even after Mr. Urias spelled it out for its members at committee, when he explained:

...[the free trade agreement] benefits the very base, the very foundation of the producing sector, as well as farmers, distributors, transporters by train, truck, or you name it. It even benefits financial services, insurance, and credit industries. There's a large, vast effect that is replicated in many other industries, not just...[the pork industry]. It's not just a focused effect. It spreads all over.

When this improved market access for goods is combined with the agreement's provisions on investment, services, and government procurement, we will have created the conditions for Canadian companies to succeed in that market.

Investors would also benefit. The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement includes provisions designed to protect bilateral investment through legally binding obligations, and to ensure that investors would be treated fairly and in a non-discriminatory manner. Through the free trade agreement, investors would also have access to transparent, impartial, and binding dispute settlement. The investment provisions of this free trade agreement would support a stable legal framework that would protect Canadian investments in Honduras and vice versa, including guaranteeing the transfer of investment capital and protecting investors against expropriation without prompt and adequate compensation.

Finally, this agreement underscores Canada's ongoing commitment to our partnership with Honduras. Honduras is a country with many difficulties and it would be easy to, as the NDP constantly demands, turn our backs in the face of human rights and security challenges. However, this government firmly believes in engagement, not isolation. That is the real way to achieve results. Only by continuing to build an open and credible dialogue can we support positive change in the country.

Even Jim Bannantine, president and CEO of Aura Minerals, a Canadian mining company operating in Honduras, agrees. He said:

...the free trade agreement, through the economic integration and jobs, is the best effect on the security in Honduras. By far the number one positive factor in security in Honduras, that allows us to practise our...[corporate social responsibility] and operate unimpeded, is jobs, economic growth; jobs make the best defence against this violence.

This commitment to building positive change is evident in Canada's multi-faceted, bilateral relationship with Honduras, from our people-to-people links to Canada's development program, and extends into our free trade agreement negotiations. This is why it is important to Canada that we include provisions like corporate social responsibility and anti-corruption and why we negotiated parallel agreements on labour and environmental co-operation.

During his testimony, Mr. Bannantine made it very clear that the Honduran people are seeing results, when he said:

On the...[corporate social responsibility] side, there are lots of examples on the ground. A couple of million dollars a year go to the local community.

For these reasons, the free trade agreement is a cornerstone of our bilateral relationship. The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would absolutely benefit both our countries.

I urge all hon. members to support the implementation of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. Let us get together and pass Bill C-20 as soon as possible.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

moved that Bill C-20, 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, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the concept of the very strange proposition put forward by my friend. He uses this concept of shifts and believes there is some perverse obligation on the part of the government that, if the opposition wishes to filibuster the production of new laws and delay their production, we somehow have an obligation to match them step for step in extending that process. His comparison is with ordinary Canadians. He said that ordinary Canadians should not produce a product at the end of the day at work; they should take two, three, or four days to get the same thing made. That is his idea of getting things done. That is his idea of how ordinary Canadians can work. I think that says something about the culture of the NDP and the hon. member. I will let members guess what culture that is. It is a culture that does say we should take two or three times longer to get something done or to get to our destination than we possibly can.

We on this side are happy to make decisions to get things done for Canadians. In fact, that is exactly what we have been doing. Since I last rose in response to a Thursday question, the House has accomplished a lot, thanks to our government's plan to work a little overtime this spring.

I know the House leader of the official opposition boasts that the New Democrats are happy to work hard, but let us take a look at what his party's deputy leader had to say on CTV last night. The hon. member for Halifax was asked why the NDP agreed to work until midnight. She confessed, “We didn't agree to do it.” She then lamented, “We are going from topic to topic. We are doing votes. We are at committees. They are really intense days. We're sitting until midnight.”

On that part, I could not agree more with the deputy leader of the NDP, believe it or not, but with much more cheer in my voice when I say those words, because we think it is a good thing. These are intense days. We are actually getting things done. We are actually voting on things. We are actually getting things through committee. For once, we are going from topic to topic in the run of the day.

Let me review for the House just how many topics, votes, and committee accomplishments we have addressed since the government asked the House to roll up its sleeves.

Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act, was passed at second reading and has even been reported back from the citizenship committee.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was concurred in at report stage and later passed at third reading.

Bill C-31, the economic action plan 2014 act, no. 1, was reported back from the finance committee.

Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, was concurred in at report stage.

On the private members' business front we saw:

Bill C-555, from the hon. members for West Nova in support of the seal hunt, was passed at second reading.

Bill C-483, from my hon. colleague, the member for Oxford, cracking down on prisoners' escorted temporary absences was passed at third reading.

Bill C-479, from the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, on improving the place of victims in our justice system was passed at third reading last night.

Progress is not limited to Conservative initiatives. The Green Party leader's Bill C-442, respecting a Lyme disease strategy, was reported back from committee yesterday.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay saw a motion on palliative care pass.

We have also seen countless reports from committees reviewing the government's spending plans, as well as topics of importance to those committees.

This morning we even ratified the appointment of an officer of Parliament.

Finally, I do want to reflect on the accomplishment of Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act (Vanessa's law), which members may recall me discussing in last week's Thursday statement. It finally passed at second reading. However, this did not happen until the NDP relented and changed its tune to allow the bill to go to committee. It was the first time ever that we had an expression from the New Democrats when we gave notice of intention to allocate time in which they said, “We don't need that time; we're actually prepared to allow a bill to advance to the next stage”. I think, by reflecting on the fact that those dozens of other times the NDP did not take that step, we could understand that they did not want to see a bill advance; they did not want to see progress made. That lets Canadians understand quite clearly why it is we need to use scheduling and time allocation as a device to get things done in the face of a group that thinks the objective is to fill up all possible time available with words rather than actual votes and getting things done.

It is clear that our approach is working. We are getting things done in the House of Commons and delivering results for Canadians.

Perhaps I might be overly inspired by the example of Vanessa’s Law, but I do want to draw the attention of the House to Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act.

So far, we have seen three days of debate on second reading of the bill, but “debate” is actually not accurate. What we have witnessed is speech, after speech, after speech—most of them from New Democrats—offering platitudes of support for the idea of getting that bill to a committee where it could be studied. What I want to know is, why will they not just let it happen? Victims of crime want to see meaningful action, not just kind words.

Suffice it to say that I will need to schedule additional time for discussion of this bill. Perhaps the NDP will let it pass after a fourth day of talk.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage debate on Bill C-31, our budget implementation bill. When that concludes, we will turn to Bill C-20, to implement our free trade agreement with Honduras, at third reading. If time permits, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-24, which makes the first modernization of the Citizenship Act in 35 years. After question period, I will call Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, to see if the NDP is ready to deliver results, not talk.

Monday morning, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-20, if more time is needed, and then resume the second reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act. After question period, we will get back to the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act.

Tuesday shall be the eighth allotted day when the NDP will have a chance to talk, and talk, about a topic of their own choosing. At the end of the night, we will have a number of important votes on approving the funds required for government programs and services and pass two bills to that end.

On Wednesday, we will debate our budget bill at third reading, and then we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, which my seatmate, the Minister of Justice, tabled yesterday.

We will continue the debates on Bill C-36 and Bill C-24, if extra time is needed, on Thursday. After those have finished, and on Friday, we will resume the uncompleted debates on Bill C-3, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at third reading; Bill C-6, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at report stage; Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, at third reading; Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act, at second reading; Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, at second reading; Bill C-32, the Victims Bill of Rights Act, at second reading; and Bill C-35, the Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), at second reading.

To make a long story short, we have accomplished much in the House over the last week, but we still have much left to do, which inspires me to note that in the week ahead I have to take my automobile in for maintenance. At that time, when I take it to the dealership, I hope one person will work on it for an hour, get the job done, and then return it to me at a reasonable cost. I do hope I am not told, “There are still many more employees who have not had a chance to have a shift working on your car as well, so we are going to keep it here another three days and give everybody a turn to work on your car.” I hope the dealership will do as Conservatives do: get the job done and then deliver me the product.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The clock for the vote had expired and it is not a requirement that the two whips enter at the same time, even though it is common practice.

At this point, we will proceed to concurrence at report stage of Bill C-20.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-20.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from June 3 consideration of Bill C-20, 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to speak late in the evening and even more so to wake up everyone in the House and everyone who is watching to say that, at this time, we are debating Bill C-20, with respect to the free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras.

Unfortunately, before I get into the specifics, I have to admit that I am somewhat surprised to see that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are participating as they should be. I am surprised but, at the same time, not so much. In fact, that is what is really happening here in Ottawa. They are not present. They say they will be in the House to participate in the debate and share ideas so that together we can properly represent Canadians, but they are not here. Only the NDP is here and it has not missed a single opportunity to speak. The New Democrats have always been here and we will sit day and night. We did it when we arrived in 2011. I arrived in 2011 and, in the first weeks, we sat day and night.

As for me, I will not fall sleep when the interests of Canadians are at stake. I will participate in the debate and fiercely defend their interests, because that is what democracy is all about. It is good that we can have this exchange when people from different parties are present. They can bring their points of view, we can bring ours, and we can strike a certain balance and find ways to really improve things, to really improve bills. I see that the Conservative government is there, and that it is not moving, not speaking and closing it eyes and ears. It is not moving and I find that unfortunate. It makes no sense. I think that the Conservatives have sunk very low.

What the NDP wants in this Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is very simple. New Democrats want to assure Canadians that we realize how important trade is to our economy. We support increasing trade opportunities and we support Canadian exporters. However, this obviously needs to be done with human, environmental and social rights in mind, and we must ensure that the agreement benefits both countries. That is what is truly important. We also want to see more trade agreements with countries that honour Canadian values and sign trade agreements that truly benefit the Canadian economy.

New Democrats want to implement a strategic trade policy in order to restart multilateral negotiations and sign agreements with developed countries that have high standards or that are implementing high standards. I am talking about countries such as Japan, India, Brazil and South Africa. These are all countries with which Canada should sign trade agreements, not countries like Honduras, where drug trafficking goes on with near impunity, where human rights are regularly violated, where democracy is in jeopardy and virtually absent, and where low standards will certainly harm our Canadian companies.

We believe there are three fundamentally important criteria that we should use in assessing trade agreements. I will not reinvent the wheel; it is very simple. First, is the proposed partner one who respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If not, is the partner trying to achieve these objectives? That is something we need to ask, and this objective is not met in this agreement. Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significance or strategic value to Canada? Once again, this objective is not met in this free trade agreement. Third, are the terms of this proposed agreement satisfactory? I do not think so. The proposed free trade agreement with Honduras does not meet any of these three criteria.

Since Honduras is not a democratic country with adequate standards and institutions, since it represents little strategic interest to Canada, and since it is home to serious human rights violations, the majority of Canadians would certainly be opposed to giving this country preferential trade conditions.

Several interveners agree with the NDP and support our position. For example, Sheila Katz, a representative of the Americas Policy Group, Canadian Council for International Co-operation, had this to say when she appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade on April 22, 2013:

The Americas Policy Group has recommended that Canada refrain from concluding free trade agreements with countries that have poor democratic governance and human rights records.

...Canada's eager recognition of a president who came to power in a military coup in Honduras in 2009...is another example of Canada prioritizing the trade pillar of its Americas strategy above the rest. Since the coup, hundreds of regime opponents have been intimidated, arbitrarily arrested, disappeared, tortured, and killed. The Americas Policy Group is concerned that Canada has validated this regime by adopting a business-as-usual approach and signing a free trade agreement with Honduras in spite of its human rights record.

In Quebec, in my riding, Lawyers Without Borders has done exceptional work. I know that they were on a mission from November 21 to 26, 2013. They issued this press release:

...the executive director of Lawyers Without Borders Canada, Pascal Paradis, along with approximately 10 other dignitaries and representatives of international human rights organizations, took part in a mission organized by the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH). The purpose of the mission was to observe whether human rights violations occurred during the general election held on Sunday, November 24.

In a press release issued on November 25...the mission reported a number of irregularities that it felt tainted the process and could discredit the results. The mission also made several recommendations to Honduran authorities and the international community.

I also have a comment from Neil Reeder, director general of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade's Latin America and Caribbean Bureau:

Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, with 65% of its people living in poverty. It suffers from extremely unequal income distribution. The country also suffers from social inequality, high unemployment, poor health and education. More than 60% of all Hondurans are highly vulnerable to food insecurity.

I could go on, but I know that I do not have a lot of time. I could speak at length about people who have concerns about this free trade agreement with Honduras.

When I look at the government, I get the impression that it collects agreements just for the fun of bragging about signing so many free trade agreements. These agreements essentially represent a very small percentage of our trade. Contrary to what the Conservatives say, it is not really worth it, but they keep bragging and signing. We will not find out the consequences of our actions until later—the consequences of this Conservative government that has no idea what it is doing. It does things with its eyes closed, without listening to experts: the Canadians who travel abroad and report back these types of incidents.

I invite the Conservatives to stand up in the House and speak so that we can finally have a debate. The important thing in the House of Commons is to debate.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-20 concerning the free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras.

Since we often hear this from the Conservatives and Liberals, it is important to mention that in the NDP, we are in favour of trade. We believe that it is important to our economy. However, unlike the Conservatives and Liberals, we are not ready to trade freely at just any cost. We understand that there are trade opportunities for our exporters and that these must be supported. Having worked abroad and in business law, I understand how important it is to trade with other countries, but we must do so intelligently.

My colleagues on the other side, just like the Liberals, undoubtedly have not read the book Fair Trade For All, written by Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize recipient in economics, and Andrew Charlton. Many statements from this book are very important, but what I want to do today is to sum up our position on trade agreements.

When entering into and negotiating a free trade agreement, it is important to ensure that the partner respects democracy, human rights, adequate labour standards, environmental protection standards and Canadian values. This is in a broader sense. If these countries cannot have these elements in place, what can we do to help them? Moreover, we have to determine whether the partner brings something to the Canadian economy, in other words, whether the country holds strategic value for Canada. Of course, we also have to consider whether the agreement is beneficial in and of itself.

It is clear that the Liberals supported the agreement with Europe, without having even read it. Once again, this is simply ideological. They say that they agree, regardless of the conditions in the agreement, just to be able to claim that they are in favour of trade. In the NDP, we are more pragmatic. We review the trade details, and the partners with whom we negotiate to determine whether the agreement is beneficial or not to Canada.

Turning back to Honduras, more specifically, I would like to talk about an issue that affects us very deeply, and about which most of my colleagues have spoken, that is, human rights. I am going to quote Carmen Cheung, a researcher for the international human rights program:

These past five years [since the coup] have seen a dramatic erosion in protections for expressive life in Honduras. Journalists are threatened, they're harassed, attacked, and murdered with near impunity, and sometimes in circumstances that strongly suggest the involvement of state agents....

Among the journalists and human rights defenders we spoke with, there is a pervasive sense that they are under threat, and that the state is, at best, unable or unwilling to defend them, or at worst, complicit in the abuses.

In short, we know that there are human rights problems in Honduras. I hear my Liberal colleagues saying that we will sign a free trade agreement in order to help them. In other words, we will sign the agreement and cross our fingers and hope that it will help the people of Honduras.

In that case, I will quote Pablo Heidrich, an economist at the North-South Institute:

...I don't find signing an FTA [or a free trade agreement] at this point to be an effective way of engaging with Honduras if the purpose is to bring development and security and stability to Honduras....

I think what the Honduran government needs...is a certain level of pressure so that the government becomes more responsive to wider social demands and it stops being sort of a committee that administers the gains of a very limited group of people.

I believe that clearly summarizes the NDP's position and concerns. That is why we will not be supporting this free trade agreement.

However, we know that the Conservatives are willing to sign every possible free trade agreement just to say that they are pro- trade and to hide, to some extent, their results and their actual record.

When the Conservatives came to power, Canada had a current account surplus of $18 billion, but eight years later, there is a trade deficit of $80 billion, a decline of $10 billion per year. This is the trade report for the Conservative government. It is pretty shameful.

As for the Liberals, they will sign agreements and say they support them. However, they will do what they did with Kyoto. They will sign these agreements and say the will is there, but they will not do anything to implement them afterwards. Again, in this case, they say they support a free trade agreement and hope Hondurans will benefit from it, but let us look at their actions.

That is what is really important, to look at the actions of each party. Right now we have the Conservatives signing all sorts of trade agreements, regardless of who they are signing with and regardless of the benefits for the other country or for our country. We have the Liberals supporting them and just hoping that they can change things.

It is really important for me to raise this issue, if I may make a parallel with what is happening right now with the Trans-Pacific Partnership. As we all know, there are some discussions being made. Unfortunately, we do not have all the information here, but what is happening in the U.S. right now is really important for us to look at.

In the U.S. last week, on May 29, 153 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter asking that the ongoing TPP negotiations include an enhancement framework for protecting international human and labour rights.

Again, that is an example for my Liberal friends over there who say we cannot do anything and we will cross our fingers and hope that it will make it better. What they are doing right now is actually pushing forward and asking, when they negotiate, to have concrete measures to actually tackle the human rights issue.

I will read part of the letter that was signed by members in the U.S., part of which is important for me:

In this context, we were alarmed by recent reports in Vietnamese media that Truong Dinh Tuyen, the former Vietnamese Minister of Trade and current senior advisor on international negotiations, said that Vietnam would not accept a TPP requirement that workers be allowed to establish independent labor unions, but would instead accept a compromise that devolved some power to local unions. While we are pleased to see that Vietnamese officials are beginning to realize that continuation of the country’s flagrant violations of core labor standards—which has been documented at length by the Departments of Labor and State—is unacceptable, we were concerned that Mr. Tuyen seems to believe that halfway measures will be adequate. That is not the case. All TPP member nations, including Vietnam, must fully comply with TPP labor obligations, including those related to freedom of association and collective bargaining.

In countries like Vietnam in which workers have faced extraordinary abuses, there must be binding and enforceable plans to bring those countries’ laws and practices into compliance with TPP labor requirements. Those plans must be made public, and the changes to the laws and practices must be fully implemented, before Congress takes up TPP for consideration, while trade benefits granted by the agreement must be contingent on the plans’ continued implementation. In countries such as Vietnam, where the labor regime must be substantially transformed, an additional mechanism is needed to link those benefits to Vietnam’s regular demonstration of the effective enforcement of its new law laws.

It is clear that Vietnam, in particular, must do substantial work to achieve a minimally acceptable level of respect for workers’ rights for a trading partner of the United States. Vietnamese law requires that all unions in the country be affiliated with the Vietnam General Confederation of Labor, which describes itself as “a member of the political system under the leadership of the Communist Party of Vietnam,” and in so doing violates workers’ rights to form and join independent labor unions of their own choosing. Meanwhile, the Department of Labor lists Vietnam as one of just four countries where there is reason to believe that garments might have been produced by forced or indentured child labor.

This is an example of what we can do when we negotiate. In the case of Honduras, the government obviously has not negotiated in terms of bringing forward better human rights and better labour rights for people in Honduras. The Liberals are saying we should sign an agreement and hopefully it would help Honduras, clearly we can see that while we are negotiating, we can actually do something. We can ask for something in return.

We are not desperate to sign a trade agreement with Honduras, knowing that it is not our biggest trade partner. It is our 104th partner. There is also a trade deficit that we have with Honduras right now. Why not take the time to negotiate and to bring forward real amendments that would help the countries with which we negotiate? When we look at what the Liberals are doing in terms of supporting the trade agreement with Honduras, we see they do not really care and they do not think we can change things. However, New Democrats think we can change things and make the world better.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats believe that Canadians recognize the importance of trade for our economy, and that they want a strategic and effective trade policy that increases our trade opportunities and supports our exporters.

The government wants to enter into a free trade agreement with Honduras. Honduras is characterized by its undemocratic practices, corrupt government, failing institutions, and record of human rights violations. Honduras has low standards and negligible strategic value.

This is why the New Democrats do not support Bill C-20, An Act to Implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras. This evening, I rise to explain why this agreement will not benefit the Canadian economy, and how it goes against our values.

Honduras' human rights record leaves a lot to be desired. Its institutions are weak, its police forces and army corrupt and, still today, its policies are oppressive and undemocratic.

Violence in Honduras has increased considerably since 2009, which is particularly troubling in terms of its human rights record and the level of impunity in the country. Not many crimes are investigated and fewer still are heard by the courts.

The Supreme Court of Honduras has estimated the rate of impunity to be approximately 98%. However, according to those consulted, the actual degree of impunity ranges from 80 to 98%. A report on political assassinations in Honduras, published one and half years prior to the November 2013 election, revealed that 36 candidates or aspiring candidates in the November 2013 election were assassinated. Furthermore, there were 24 cases of armed assault against candidates.

It is very difficult, therefore, to address the human rights problems. Canadian investments in the region have very real consequences for human rights, given such high levels of impunity. That about sums up a country that the Conservatives want to provide preferential trade access to, and with which they want to foster closer economic ties. Impunity reigns in Honduras.

Bill C-20 would implement a treaty that turns a blind eye to human rights. It is a yet another missed opportunity. Bilateral trade negotiations, and the planned intensification of the relationship between Canada and Honduras, puts our country in a unique position to put pressure on Honduras so that the country can do more to address this crisis. It is not too late for us to seize this opportunity.

Unfortunately, I have very little hope that the government is listening to us. If we look at the various free trade agreements signed with other Latin American and Central American countries, human rights are still being violated.

As far as the agreement itself is concerned, I would like to reiterate what a number of witnesses mentioned when the bill was in committee. Currently, Honduras is Canada's 104th export market in terms of the value of exports. In 2012, exports totalled a measly $38 million and imports amounted to $218 million, which represents a major trade deficit.

Internal analyses by Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada confirm that this agreement will generate only marginal benefits for the Canadian economy.

It is important to note that the United Nations conference on trade and development ranks countries according to the access they have to their main partners' markets. Honduras is one of the countries at the top of the list. In other words, Honduras does not need more access to the market to boost its exports in the rest of the world, unlike most of the other developing countries.

Instead of concluding agreements with undemocratic countries that do not respect the rights and values that are important to Canadians, the government should be concluding agreements with countries where it has been proven that such an agreement is advisable, such as Brazil.

The government says that this agreement will guarantee our economic prosperity. However, signing such a free trade agreement will not benefit Canadians. The government fails to mention that Canada's manufacturing sector will be hit hard by this free trade. It will be more profitable to manufacture in Honduras, where there is no viable regulation in the textiles industry, than to manufacture in Canada. Competition is totally unfair in this sector.

I will close by saying that, just like the free trade agreements with Colombia and Ecuador, this agreement will benefit Canadian extractive industries. The Canadian extractive industry has interests in Honduras, but Canadian mining companies there are embroiled in controversial conflicts with citizens and aboriginal groups or are facing allegations of environmental contamination.

The extractive sector is one of Canada's most significant commercial interests. Investor protection provisions are therefore an important part of the agreement. Canadian mining companies have been involved in controversial local conflicts with citizens and aboriginal groups and are facing environmental contamination allegations. CIDA and the Department of Foreign Affairs have helped develop the Honduran mining code, but that code does not respect the interests of local residents and does not provide acceptable social, environmental and economic protection.

New Democrats believe that Canada's corporate social responsibility strategy does not go far enough toward ensuring that Canadian companies operating in developing countries respect applicable standards and laws. Where it has a presence abroad, Canada must promote values of respect, social justice, environmental protection and human rights. Practices that are prohibited in Canada should not be allowed abroad.

New Democrats will continue to pressure the government to pass stricter legislation that will make Canadian mining, gas and oil companies responsible for their activities in developing countries. I will vote against this bill, the latest in a long line of bills subject to time allocation. This is yet another undemocratic act on the part of our government, which is preventing us from talking about a bill that is very important to our economic and trade policy.

Did the government use what it learned from Honduran institutions to pursue its own interests?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for putting forward our position as New Democrats on this legislation.

Bill C-20 is a bill that would implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras. It is a bill that we very much oppose and, sadly, it is a bill that reflects the Conservative government's agenda, which is to disregard human rights, environmental sustainability, and the reputation that we as a country have built over the last number of years, and throw it all away in the name of presumably creating some wealth for probably some of the government's friends.

We oppose the bill because of three fundamentally important criteria: is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If there are challenges in these regards, is the partner on a positive trajectory toward these goals? We have also made it clear that we are concerned about the terms of the proposed agreement and the strategic value that this kind of relationship would pose for Canada. On these three criteria, this agreement fails.

We have indicated, and members have heard this tonight only from New Democrat members who have been speaking in the House, that Honduras is a country with undemocratic practices, a corrupt government, weak institutions, and low standards. It is of insignificant strategic value and it has a dark record of human rights abuses.

We have heard about the military coup d'état in 2009 in Honduras. We have heard about the attack on journalists and freedom of speech. We have heard about the persecution of trade unionists and human rights advocates. We have heard of the danger that LGBTQ Hondurans have faced in their country, and in fact of the murder of members of that community. We have heard of the incredible inequality that exists in that country. We have heard in so many ways that the situation for Hondurans in their own country is becoming worse, yet the Government of Canada is proclaiming that somehow it is fitting for Honduras to have a closer relationship with Canada, that somehow this agreement would make a difference for the people of Honduras.

We do not have to look any further than the free trade agreement with Colombia, as we have heard from my NDP colleagues tonight. The trade agreement with Colombia is a perfect example of the way in which the government pursued a hardball economic agenda and said that human rights and environmental sustainability would be regulated and encouraged through side agreements and mechanisms parallel to the actual agreement. However, the human rights violations in Colombia continue. Trade unionists and human rights activists continue to be under threat. Indigenous peoples continue to be displaced. Colombians are no better off as a result of that agreement.

As a Canadian member of Parliament, what I would like to focus on today is the way in which the Conservative government is steadfastly dismantling the reputation that Canadians have built for so many years, a reputation that we have worked at as leaders in human rights, equality, and justice.

Sadly, there is no shortage of examples of the way in which the government has sought to change Canada's reputation, has chosen to reverse its position when it comes to the importance of human rights and equality, and has removed itself from any sort of multilateral co-operative approach to making the world a better place. Sadly, this legislation is yet one more example of that failure to live up to a reputation that many Canadians value, and sadly, there are too many other cases in which we see the government support corporate interests that in turn take away our stellar reputation around the world.

Let us look at the mining sector. Around 75% of the world's mining companies are based in Canada. We know that most of these mining companies do not actually have Canadian operations, but they benefit from the market scenarios and government policies when they set up shop here. In fact, a number of these companies are doing business around the world in a way that no Canadian can be proud of.

Canada's mining reputation is beginning to be noticed in the worst way around the world. There are too many examples to speak of to illustrate the ways in which companies that get support through Export Development Canada or even through direct investments from the Conservative government are creating havoc around the world.

I got to see one of these examples first-hand in a country that I know well, Greece. A company based in Canada, Eldorado Gold, with the help of money from Export Development Canada, has pursued mining development without the support of the public.

It has employed security forces to beat protesters. It has destroyed a tremendously valuable environment agriculturally and in terms of its natural wealth in northern Greece, to the point where people see the Canadian flag as something with a negative connotation. People are extremely critical, and they are saying things like “What happened to Canada?” They are very clear in their opposition not just to this mining development but to the kind of agenda that they see Canada putting forward around the world.

That is not something that makes me proud to be a Canadian member of Parliament. I am somebody who takes pride in being in the House, but the actions of the Conservative government affect all of us through the very correct perception that people have of us around the world.

Let us look at another area, the environment.

We know that Canada used to be seen as a leader. Sadly, under the Liberal government, a lot was left to be desired. Now, under the Conservative government, we have gone from being a leader to a laggard to an obstructionist when it comes to making a difference in terms of the environment. If we keep reducing emissions at the rate that we are going now every year, we will reach our 2020 targets in 2057.

Let us look at areas like maternal health. I had the chance to speak to this issue over the last number of weeks in great depth. We saw the way that Canada, often seen as a leader when it comes to women's rights, was very explicit in its exclusion of a fundamental aspect of a woman's right to health, which is her reproductive rights. All of this was to pursue the government's own ideological agenda.

The list goes on. Let us look at peacekeeping, at our role in conflicts around the world, our role more broadly in terms of the United Nations and the multilateral work that we used to be involved with but have now forgotten about.

This bill, in line with so many other bills and, more broadly, the agenda of the Conservative government, would contribute to sullying our reputation around the world. It would allow us to sit by as situations become worse for people in countries around the world, as well.

I would also like to touch on the way in which this kind of free trade agreement would not benefit Canadians.

We know that in Canada, we are seeing worsening income and wealth inequality. We know that 86 of the wealthiest Canadian residents hold the same amount as the bottom 11.4 million Canadians combined. We also know that with greater inequality in our country, when there is inequality in our safety and prosperity, everybody suffers.

I also want to note that, sadly, while the bill should be another effort in driving our ability as a country to provide for our own citizens and build our own economy, it is only an attempt by the current government to continue to pursue an agenda whereby few would benefit from trade programs like this. I am proud to stand with the NDP in opposition to the bill and in opposition to the government's agenda around the world.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this evening, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-20 on the free trade agreement between Canada the Republic of Honduras. This debate will go on until midnight. Back home, it will be 1 a.m.

We are calling this a debate but usually in a debate there are people to debate with. As we can see, the only people who are working tonight are members of the NDP, with the exception of a few people who are asking questions. When we bug them a bit, the Conservatives will ask us a question. I would like the parliamentary secretary to talk to me about the question he asked earlier. I could answer him and tell him what I think about the issue.

Today, with regard to the free trade agreement with Honduras, the government is once again saying that the NDP is against free trade. Are you kidding me? The government is lucky to have the NDP. At least we are capable of debating and having a discussion. Is the free trade agreement a good idea or not? The Liberals have not seen it, but they support it. At least when Jean Chrétien was a member of the opposition, he did not agree with free trade. He only agreed to it once he was elected prime minister.

It is interesting to see how things develop between the Liberals and the Conservatives. It is important to remember that the Liberals and the Conservatives answer only to big business and Bay Street in Toronto. It seems to be almost a crime to talk about workers. They talk about us as if we were union bosses. In a developed country like Canada, it is normal for workers to have an organization, an association or a union to look after their interests. The Conservatives and the Liberals go out of their way to rise in the House and insult labour organizations. With all due respect, I have never seen the Conservatives rise in the House and insult representatives of chambers of commerce. I call them the employers' union. I have never seen the Conservatives rise in the House to insult chambers of commerce or make comments about them like they do with the unions.

In a country like ours, a democratic country, I think that workers have the right to be represented. It is part of Canadian law.

When we were talking about free trade with the United States, the NDP was focused on one provision of NAFTA and that was chapter 11, which deals with health and safety rights and that sort of thing. Now we are talking about a free trade agreement with Honduras, a country that does not respect human, civil or workers' rights. This Conservative government cares only about the economy. It is not thinking about Canada's economy. It is thinking about the economy of a few of its buddies and how they can make money. It is looking at how they could go to a country like Honduras and develop it. It is looking at how money could be made with workers who work at the lowest salary of $1.25 U.S. a day. It is looking at how we could exploit these workers.

The Liberals have done an about-face and now support the agreement even though they have not seen it. It was the same with the European agreement. Agreements will happen, but we must remember that this is not about free trade; it is about fair trade. We cannot say that we have not been affected by the government's free trade negotiations. A lot of small factories in Ontario have closed down and Electrolux left Quebec to set up shop in Mexico. We have lost some great companies and good jobs.

Back home, paper mills in Miramichi, Bathurst and Campbellton have shut down, as has the one in New Richmond, in the Gaspé. These four paper mills have shut down. Now they take the wood, put it on ships and send it to Finland and all over. That is some great free trade there. Free indeed. We are sending our products overseas and we are left with nothing. That is what they are doing. Just take a look at the Atlantic provinces. The job situation in those provinces is not good. We do not even have free trade among the provinces and we are negotiating with other countries.

With all due respect, our Prime Minister turns around and says that Russia is terrible and that we will boycott it because it is not good for people in the surrounding countries.

He says we are going to team up with the Americans and the whole world to boycott Russia because of the civil rights issue. We send our troops to Afghanistan under the pretext that we want girls to attend school. Well, I would love to see Canada's aboriginal children go to school. I wish that aboriginal people in the north had schools. The Prime Minister travels all over the world to preach civil and human rights, but he is prepared to sign an agreement with a totalitarian government that does not even believe in these principles. Then they say that the New Democrats are the bad guys.

Is this not an opportunity to tell that country we are prepared to conclude a free trade agreement provided it respects human rights and pay equity, among other things? The Conservatives only want to sign this agreement to give our businesses an opportunity to exploit workers in that country, just like they have begun to exploit our own workers.

Pursuant to the changes to employment insurance, if an unemployed worker cannot find a job within six weeks, he must take one at 70% of his salary. Then, if he loses that job and cannot find another one the following year, he must again take a job that pays 70% of his last salary. This drives workers' salaries down. This is why the Conservatives support such a free trade agreement with a country that does not pay its workers.

The Prime Minister is very pleased because his friends will be able to exploit workers in countries where workers are not paid, or where people are locked up if they express their views.

It is the same with the Keystone XL pipeline that they want to build to the United States. The NDP wants that pipeline to be built in Canada, from west to east. We want to have refineries in Canada and work in the secondary and tertiary processing plants.

The Conservatives would rather send all that to the United States. They say that building the pipeline will create jobs, but once the work is completed no other jobs will be created. If the pipeline went to Montreal, Quebec City or Saint John, New Brunswick, in my region, we would expand our refineries and create jobs. However, this government is against regional economic development. It only wants to give large corporations an opportunity to make money elsewhere. This is precisely the purpose of this free trade agreement with Honduras.

Then the Liberals ask us if we are using the same criteria as we did the last time around. Of course we are. If the proposed partners do not respect human rights and workers, we must not sign any free-trade agreement with them. Otherwise, we take the side of the “big shots”. Back home, that is how we call those who earn a lot of money. The Liberals are good at that.

There is only one difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives: the Conservatives tell us in advance how they are going to hurt us, whereas the Liberals say that they will not hurt us. However, once elected, they do the same thing as the Conservatives.

Let us keep in mind the 57 billion dollars in the employment insurance fund that they dipped into and robbed from workers. Now, those workers are suffering and are being forced to work at lower wages. Then the government wants to sign deals like this one, without even providing the details to Parliament. They have to give us the real figures.

The same thing happened with the agreement between Canada and Europe. The Conservatives are not even able to show parliamentarians, the elected representatives of this country, the kind of deal that they sign with other governments.

As for the Liberals, they do not even bother rising tonight. That is not to say that they are not in the House. The Liberals and Conservatives are actually here, but they do not stand up and tell us why they want to sign that agreement. Instead of extolling the virtues of the agreement, they just sit there and watch us.

The Conservatives like to send employment insurance inspectors to visit the unemployed, with the hope that they will catch a few misbehaving ones. Well, if one of these inspectors were to come here, many people would have their pay docked because they really are not doing much. We are in the House of Commons to debate a bill, but these people have yet to take part in the debate. The House will be working until midnight, and during all that time, they will not expend the energy to actually stand up and support their own bill.

If the New Democrats were to introduce a bill, they would rise and tell Canadians why it is a positive move. We have not heard from the Conservatives tonight, although they may ask a few silly questions later. That is what they have done so far tonight, so I expect more of the same.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House at a somewhat late hour, but I am highly motivated to speak to Bill C-20, oddly named the Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act. In fact, what we are referring to is the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.

First of all, I would like to set out three conditions that, in the opinion of the NDP, create a free trade agreement that is appropriate for Canada and for signatories to such an agreement. First, the country that we want to sign an agreement with has an appreciable strategic value, and said agreement benefits the Canadian economy. Second, this agreement fosters an increase in trade opportunities and supports Canadian exporters. Third, the potential partner respects values that it has in common with Canada.

The NDP believes that these three conditions would favour the conclusion of trade agreements with partners in other countries.

Canada's economy is sustained by trade as a result of its natural characteristics, geography, demographics and history. Countries can enter into different types of agreements. The Conservatives' approach focuses only on one type, the free trade agreement.

In an article entitled “Questioning Conventional Wisdom”, Jim Stanford makes the following suggestion:

Canadian trade officials should take a page from Chinese and Brazilian strategists, to maximum the opportunities for domestic exporters through reciprocal trade and export-oriented development plans.... ...should work...to devise focused strategies to promote the presence of key valuable industries here—and to nurture Canadian-based globally-oriented firms in those industries.

Canada has signed several free trade agreements, notably the free trade agreement with the United States. However, since coming to power, the Conservatives seem to have become obsessed with signing such agreements. I am wondering whether it is to Canada's advantage to sign this type of agreement or whether it would be worthwhile exploring other avenues. When it comes to trade, we must identify advantages for the partners and ask certain questions, especially about the impact of NAFTA on the Canadian economy.

Let us take a moment to examine the changes observed in the Canadian economy in recent years. In the 1990s, value-added goods such as machinery, consumer goods and automobiles represented 60% of our exports. This trend has completely reversed in the last 10 years. Products with high value-added only account for 40% of our exports.

What has happened? The free trade agreement has opened Canada's doors to the U.S. so that the U.S. can export consumer products and other value-added goods to Canada. For its part, Canada has opened its doors to the U.S. so that they can provide Canadian natural or primary resources with lower value-added.

As a result of these facts and others, Canada's trade balance dropped steadily over 10 years going from 5.8% in 2000 to its lowest level of -1.9% in 2010.

In January 2014, La Presse reported that Canada had a huge trade deficit. Indeed, in March 2014, Canadian exports dropped by 1.4%.

Just this past Monday, The Globe and Mail also reported, again with regard to the so-called free trade agreement that we have with the United States, that the U.S. government was going to enhance the famous Buy American Act. That means that there would be barriers to the so-called free trade between Canada and the United States, not for the United States, but for Canada.

I will read an excerpt from that article that appeared in the Globe and Mail:

The unfortunate reality is that the North American free-trade agreement did not create a true free-trade zone. It enshrined existing protectionist barriers, and left some gaping loopholes.

What would the consequences be for Canadian exporters?

This measure that seems to be developing in the U.S. right now is called the Grow American Act. This is what is being said about it:

...which would ratchet up U.S. content requirements to 100 per cent by 2019 from the current 60 per cent.... ...[which] would likely force Canadian companies, such as subway car maker Bombardier Inc. and bus makers Nova Bus and New Flyer Industries, to shift more production—and jobs—to their U.S. plants.

There is an imbalance in some of the free trade agreements that Canada has negotiated over the years.

Canada's trade deficit is truly worrisome because it has a very significant impact on our economy. According to experts, this trend will not improve significantly in the coming years, despite the many free trade agreements this government brags about. In fact, one has to wonder whether it might be possible to conclude better trade agreements.

This government does not have a strategy. What is the Conservatives' economic vision for a 21st century Canada? What are the strategic sectors that the government is promoting abroad? Are we promoting Canada's value added sectors such as the aerospace, green technologies and high technologies sectors? Those are value added sectors where Canada has demonstrated its knowledge and expertise.

Do our partners in these trade agreements show an interest in Canadian products? Does the government showcase the high quality of Canadian exports and explain that, in Canada, we treat workers' health and safety, as well as their working conditions, as a priority, and that workers are paid a good salary?

Furthermore, does the government point out that Canadian businesses comply with environmental standards and that Canada is a democratic country with a stable economy? All these factors add to Canada's value as an exporter.

In the NDP's view, the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement will not promote economic growth and prosperity in either of the countries involved. For this reason and for many others, I will not support this bill.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight to speak to this bill. It is the first time I have risen to speak to a bill in a while because of the time allocation that keeps being brought forward by the government and has prevented me, as the member of Parliament for Scarborough Southwest, from representing my constituents' views on things like the budget or Bill C-23, the unfair elections act. The Conservatives continually cut off debate.

I am rising to speak to Bill C-20, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras. I have to say that I find it disturbing that the government is now presenting this bill. I believe that Canadians hold true a certain set of values based on decency, fairness, a respect for human rights, and, yes, the law as well. Many Canadians are very proud, as am I, of our country's record of peacekeeping in areas of international conflict. Many Canadians are proud of our tradition in history of being champions of human rights around the world. This bill is a definite departure from those values Canadians hold close and that we proudly identify as our own that make us all proud to be Canadians. This bill underscores the trend in Conservative foreign affairs that focuses less on our shared values of decency and fairness and respect for human rights and more on the narrow interests of a few industries.

It is disturbing, deeply troubling, and very sad. It is hard for me and for many Canadians to understand why the Conservatives would even want to negotiate a free trade agreement with a country like Honduras, which hat has one of the most horrendous records on human rights. I was particularly disturbed after reading the testimony and opinions of some of Canada's leading experts on foreign affairs in Central and Latin America. Stacey Gomez, coordinator of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation’s Americas Policy Group, had this to say about a free trade agreement with Honduras:

We have long maintained that under the right conditions, trade can generate growth and support the realization of human rights. These conditions simply do not exist in Honduras....until there is a verifiable improvement in the country’s democratic governance and human rights situation...the Canada-Honduras FTA will do more harm than good.

This is really the measure with which we have to negotiate and look at every trade agreement that we would sign with other countries in the world. The simple reality is that we are not going to get 100% of what we want in every trade agreement. It is not going to be 100% good and 0% bad no matter where we turn to do trade. We always have to find that right balance between the economic goods and the potential harms that might exist in a trade agreement. That is whether we are negotiating one with Europe, with China, or with Honduras. In this case, with Honduras, we truly do believe that this trade deal would actually enable the continued human rights abuses. It would enable the further degradation of life for many people in that country because it would embolden the regime that came about as the result of a military coup to continue doing the kinds of things that it has been doing.

That is why we also believe, as Stacey Gomez does, that the Canada-Honduras FTA would do more harm than good.

Before the provincial election was called in Ontario, I was out doing my regular “have your say” canvassing, where I go out to speak to constituents at their doorsteps to find out what issues matter to them. On that particular occasion, I was going out and speaking to constituents about the cuts that are proposed and coming to Canada Post, the ending of home mail delivery. I ran into a couple in an apartment building near Victoria Park and Queen Street who, out of the blue, thanked me for opposing this trade deal. I have to admit that I was taken aback because foreign affairs and trade is not a topic that comes up on the doorstep very often in Scarborough Southwest. I asked these constituents why they had problems with this particular trade deal. They worked for an agency that does work in Honduras, one of those agencies that is trying to shine a light into those dark places in the world. Only two weeks earlier a Honduran staff member of that organization had been killed and is now one of the numbers of people who have been eliminated by the regime. That loss was felt throughout the organization. Sitting at their doorstep, it was clear to me the impact it had on these two individuals. This is the kind of thing that all of us we try to leave work at work and not bring home at night, but it was clear that had impacted them and they were taking that loss back home with them at the end of the workday.

It is hard for me, and I think for many Canadians, to see how the country of Honduras comes close to meeting the criteria that would justify us signing a trade agreement, the one that determines there would actually be more good generated than harm.

Many Canadians are wondering perhaps what is really at play here. Testifying before the Standing Committee on International Trade on April 22, 2013, Sheila Katz of Americas Policy Group, Canadian Council for International Co-operation, told members that “the Americas Policy Group has recommended that Canada refrain from concluding free trade agreements with countries that have poor democratic governance and human rights records”.

She also said that, “Canada's eager recognition of a president who came to power in a military coup in Honduras in 2009” is another example of “Canada prioritizing the trade pillar of its Americas strategy above the rest. Since the coup, hundreds of regime opponents have been intimidated, arbitrarily arrested, disappeared, tortured and killed”, just like the person who worked for that agency that two of my constituents work for.

Further, she said that, “The Americas Policy Group is concerned that Canada has validated this regime by adopting a business-as-usual approach and signing a free trade agreement with Honduras, in spite of its horrendous human rights record”.

Honduras is a very poor country with a seriously flawed human rights record and a history of repressive undemocratic politics. The democratically elected government was toppled by a military coup in 2009 and subsequent governmental actions and elections have been heavily criticized by international observers as failing to meet acceptable democratic standards. NGOs have documented serious human rights abuses; killings; arbitrary detentions of thousands of people; severe restrictions on public demonstrations, protests, and freedom of expression; and interference in the independence of the judiciary. Of course, we perhaps have been encountering some of that here at home recently, but it really cannot be compared when there is an argument between the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice compared to the kinds of things and the interference that happens in Honduras, which is far worse. That said, none of it should be tolerated.

Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world and is considered the most dangerous country in the world for journalists, the ones who tell the stories about what is happening in the country. They are the people who tell the stories about what is happening in a parliament or the stories of what a government is doing that shines a light on the things that are happening back home.

Transparency International ranks it as the most corrupt country in Central America, yet our government is forging ahead, pushing to get this trade deal brought forward into law and having us sit until midnight. However, with all of these problems with the bill, where are the Conservatives to defend their actions, to get up and say this is why we should be signing the trade deal? Have we heard from any of them here tonight? They passed a motion to make us sit until midnight then they do not have the decency to get up and stand in their places, to actually take their speaking opportunities in order to defend the bills they are bringing forward.

Before we even include tonight, the Conservatives had missed 22 of the last speaking opportunities since the House started sitting late. That is at least 220 minutes of time they could have been using to defend their actions and to push their government's agenda ahead. Instead, they are asleep at the wheel. They actually got up and spoke last night. It was about time, but they only got up because the NDP was bringing attention to the fact that they were not showing up, that they were not doing their jobs. Well, New Democrats stand here every single night doing our job.

Honduras also has the worst income inequality in the region. After Canada struggled to get a multilateral deal with the Central American economies as a whole, Canada approached the weakest political actor, Honduras, and worked to negotiate a one-off deal as part of an ideological drive to get FTAs signed. In August 2011, the Prime Minister announced—

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good opportunity for me to speak in the House because there were many bills to which I wanted to speak but was unable to. My constituents of Scarborough—Rouge River have not been able to have their representative speak on their behalf in this chamber because the government continues to move closure or time allocation and restricts debate in the House.

That is happening today as well. We are debating the implementation of a free trade agreement that was negotiated in August 2011. It was signed in November 2013, and now we are into June of 2014. Only now is the government in a hurry to have the implementation of this free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras rushed through Parliament.

With respect to Bill C-20, the implementation of this free trade agreement, I will be opposing the bill along with most, if not all, of the New Democratic members. Honduras is a country with undemocratic practices, a corrupt government, weak institutions, and low standards, It is of insignificant strategic value and has a horrendous record of human rights abuses that have been documented many times over.

The New Democrats recognize the importance of trade to our economy, and we favour expanding trade opportunities that actually support Canada's exporters, the growth of Canada's economy and our continued economic viability. We do not want to continue to sign trade agreements that increase our trade deficit; rather, we would like to see a more balanced trade position for Canada with nations that respect Canadian values.

Honduras is not a country that actually respects or has anything similar to our Canadian values. These trade agreements need to be beneficial for the Canadian economy as well. We do not want go down the path of what the Conservative government has done, which is to continue our trade deficit with these agreements.

I will give a quick overview of the country with which the Prime Minister is in such a hurry to implement a free trade agreement.

Honduras is a very poor country with a seriously flawed human rights record and a history of repressive, undemocratic politics. The democratically elected government of President Manuel Zelaya was toppled by a military coup in 2009. The subsequent elections, of which my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca spoke, have been heavily criticized by international observers as failing to meet acceptable democratic standards.

I want to read a quote from Mr. Neil Reeder, the director general for the Latin America and Caribbean Bureau of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. He said:

Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, with 65% of its people living in poverty. It suffers from extremely unequal income distribution. The country also suffers from social inequality, high unemployment, poor health and education. More than 60% of all Hondurans are highly vulnerable to food insecurity. I'd also point out that the GDP per capita in Honduras is $2,000. The total GDP for the country is $17 billion, in a population of eight million.

In addition, we'd like to talk a bit about the institutions in Honduras, which are in some cases weak. Impunity is pervasive and corruption is a challenge.

Corruption within the Honduran police force is a particular problem, which the Government of Honduras also recognizes. Largely because Central America is situated between the drug-producing countries of South America and the drug-consuming countries to the north, Honduras and its neighbours have been particularly affected by the growth of transnational drug trafficking, human trafficking, and the impact of organized crime. It's estimated that nearly 80% of all cocaine-smuggling flights departing South America touch land in Honduras before continuing northward.

Clearly, from what the director general of the Latin America and Caribbean Bureau of our Department of Foreign Affairs has said, Honduras is not a country that espouses Canadian values. It is not a country that protects its citizens and values.

I know that my constituents in Scarborough—Rouge River do not support drug trafficking or human trafficking. They want to see our country grow and make relationships with other countries that are moving toward improving the global standard and are not supporting decreasing the value of people's lives, as human traffickers do.

In January 2010, Porfirio Lobo Sosa assumed the presidency of Honduras through what many deemed a very undemocratic and illegitimate election in that country. Of course, as we learned from my colleague for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, many opposition members were killed during that election. Also, the former president was under house arrest in Brazil, in the Brazilian embassy, during the election. It was not a genuine democratic election that took place in the country, and most foreign governments and election monitoring agencies refused to send observers. Many countries even rejected the results of that election.

Today I have a group of students visiting from Banting and Best Public School from my constituency.These are young minds of Canada who want to see our country's democracy in action, yet we are discussing the implementation of a trade agreement with a country that is not democratic, to the point that their elections are not even recognized by many foreign countries or election observers from around the world.

Human Rights Watch and many other NGOs have documented serious human rights abuses in Honduras. We have seen killings; arbitrary detention of thousands of people; severe restrictions on public demonstrations, protests, and freedom of expression; and interference in the independence of the judiciary. These are well-established facts.

Recently Human Rights Watch has also documented the ongoing land grabs that are happening in Honduras, about which the government is doing nothing. The government is very well aware of the situation, but it is doing nothing.

New Democrats want to support a free trade agreement that will promote growth in this country and in the country with which we have the free trade agreement. We want a strategic trade policy through which we would start multilateral negotiations and sign trade deals with developed countries that have high standards.

We also want trade deals with developing countries, but with those that are on a progressive trajectory. Examples are Japan, India, Brazil, and South Africa. These countries are showing improvement and movement in a positive way. These are countries that we should be signing trade agreements with, not countries like Honduras, where drug trafficking operates with impunity, human rights are regularly abused, democracy is continuously under threat, and low standards continue to hurt Canadian businesses operating there.

An FTA should be beneficial for both countries, as I said. When dealing with a developing country, we need to make sure that we have a beneficial relationship for both countries involved.

Some might argue that we are actually helping the poor people in Honduras. However, I would like to read a quote from Mr. Ricardo Grinspun, an associate professor in the Department of Economics at York University, who appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade. I will end with this one last quote.

He said:

...the idea that Canadians can help the most needy people in Honduras through this FTA is a public relations message, nothing more. Moreover, an FTA would provide international legitimacy to a political regime and economic model that is oligarchic, oppressive, and unjust. There are other more effective ways in which Canada could contribute to poverty alleviation, human security, and environmental sustainability in that part of the world....

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill and I look forward to answering some questions.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here I am, not quite at prime time in British Columbia but getting late here in Ontario, to oppose Bill C-20 at report stage. I spoke on this bill at second reading and clearly stated my fears about the bill, and many other New Democrats did so. However, here is the bill back at report stage with no changes. It is clear that the government has not been listening when it comes to our arguments about the ill-advised nature of signing a free trade agreement with Honduras.

In fact, I guess I have to say again that I often wonder if the government members have heard anything we have had to say on the topic of free trade. This goes so far as Conservative members continuing to stand in the House to say regularly that New Democrats have never supported a single free trade agreement. In fact, of course, that is not true. We supported the free trade agreement between Canada and Jordan. New Democrats have always said we need to evaluate each proposed trade agreement on the basis of objective criteria and not just endorse any and all trade agreements, no matter who the partner or what the cost to Canada's economy, on the basis of some uncritical belief in the god of free trade.

We believe there are three fundamentally important criteria we should use in assessing trade agreements: is the proposed partner one who respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values; second, is the proposed partner's economy of significance or strategic value to Canada; and third, are the terms of this proposed agreement satisfactory? Just as the agreement with Jordan clearly met these tests and, therefore, New Democrats supported it in the House, I believe the one with Honduras just as clearly fails all three of these tests.

Once again, today I want to focus on the first test: is Honduras a country that respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? Why have we chosen to negotiate a trade deal with Honduras, a country with a history of repressive, undemocratic politics and a seriously flawed human rights record? The democratically elected government of left-leaning president Manuel Zelaya was overthrown by a military coup in 2009. The coup was carried out by the Honduran army under the pretext of a constitutional crisis that had developed between the Supreme Court and the President over his progressive social policies.

The coup was widely condemned around the world, including by all other Latin American nations, the European Union, the United States, and the UN General Assembly. Canada at that point should have considered sanctions against this de facto regime and condemnation of its systematic abuses of human rights in its aftermath. Instead, what have we done? We have continued to pursue closer economic relations with Honduras without any conditions.

In January 2010, President Sosa assumed the presidency through what almost all deemed undemocratic and illegitimate elections. Since then, there has been one more set of elections, this one also carried out in a climate of fear and intimidation. Just as the first election was clearly illegitimate, the second election has been marked by violence and serious allegations of voter fraud.

What is the message Canada is sending here? Conservatives have chosen to press forward with a trade agreement with an undemocratic regime like that in Honduras while breaking off trade talks with neighbouring El Salvador after it elected a progressive government. This is surely the wrong signal and not a message that most Canadians would support.

Does this mean Honduras could never be a good prospect for a trade agreement? Obviously not, but we on this side would want to see some evidence of an intention to return to democracy in Honduras and some evidence of a commitment to address Honduras' appalling human rights record.

Let me return again to that human rights record of Honduras, which I spoke about earlier at second reading.

There is, of course, a clear link between the lack of democracy and the lack of protection of basic rights in Honduras. International human rights organizations have documented serious human rights abuses, including killings; arbitrary detentions of thousands of people; severe restrictions on public demonstrations, protests, and freedom of expression; and interference with the independence of the judiciary. These are all well-established facts.

The leading Honduran human rights group, known as COFADEH, documented that at least 16 activists and candidates for the main opposition party were assassinated since June of 2012, and 15 more survived attacks on their person. There are extensively documented cases of police corruption, with 149 extrajudicial killings of civilians by police recorded between January 2011 and November 2012 alone.

Many Conservatives, including the Minister of International Trade, have suggested that Honduras is coming out of a difficult period and that there are improvements being made. The facts, however, paint a much different picture. Let us look again at what international human rights organizations have most recently said about the situation in Honduras.

I raised these assessments of Honduras human rights record at the second reading debate, and I heard nothing from the government side to refute this evidence.

Let me quote again from Amnesty International's written statement to the 25th session of the UN Human Rights Council, March 2014, which was called “Honduras: Deteriorating human rights situation needs urgent measures”. That is a “deteriorating” human rights situation, not improving. Let me quote briefly from that report:

Amnesty International is increasingly concerned about the human rights situation in Honduras, in particular about human rights violations against human rights defenders, women and girls, Indigenous, Afro-descendant and campesino...communities, and LGBTI people. These violations take place in a context where impunity for human rights violations and abuses is endemic....

I want to draw attention, again, to two groups that continue to be subject to extreme levels of violence in Honduras: journalists and transgender Hondurans. According, again, to Honduras' own national human rights commission, 36 journalists were killed between 2003 and mid-2013, making Honduras one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists. Journalists in Honduras continue to suffer threats, attacks, and killings, including the kidnapping and murder of a prominent TV news anchor in June 2013 and the murder of a prominent radio personality in April 2014. Authorities have consistently failed to investigate any of these crimes against journalists.

Attacks on journalists and opposition candidates are, of course, an attack on democracy and a serious concern when they take place in a country with which Canada is contemplating signing an international trade agreement.

I want to draw attention to another group that has been subject to even higher levels of violence in Honduras, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community, but in particular the transgender community. Again, why would Canada seek an agreement with Honduras in view of its appalling record of violence against the LGBTQ community, especially when the Minister of Foreign Affairs has made many statements in defence of gay rights in other forums?

Lest we be fooled by the Minister of International Trade's assertion that things are getting better, let me provide some updates on how things are actually getting worse for transgender Hondurans.

Transrespect, the group that attempts to document violence against the transgender community for the annual transgender day of remembrance, documented eight trans murders in Honduras in 2012 and 12 transgender murders in 2013. The number is going up, not going down. This brings the total, between 2008 and 2013, to 60 transgender murders in only six years in Honduras.

This gives Honduras the horrible distinction of being the country with the highest per capita transgender murder rate in the world, more than double the second-highest rate.

In the month of May this year alone, there were four serious incidents, including three assassinations of public figures in Honduras. These should give us pause in our enthusiasm for a trade deal with Honduras.

On May 4, Orlando Orellana, 75, chair of a local community board outside the city of San Pedro Sula, a community that is involved in a land dispute with a development company, was assassinated. Mr. Orellana had assumed his position as chair of the board after the assassination of the previous chair in 2012. No arrests have been made in either of these deaths.

Casa Alianza Honduras, an organization that works with street children, issued a report in early May documenting the killing of 270 street children and young people in Honduras in the first three months of this year. On May 8, two days after this report was made public, José Guadalupe Ruelas, the director of Casa Alianza Honduras, was severely beaten by the military police in front of the presidential palace and denied medical attention. He did, however, survive.

On May 16, the mayor of one of the cities in the northeast of Honduras was assassinated. He had been a strong advocate of free medical care for the poor in Honduras.

Three days later, on May 19, a government forester was shot and killed in La Ceiba. This time the victim was José Alexander González Cerros, who worked in the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve and who had recently reported illegal logging in the area.

Again, can the government seriously assert that things are getting better in Honduras?

Let me conclude by saying that Canadians expect our federal government to set a good example on the world stage, and that includes considering democracy and human rights as necessary parts of the criteria used in evaluating trade agreements. Clearly, Honduras fails to meet the standards that Canadians expect of our partners.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate all my colleagues. For the past two weeks, they stood up in this House while the Conservatives and the Liberals voted for extended hours but did not show up at work. We show up at work. We care about Canadians.

Now on to Bill C-20, 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.

In terms of labour and the environment, this government has simply abandoned Canadians across the country. I feel this bill is a flagrant act of deception.

The short title, the Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, does not reflect any of that. Members will recall that Honduras is a very poor country with repressive, undemocratic policies. Its human rights record is shameful.

The previous government, led by democratically elected President Zelaya, was overthrown by the Honduran army under the pretext of a constitutional crisis. The coup was largely criticized throughout the world, particularly by neighbouring countries in Latin America, EU countries, the United States, and even the UN General Assembly.

Meanwhile, Canada made a notorious decision not to impose sanctions on the current regime or condemn the abuse inflicted on its opponents. Once again, human rights were ignored. Non-governmental organizations have reported serious human rights violations, including murder, the arbitrary detention of thousands of people and very tight restrictions on public protests and freedom of speech.

Speaking of freedom of speech, I just want to point out that there have been 68 time allocation motions in the House in three years. Freedom of speech also means that every party has the right to talk about bills in the House without being chastised every time. Three of those motions were moved in the past two weeks.

The situation in Honduras is extremely troubling, yet we are getting ready to do trade with a country where delegations of business people will have to visit in order to ensure the success of the agreement and future trade.

A number of elements support the NDP's position against this agreement. Among others, Honduras is characterized by its anti-democratic practices. It has a corrupt government, inadequate institutions and a record of human rights violations. This is unacceptable to Canadians across the country. Honduras also has low humanitarian standards and has negligible strategic value for Canadians.

The agreement was negotiated without any transparency, despite repeated requests from stakeholders in several Canadian economic sectors. During the negotiations, the Government of Canada was never willing to release the text of the agreement, as is also the case with the European Union treaty.

Furthermore, the bogus environmental assessment for this free trade agreement released in October 2013 ignored the impact of Canadian investments in Honduras, because this information was deemed confidential. Again, this is a lack of transparency. This means that side agreements on the environment and on labour are inadequate, because they do not include concrete mechanisms to ensure their implementation and assess their impact.

The extractive sector is certainly a major business interest for Canada, and for the NDP, as evidenced by the introduction, earlier this evening, of Bill C-584 on the social responsibility of mining companies, by the hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

A number of these companies, such as Goldcorp, were involved in controversial local conflicts with citizens and indigenous groups. They are the target of allegations of environmental contamination. This is why my colleague introduced her private member's bill and why the NDP is worried.

There is a lack of transparency in this type of free trade agreements. Canada is a major producer and extractor of natural resources. Therefore, when our economic ambassadors have holdings or businesses abroad, they must absolutely respect the environment, human rights and labour rights.

Speaking of labour rights, Gildan Activewear, a large garment manufacturer based in Montreal, owns factories in Honduras and is named as one of the beneficiaries of the agreement. However, Gildan Activewear had businesses in India where nine-year-old children were on the production lines. They were paid $5 per day, and sometimes per week. That is unacceptable.

Let us also keep in mind that Honduras is becoming a major clothing and textile manufacturer with a cheap labour force. This is why we must be vigilant with agreements such as the one negotiated with Honduras.

Clearly, the NDP recognizes the importance of international trade to our economy and is in favour of opening up new markets and providing a suitable environment for our Canadian exporters.

In my riding, there are several companies that say they are ready to move into foreign markets. They just need a little help from the Canadian government via embassies in various countries. They say that this could open doors for them, but the embassies, even though they are right there on the ground, do not work for them. That is unacceptable.

The NDP would like to increase trade with countries that respect Canadian and UN values. Our party wants to sign trade agreements that will benefit Canada's economy.

Earlier, my colleague talked about a trade deficit. In university, I had a macroeconomics professor who, after NAFTA, told me that the potentially acceptable trade deficit would be substantially exceeded, and that the cost would likely be irreversible.

Over the past seven or eight years, things have gone from bad to worse under the Conservatives. This is jeopardizing thousands of jobs in Canada, especially in my riding where the decline of the manufacturing sector is really hurting people.

Let us not forget that Canada has always been a leader in human rights and labour rights. It must continue to lead. Unfortunately, we have not really been able to promote these values since the Conservative government came to power. What a shame.

Part 2 of this bill amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with our obligations under the agreement. It changes things like Crown liability, proceedings, the importation of intoxicating liquors, and commercial arbitration. Canada has not even been able to enforce compliance on the softwood lumber agreement with the United States or with trade agreements with other countries.

I would like to talk about the very important criteria for assessing trade agreements.

For example, does the proposed trading partner respect democracy, human rights, and acceptable labour and environmental protection standards, which are values that Canadians hold dear? Is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada?

Unfortunately, the free trade agreement proposed does not necessarily meet those criteria. We really want agreements with countries that will make our economy prosper and through which we will be able to make sure that fundamental human rights, labour rights and environmental rights are respected.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-20, the free trade agreement with Honduras.

Despite what members of the government, and perhaps members of their partners, the Liberals, have suggested, we are not opposed to trade. On this side of the House, we are very much in favour of trade, and very much in favour of fairer trade, and where that is possible, then free trade as it goes with fairer trade. However, this is certainly not an agreement we can support, mostly because the partner on the other side of this agreement is not one we should be giving any credence to whatsoever.

The government in Honduras is oppressive, and it was originally formed through a military coup. It is a government that has institutions that are not working. It is the murder capital of Central America, perhaps of the world, and most murders are not investigated even by the police, yet the Conservative government has decided that it is a model deal for us to sign. I just cannot stomach how low we have sunk in search of free trade deals.

We know there is a trade deal coming with Europe, but for some reason it is very badly stalled. It was announced in the throne speech of 2011 along with a trade deal with India, but we have not seen either of them yet. We have seen an apparent signing of an agreement in principle, but we do not even know what those principles are because there have been no details.

Here we are debating, as we did with Panama, a deal with a very poor nation that has a terrible governmental and human rights record, and we are debating it under time allocation, of all things. This is now the most important thing on the Conservative government's agenda, and it has to be done now. However, the agreement in principle was reached in August 2011, which is almost three years ago. The actual deal was signed in November 2013, more than six months ago, but now we have five hours to debate it. That is ridiculous, and 68 time allocation motions are not some kind of scheduling convenience, as the Conservatives would have us believe. They are running roughshod over democracy, and we should not be proud of that record.

Both the Conservatives and Liberals are suggesting that the NDP is opposed to trade, which could not be further from the truth. In fact, we relish the thought that we are going to be able to get at more trade with more partners in this world. However, we need to do it in a way that improves the status of those other countries, and not as a reward for countries that have terrible records and terrible governments, which is in fact what is happening here.

We ask questions when it comes to a trade deal.

Is the proposed partner one that respects democracy, human rights, the environment, labour standards, and Canadian values? If some of those things are not all the way to what a Canadian standard would be, are they working to fix it? If the answer to that question is yes, then that is a partner we can see doing business with on the basis of a free trade agreement.

Is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? Apparently it may be of strategic value to some mining industries, but it is a very small player in terms of Canada's overall trade, and we do in fact have a trade deficit with this country.

Are the terms satisfactory? Well, the proposed free trade agreement with Honduras fails this test.

Honduras is a country with undemocratic practices, a corrupt government, weak institutions, low standards, insignificant strategic value, and a record of human rights abuses. When I look at the list of what Honduras is, I cannot help but think that some elements of the Conservative government are heading in those directions.

The fact is that we have had 68 time allocation motions to end debate, which are called “guillotine” motions in other countries because that is what they do. They guillotine debate and democracy. It is an indication that the Conservative government has slipped, we believe, in terms of its democratic practices, like Honduras.

The bill the Conservatives brought forward to change the electoral act disenfranchised some Canadians. That is moving backwards as far as democracy is concerned. The allegations of voter suppression are another example of undemocratic practices.

Regarding corruption in government, we have senators being given money by the Prime Minister's chief of staff in order to keep them quiet, or billing practices whereby senators bill the public for travel when it is a partisan event they are going to or bill for homes they are not living in.

All of these things are corrupt practices of a government. Maybe the Conservatives think they want to be like Honduras, and that is why they want to sign an agreement with it.

We have a Prime Minister who surrounds himself with characters who are of questionable repute. We have a government that is giving more and more power to single individuals within that government, taking that power away from institutions or Parliament and putting it in the hands of a minister. For example, there is Bill C-24, which would give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to individually strip a person born in Canada of his or her Canadian citizenship. We do not normally find that concentration of power except in governments that are not democratic, and that is part of what we are seeing here.

We have weakened institutions in Canada. The Chief Electoral Officer had his powers reduced in the recent bill on electoral reform. We have a fight with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. We did not have the government kicking four people off the Supreme Court, but there was a pretty public spat with the Supreme Court that had a chilling effect between the government and the Supreme Court.

We have lower standards in Honduras, lower standards in Canada, but what has the government's record been over the past few years? We have lowered our environmental standards. We have weakened our labour laws. We have taken ourselves in the opposite direction of improving environment and labour laws. We have stripped environmental protection from hundreds of thousands of rivers and lakes in this country. This is moving in the direction of a less environmentally conscious state, and perhaps Conservatives are looking at Honduras and seeing themselves in the mirror.

Other speakers have talked at length about the human rights abuses that have been legion in Honduras. Some of the human rights abuses have been perpetrated by the government and some perpetrated by others, but none of those human rights abuses have met with any kind of punishment, because impunity is the rule in Honduras. People can get away with anything because there are weak police forces and so little in the way of judicial oversight that very little is done.

What do we have here in Canada in terms of human rights abuses? It is a pretty good country, except we have a thousand or more murdered or missing aboriginal women and we have a government that is refusing over and over again to actually conduct even an investigation into those murdered and missing aboriginal women. In any other country, that would be seen as a human rights abuse. We have appalling living conditions and appalling educational conditions for indigenous people in this country. That in itself is a human rights abuse, and the government appears to want to do nothing to improve the situation. We have refugees who come to this country expecting to be treated with dignity and respect, and in some cases they are denied some or all of their medical care. They are expected to report back to their home country even if their home country is an unsafe place for them.

This is the direction this country has moved under the Conservative government, and it is looking strangely as though maybe Honduras is a comfortable partner for the government. I hope not.

In Honduras we also have the spectre of the killing of journalists. Now, I will not accuse the Canadian government of killing any journalists; that has not happened, but the government has attacked the CBC and it has attacked the CBC's journalists in the sense that it has now imposed itself in the collective bargaining arrangements with those journalists. The journalists are now having to deal directly with the government.

We on this side of the House support fairer trade. We support trade with equals in terms of environmental law, in terms of labour law, in terms of how people are treated in those countries. We support trade when standards in that other country will be raised and when we can see that happening. We do not support the free trade agreement the government has negotiated with Honduras for the reasons I have cited, and we will be opposing this deal.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to speak to Bill C-20, which deals with the agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras.

Before I begin my speech, as most of my colleagues on this side of the House probably know, I will be speaking as a New Democrat and I will be voting against Bill C-20.

In my speech, I will lay out the various reasons that lead me to that conclusion.

Before I begin, since my colleagues have mentioned democracy a great deal, I would like to tell the people watching us today on CPAC, on television or online, that democracy is very important.

We are sitting late at the end of this parliamentary session to make sure that we do things properly and to thoroughly debate the various bills that we have to pass. However, it would seem that only the New Democrats really value their speaking time in the House. We have seen that the Conservative party has missed more than 22 shifts, while the Liberals have missed four. On this side of the House, we are serious and we have not missed any shifts during these extended hours. I thank my colleagues for their participation in democracy. I will also refer to it in my speech.

As I said, I will be voting against Bill C-22. Why? Because we New Democrats have very strict criteria for free trade agreements. In general, they must respect the fundamental rules of democracy.

I will list them: first, does the prospective partner respect democracy, human rights, adequate labour standards, environmental protection, and Canadian values? If such is not consistently the case, is the partner on a path to meet those objectives?

We do not necessarily eliminate partners who do not meet those objectives. However, we want them to be people who are ready to meet strict and serious objectives.

Second, does the prospective partner's economy have a significant or strategic value for Canada?

And third, are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

I will begin with the first one that mentions, among other things, democracy and human rights.

I did a little research. I visited the site of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. It provides some very interesting reports on the Republic of Honduras, particularly since the coup of 2009.

I looked at a report from the Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination. I also checked the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders about the mission to Honduras. These very interesting reports paint a clear picture of the current state of human rights in Honduras.

What do the reports say? They mention human rights violations committed by the police and by security guards, as well as murders and people allegedly going missing. They indicate that Antonio Trejo, a human rights lawyer, was murdered. In fact, many human rights activists get killed or go missing in Honduras. There are also allegations that military groups have killed men, women and children.

The findings from the reports and the working groups raise many questions regarding an unwillingness, on the part of the government and judicial authorities, to investigate serious human rights violations. Furthermore, the country's legislative framework still does not prohibit the use of mercenaries. These are very serious issues that constitute direct attacks against human rights.

Canada was, for many years, a leader in international relations. Our country used to be a role model for the way it met its international responsibilities. However, in its current form, the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement fails once again to hit the mark.

The government is completely missing the mark. We should be leading by example and presenting a more substantial free trade agreement. The Canada-Honduras agreement, as it stands, is very problematic.

I have been watching the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway as he goes about his work. I know that he is doing an incredible job of keeping us informed about what is included in these free trade agreements and what the Conservative government is proposing to Canadians. I admire the work he does. I am part of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, so I do not get very involved with international agreements. Economics never really was my strong suit, which is why I think it is very important that we have other experts on our team. He takes his work very seriously and works hard to educate us and keep us informed about what is in this free trade agreement.

Human Rights Watch has said that Honduras suffers from rampant crime and impunity in terms of human rights. The murder rate, which has risen consistently over the last decade, was the highest in the world in 2013. That was just last year. 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.

The rights of very specific groups are being attacked in Honduras. Journalists, peasant activists and the LGBT community are particularly vulnerable to attacks yet, as I said earlier, the government routinely fails to address those injustices and provide better protection for those at risk in Honduras.

What I find sad is that many people from Laval contact me every week to share their priorities with me and to talk about what is bothering them at the federal level. A large part of what they tell me has to do with our place on the world stage, the responsibility we have as a G7 country and the influence we could have in the world. Most of the people who contact me are extremely disappointed in this Conservative government's lack of leadership.

There are a number of examples at the international level. Take for example the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, which we pulled out of. Many people in Laval were shocked when we withdrew from Kyoto, and I know that people across Canada were stunned to see that the Conservatives were withdrawing from Kyoto.

I want to get back to the free trade agreement that we are discussing here. I do not want to spend too much time on the first point, since I know my time is limited. I did some research on the economy, to find out whether the proposed partner's economy is of significant and strategic value to Canada. Through my research I discovered that less than 1% of our trade was with Honduras. Our types of trade with this country are very specific and will probably benefit some very specific sectors in Canada.

I see that my time is up. I just wanted to conclude by talking about something that my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin mentioned during his period for questions and comments. Toronto is currently hosting the Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Summit, and we are seeing all of this Conservative government's efforts to support women's and children's rights. If the government were to start integrating that into their policies, it would be a great start. Let us start with the international agreements we want to sign.

I am ready for questions.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his excellent speech. Bill C-20 is a bit harsh and I fully agree with the reasons why we should oppose it.

The NDP studies international agreements properly and bases its assessments on fundamentally important criteria. Does the proposed partner respect democracy and human rights? Does the partner's economy have a significant or strategic value? Are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory?

What does my colleague think of the NDP's guidelines for studying international agreements?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-20 concerning the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, for which the agreement in principle was concluded on November 5.

Free trade is a very important policy for Canada. The many advantages of free trade cannot be ignored, and it goes without saying that the strength of the Canadian economy relies on opening new markets. For that reason I do not understand why the government is delaying finalizing the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras. I would like the government to move more quickly and to take concrete action with respect to emerging markets. This agreement is a start, but it is not indicative of the ambition that Canada should have with respect to international markets.

I am also wondering why the government has suddenly found that there is an urgent need for action in this area. I am wondering about the government's sense of urgency, because it has been negotiating this agreement since 2010. It has taken the government almost three years to put this agreement back on the table. Surprisingly, in 2010, the government was talking about short-term trade prospects. I wonder whether the government really takes international trade seriously, whether it is really a priority, or if this is just empty rhetoric.

If we look at the figures for 2012, we see that Canadian exports to Honduras totalled $38.6 million. Bilateral trade between Canada and Honduras during the same period totalled $257.2 million, while Canadian imports from Honduras were valued at $219 million.

While trade between the two countries is not substantial, there are still many companies waiting for progress to be made in this area. They are looking for more openness, and unlike the NDP, which rejects the bill without understanding the importance of free trade agreements, I think we need to consider businesses and workers.

Once a free trade agreement is in place, Canadians can expect to see more jobs for the middle class and more business opportunities for companies. The Liberal Party has mentioned this fact on a number of occasions both in and outside the House. Every effort must be made to help the middle class.

Consideration must also be given to potential trade opportunities for Canada. Given the size of Canada’s economy, it is critically important for us to compete globally for emerging markets. In my view, the government needs to be more serious and more transparent when it comes to this matter. It needs to answer questions over its failure to take action with respect to other emerging markets.

I agree that international markets are more open from an economic standpoint. The world and trade are evolving rapidly. This means we need to act more quickly on free trade initiatives.

Certain Canadian businesses stated in committee that they had lost a share of the commercial market in Honduras when the free trade agreements between Central America and the United States were signed in 2005. They pointed out that Canada needed to act as quickly as possible to regain this share of the market. We are already lagging behind. A free trade agreement with the Republic of Honduras represents an important step in the resumption of trade with Central America. However, we will then have to turn our attention to Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and El Salvador and negotiate additional agreements.

Previous Liberal governments in fact concluded trade agreements with far more influential countries like Costa Rica, the State of Israel and Chile.

Consider Chile, for example. Bilateral trade of goods with that country represents $2.5 million Canadian, and exports to Chile amount to $789 million Canadian. We are talking about trade that is almost 10 times greater than that between Canada and the Republic of Honduras.

Although this government boasts of having negotiated several agreements, such as the agreements with Colombia, Jordan, Panama and the one being negotiated with the Republic of Honduras, only the agreement reached with Peru appears to be as ambitious as those achieved by Liberal governments.

These agreements do not position Canada where it should be in the global economy. As is its responsibility, I urge the government to do more for international trade.

Furthermore, in addition to the free trade agreement, an agreement on environmental co-operation has been reached with the Republic of Honduras. That agreement refers to the promotion of stronger environmental policies and sound environmental management. The Canadian government must make sure it keeps those promises and develops measures designed to improve environmental performance. It must also ensure that businesses involved in trade between the two countries comply with them. For the moment, the agreement makes no mention of any audit mechanism. That means there would be no penalties for businesses contravening these agreements.

When it comes to the environment, the Conservatives have some work to do to regain Canadians’ trust. The environment has never been a priority for the Conservatives, and everyone knows it. It is therefore surprising that they have moved forward with an agreement of this kind.

Can the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade give us any guarantees that this environmental co-operation agreement will be a success?

There is also talk about labour co-operation agreements. We ask that the government ensure that workers’ fundamental rights are a priority and that labour law is complied with, here and in Honduras.

It is essential that any increase in trade occurs in a manner respectful of workers and that free trade between the two countries will not lead to weakened labour rights.

Once this agreement is final, we will be entitled to demand acceptable wages and working conditions for the workers of the Republic of Honduras.

As my colleagues previously mentioned, we are aware of the unstable situation in Honduras, and we believe it is not a situation that warrants the economic isolation of that country. We must ensure that increased trade between the two countries can be achieved through harmonious relations and that free trade side agreements will be complied with.

This agreement will help strengthen the national economy of Honduras and at the same time prevent certain violations of fundamental rights by force of the ties that will bind us. Economic ties between countries have the power to encourage better behaviour.

The government must still make sure that this economic agreement works properly; otherwise, trade must be halted. That calls for a great deal of vigilance and oversight in the areas of labour and the environment.

If the government really wants to guarantee human rights in Honduras as part of this free trade agreement, it must issue an annual report and require one from Honduras, so that the public can see whether human rights have been respected as trade between the two countries grows.

We are entitled to require compliance with these parallel agreements, and to have proof of compliance. I hope that this government will remain vigilant with respect to the adverse consequences of the bill, given the unstable situation in Honduras. We must remain alert and monitor the internal situation in that country.

In conclusion, I support this bill, because it represents a first step toward trade with new markets. Because our economy is based on exporting, I believe that eliminating barriers to trade can only be beneficial to Canada. I therefore ask the government to be more persuasive in this bill on free trade with Honduras, and to ensure that Canada is open to emerging markets in a way that fully reflects our values. The government must provide for better monitoring of the political, economic and environmental situation in the countries with which we trade. Otherwise, Canada’s image could suffer.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-20, 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, as reported without amendment from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-20, the bill respecting the free trade agreement with Honduras.

New Democrats support trade, but we do so in a much more mature and robust way than the government has been doing.

Trade agreements are important. I know them very well, being from Windsor, Ontario, which continues to be the automotive capital of Canada, although the industry has witnessed attrition. I will speak to this quickly because it is relevant to today's debate.

There are winners and losers when trade agreements are implemented. Different sectors of society and industries are affected because the agreements essentially change the rules on how those businesses were developed, invested in, and had their technology, research, and training evolve—all of the things that were important for them to be successful. The rules can change quite extensively under trade agreements.

Canada's auto industry was affected as a result of the North American free trade agreement. We had the auto pact at that time, which was a special trade agreement with the United States. That agreement was challenged and we lost the challenge. We lost that special agreement with the United States, and hence our world ranking with respect to automotive assembly went from second place to eighth place.

A lot of jobs have been lost. A lot of investment has gone south of the border. Many people lost good, solid, value-added income from value-added employment, which allowed them to send their kids to university or college, allowed them to invest for their retirement, and made money available for our health care system and other types of infrastructure. More important, research and development, patent development, and all of those things are affected by free trade agreements coming into effect. The consequences can be severe.

We need to ameliorate the situation. We need a business case so we can protect those sectors, so they can have a fighting chance when the rules change.

There is the potential for attrition with respect to the South Korea trade agreement once it is implemented. The auto industry will suffer once again because some of the tariffs will be phased out. South Korea has non-tariff barriers and those barriers would make it difficult for us to send vehicles over there compared to that country dumping its vehicles into Canada and being more successful.

With respect to the trade agreement with Honduras, we have to look at a couple of fundamental things. New Democrats want to see democracy, environmental protection, and labour standards reflect Canadian values. We can undermine ourselves if countries use the environment as a dumping ground for byproducts or as a shortcut. We have to consider whether we would in fact be encouraging the development of further substandard labour standards. There are some questions around the textile industry in Honduras, for sure.

We also want to look at democracy. Is the country becoming more democratic? I will get into that a bit more later.

Honduras fails on all accounts.

We also have to look at what significant strategic value this trade agreement would have to Canada. The government has focused on central America with a number of different trade agreements, but it has decided on a one-off with Honduras. That is unfortunate because it would reward a regime with questionable behaviour when it comes to a number of things.

We also have to make sure we have a satisfactory proposed agreement. The government has been negotiating agreements with environment and labour side agreements included, but those side agreements are not enforceable and do not have the necessary teeth to make sure we can do something about it.

When we are dealing with a force out there, whether it be a bully or somebody who is committing questionable practices, we know that if we do not take the carrot and stick approach then we are basically leaving ourselves vulnerable. The carrot is the reward. The stick would ensure that we can pull back on parts of the agreement, pull back on certain conditions, and demand certain things that would not normally be available.

When the Conservatives sign these trade agreements, these one-offs like this with questionable countries like Colombia and Panama in particular, we cannot enforce the improvement of conditions.

That is unfortunate, because we see in Honduras that we do have a significant problem with that. Honduras basically has a government right now that came in through a coup. In 2009, there was a coup to topple President Zelaya. It was a military coup, and it then formed its basis on the continued problems that have gone on for decades in Honduras.

Instead of cleaning up and rewarding this situation, we should actually be pushing back. We know that the United States, the European Union, the UN General Assembly, and many Latin American nations all spoke up about the abuse. They talked about the problems in Honduras, whereas Canada made relatively no noise whatsoever.

That is unfortunate, because a partnership is a two-way street. Why would we want to encourage this partnership? Some would argue that is why we have to open these doors and do all these things, but when we do not have the tools or the resources to push back against the abuses, or we do not put benchmarks in place to be reached, then there is no motivation for Honduras to do so. When it has no motivation to do so, it will just move the trade agreements and their benefits especially to an elite class in Honduras in particular.

We know that many NGOs have documented serious human rights abuses, killings, arbitrary detention of thousands of people, severe restrictions on public demonstrations, protests of freedom of expression, and interference of the independence of the judiciary. They are all well established.

We also know there is a lot of drug smuggling that comes through Honduras. Some of it is the worst in the region. In fact, much cocaine goes through Honduras.

Why would we want to partner with a state that is moving illegal drugs, some of which come to North America, great significant amounts, including Canada? It does not make much sense. Why would we not benchmark that the drug effects would be reduced and measured over time as we continue the relationship with regard to free trade? It is unfortunate that we have missed the opportunity to do this. That is why we cannot support the government on this. This is a military government in Honduras, essentially.

It is interesting that, when we look at its ranking, we see that Honduras is currently Canada's 104th export market in terms of its value. We export $38 million and we import $218 million, and we have a deficit. This has been the theme of the government, moving us from a trade surplus to a trade deficit. We have also eliminated our manufacturing surplus exports and now have a manufacturing value-added deficit.

What we are looking at is the natural resources sector benefiting and the value-added jobs disappearing. They do not have to disappear, because Canadians are well trained, well researched, and have good experience in many sectors, but we have to make sure we protect them in the sense of providing the proper export market. Honduras does not rank as a strategic priority for that.

We were talking today in the House of Commons about where the EU deal is. It has disappeared. We do not have the text for it. We have not seen any action with regard to the European Union. At least there would be better options for value-added manufacturing and value-added food products getting out there.

It is important to talk about the government's lack of respect for understanding a comprehensive trade strategy. We are concentrating on these small markets in Central America without any type of strategy overall to improve labour, environment, and the quality of life of the citizens. We should be measuring those, benchmarking them, and demanding that they be improved so Canadians can compete in a fair, responsible, reasonable way.

The House resumed from June 2 consideration of Bill C-20, 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-20, 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, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the report stage and the five hours provided for the consideration of 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 said stages of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-20--Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I must advise that an agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) concerning the proceedings at report stage and third reading of Bill C-20, 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.

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

Motions in amendment

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-20, 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. Let me be very clear that I will be speaking in opposition to this bill.

I have heard a lot today about Conservative economics and the kind of growth that we have experienced. However, despite the rhetoric from across the aisle, I want to point out that the Conservatives did inherit an account surplus of $18 billion. However, in the eight years that they have been in government, the current account deficit sits at $62 billion, a negative swing of $80 billion and an average decline of $10 billion a year.

In the last two years, we have experienced 23 months of merchandise trade deficits. Under the current government, so-called a good economic manager but not, we have seen an increase in the percentage of raw or barely processed exports, reducing the importance of value-added exports. There seems to be a rush to give away our valuable natural resources, without growing the decent paying jobs in Canada.

The Conservatives seem to be in a hurry to sign a free trade agreement with Honduras. Let me make it clear that I am not opposed to free trade agreements, but we need to look at some criteria or some filters that we, as Canadians, should use when we look at free trade.

One of those filters is looking at the people with whom we going to sign these agreements, ones who respect democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards and Canadian values. If there are challenges in those areas, are the Conservatives just ignoring those issues or are they actually working on moving them in the right direction? We do not have evidence of that from Honduras.

Is the proposed partner's economy of significant or strategic value to Canada? This shocked me as well, 1%.

Are the terms of the proposed agreement satisfactory? We would say not.

There are numerous reasons, and one that we really do have to look at is the kind of state, the kind of things we know about Honduras.

In my other life as a teacher involved in international projects through the teachers' organization and CoDevelopment Canada, I had the privilege of visiting many of the countries in Central and South America, and participated in conferences and workshops. One thing about Honduras is that it is not a safe country in which to be a teacher, a journalist or to speak out against the current regime. In 2013 alone, there was an average of 10 massacres per month. We are not talking about a massacre each year. We are talking about 10 massacres each month. InSight Crime defined “massacre” as being when three or more people were murdered at one time. Just looking at the number of massacres alone, since 2010, there are been 200 politically motivated killings.

Honduras is regarded widely, not just by those who are speaking against this, as one of the most dangerous places for journalists. According to the 2014 report by PEN International, at least 34 journalists have been killed since the coup, and there is almost complete impunity for perpetrators.

When we look at the kind of instability that exists in Honduras and the commentary by the international community, I am surprised that my colleagues across the way are in such a hurry to sign this agreement. It almost seems that they feel that as soon as they sign an agreement, they have addressed trade and improved it.

We have to look at the reality of what we have seen. My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster painted a picture earlier of how the past three trade agreements in the countries he highlighted neither led to improvements in human rights nor added anything to our trade in a significant way.

Here is a quote from Stacey Gomez, coordinator of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation's Americas Policy Group:

We have long maintained that under the right conditions, trade can generate growth and support the realization of human rights. These conditions simply do not exist in Honduras.... [U]ntil there is a verifiable improvement in the country’s democratic governance and human rights situation...the Canada-Honduras FTA will do more harm than good.

Every colleague in the House, those sitting across the way and those sitting at the far end on this side, needs to pay attention to that one line: “the Canada-Honduras FTA will do more harm than good”.

I can go on to a quote from the Committee of Relatives of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras. In my other life, I had the opportunity to sit in a circle with some of the families of the disappeared. I can tell members that it is very moving. It is very emotional. It brings home to us the kinds of horrors people live with in Honduras.

Here is a quote from them:

One of the main concerns in Honduras is the consistent trend of killings, physical attacks and threats against human rights defenders—including: Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendant and peasant leaders, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) activists, lawyers and journalists. All these attacks are carried out with almost total impunity.

We do not have any evidence either from the United Nations or any of the other agencies that the government in Honduras is even trying to address many of these issues, never mind making any significant improvement.

It behooves us as Canadians, when we jump into bed, so to speak, and start signing agreements and putting Canada's name on a document, to do some research and be careful of what it is we could endanger.

What is it that we want? This is only my first term as a sitting member of Parliament, and I can remember voting for a free trade agreement. It is rather disingenuous of my colleagues across the way and at the far end to keep saying over and over again that the NDP will never, ever vote for a free trade agreement. We support free trade, but bring us an agreement that meets the very basic criteria I articulated earlier, and they will see a rush of us trying to vote.

New Democrats want to reassure all Canadians, including my colleagues across the way, that we recognize the importance of trade. We recognize that in a global market today, trading has to take place, and it should benefit Canadians. However, we cannot just wear a blindfold, keep signing agreements, and ignore the situation of the working people and the journalists and the human rights violations that are taking place in those countries.

Sometimes I think the government is almost too scared to debate some of the free trade agreements it is negotiating in secret. It never wants to bring those kinds of details in. It then throws in a free trade agreement that does not even sound real.

We are looking at Honduras, a country where drug trafficking operates with near impunity, where human rights are regularly abused, where democracy is under threat, and where low standards would hurt Canadian businesses. I do not see how this free trade agreement would benefit either Canadians or people living in Honduras. What it will do if we sign it is give legitimacy to the very activities we should be condemning that are taking place in Honduras at this time.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. As a number of my colleagues have pointed out, New Democrats are opposed to this agreement, for a number of very good reasons.

Others have mentioned it, but I want to reiterate the three pillars that we think are fundamentally important for Canadians when negotiating free trade agreements and the assessment of those agreements. First, is the proposed partner one who respects democracy, human rights, adequate environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If there are challenges in this regard, 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? On this last point, the Canada-Honduras agreement is another example of an agreement that was negotiated behind closed doors, so Canadians did not have access to the full details of the agreement during that process.

I am going to focus most of my speech on human rights. I have been in the House for almost 10 years and have had the opportunity to debate other free trade agreements, including, notably, the Colombia free trade agreement, where there were many human rights violations.

One of my colleagues noted that one of the ways Canada could position itself is to make sure there are binding terms within a free trade agreement that talk about human rights and the consequences if human rights violations continue.

We have attempted, a number of times in the House, to have a bill passed with regard to corporate social responsibility. The bill would hold Canadian companies to standards that we hold here in Canada, instead of finding extractive companies in particular doing business in other countries, where they violate all kinds of environmental, social, and human rights standards. That bill has never managed to get through the House.

I want to note one particular person who provided testimony before committee because I am going to focus on the human rights aspect. Ms. Sheila Katz, a representative from the Americas Policy Group at the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, said at the Standing Committee on International Trade, on April 22, 2013:

The Americas Policy Group has recommended that Canada refrain from concluding free trade agreements with countries that have poor democratic governance and human rights records. [...] ...Canada's eager recognition of a president who came to power in a military coup in Honduras in 2009. This is another example of Canada prioritizing the trade pillar of its Americas strategy above the rest. Since the coup, hundreds of regime opponents have been intimidated, arbitrarily arrested, disappeared, tortured, and killed. The Americas Policy Group is concerned that Canada has validated this regime by adopting a business-as-usual approach and signing a free trade agreement with Honduras in spite of its human rights record.

I am going to refer to a number of different articles with regard to the Honduran human rights record.

In an article by IWGIA, in The Indigenous World 2010, there was a bit of background, and then it talked about some specifics with regard to human rights abuses in Honduras. It is important to note the number of indigenous people in Honduras and the land mass that we are talking about:

Given the lack of an official census, it is estimated that the nine indigenous and Afro-descendant people living in Honduras number 1.27 million inhabitants.... The territory claimed by the indigenous peoples accounts for approximately 2 million hectares out of a total national land mass of 11.2 million. Only 10% have a guaranteed property title. Each of the peoples retains a degree of individuality, in line with their habits and customs, and this is reflected in their day-to-day practices in terms of, for example, their community councils. Honduras ratified ILO Convention 169 in September 1994. In 2007, it voted in favour of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Apart from Convention 169, there is no case law to protect the rights of indigenous peoples.

I think that is a very important point. The Honduran government is voting in favour of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and yet in the negotiations on this free trade agreement, I wonder whether indigenous peoples in Honduras gave, as noted in Article 19 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “their free, prior and informed consent”.

I am going to cite a number of cases where there are ongoing human rights abuses with regard to land.

In Honduras, the indigenous peoples do not appear to have the same legal rights in terms of taking it to courts and being protected that way. In Canada, we know that the FIPA has been taken to court by a first nation from British Columbia and that is an example where even in Canada first nations say that Article 19 free, prior and informed consent, is not being respected by the Canadian government when negotiating trade agreements. In the same article it goes on to say:

The indigenous peoples form one of the poorest sectors of society and their marginalisation means that they play no part in the formal economy. Their main source of income lies in maize, beans, coffee, fishing and in the sale of handicrafts.

It went on to say, “When they provide labour to other productive sectors, they are paid around USD 5 for a 10-hour day”. That is pretty stark.

In an article called “Human Rights Violations in Honduras: Land Seizures, Peasants' Repression and the Struggle for Democracy on the Ground” by Jeanette Bonifaz, a research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, she details a number of very serious concerns with regard to human rights. She says:

In Honduras, arguably the most unequal country in Latin America, peasants are the victims of a glaring disparate land ownership structure. In 2009, when then-President Manuel Zelaya attempted to pass legislation that promised comprehensive land reform, he was ousted from power by a coup....

It is the land reform that seems to be at the heart at much of the oppression of the indigenous people.

She went on to say that:

Since the coup, peasants have suffered from increased repression, with death squads threatening and assassinating hundreds of campesinos while palm oil and hydroelectric companies accumulate land by dispossession.... Tragically, there seems to be no end in sight for the repression of land and human rights in the Central American country.

I do not have time in my brief 10 minutes to go through the numerous examples of persecution over land and agrarian reform that have taken place in Honduras and do not appear to be measurably better in this day and age. She goes through a period from the 1960s all the way up until present day. I want to cite something that happened in 2010.

When Porfirio Lobo Sosa, a landowner, became the president of Honduras in 2010, the peasants began to protest and peacefully occupy lands, which only brought more state-sponsored repression against them. As a report from the Canadian Council for International Cooperation points out, “…the coup has provided the context for rolling back important gains in the peaceful and legal resolution of conflicts between peasant groups and powerful landed business interests over access to land titles.”

In her concluding remarks, she said:

Without comprehensive land reform that protects the rights of Indigenous peoples and abides by the ILO Convention 169, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, as well as other crucial national and international agreements and laws, forced displacements and violence will continue to occur in Honduras. In addition, the judicial system needs to be revised, and proper investigations in the case of human rights violations need to take place. As the Inter-American Court of Human Rights asserts, “the State has the obligation to use all the legal means at its disposal to combat impunity, since it fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations and total defenselessness of victims and their relatives.”

She does cite a specific example of a hydro-electric dam that fuels violence. There has been a long-standing community protest. In fact, I come back to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People on free, prior, and informed consent. The community spoke overwhelmingly against this hydro-electric dam. Instead what happened is the government awarded 47 hydro-electric dam concessions to companies without prior consultation. Once the community spoke up and started to protest, we saw the repression start.

Why is it that our Canadian government, which supposedly supports human rights, would engage in a free trade agreement where the human rights violations are so egregious? I have to ask why.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party's position in support of Bill C-20 and the free trade agreement with Honduras is similar to that of the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party and Liberal Party have very similar positions on free trade.

The NDP is opposed to this bill because we think that we need to negotiate agreements with countries that respect human rights. We know that, in countries like Honduras, drug trafficking operates with near impunity, human rights are regularly abused and democracy is under threat. We need to negotiate free trade agreements with democratic countries where we can be sure that environmental and human rights standards will be upheld.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-20, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras.

This is the second time I have risen in the House to speak to this bill. As a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I also attended committee meetings during the study of the bill.

I am opposed to this bill for a number of reasons that I will get to in my speech and for the reasons that my colleagues have already mentioned.

First I will talk again about the NDP's approach to trade and our relations with other jurisdictions and economies.

The NDP is not necessarily opposed to free trade. New Democrats read the texts of free trade agreements before opposing or supporting them. That is the case with the Canada-EU free trade agreement. Naturally, it is an agreement that could benefit many Canadian sectors, but we have to study the details. We have to really see whether some sectors are more affected than others. We also have to have a more coordinated strategy to ensure that free trade agreements really do benefit Canadians and really do create jobs in Canada. We believe that there must be a coordinated approach and strategy for free trade between Canada and other countries.

I will therefore discuss the five main elements of our strategy.

First, we believe that there must be an impact analysis to determine whether or not trade agreements negotiated by Canada are good for Quebeckers and Canadians. We must determine whether trade agreements will result in job losses or gains and in which sectors and industries.

Second, I believe that it is important for our trade agreements to strengthen Canada's sovereignty. I have to emphasize this point. The free trade agreements that we sign must also strengthen our freedom to establish our own policies. These agreements must help make us a force to be reckoned with on the world stage. These agreements must support the principles of a fair multilateral trade system.

Third, especially in the case of Bill C-20 on the Honduras free trade agreement, all trade agreements must protect and promote human rights and prohibit the import, export or sale in Canada of any products manufactured in sweatshops by forced labour, or under any other conditions that do not meet basic international standards for labour or human rights.

As I will explain later, it is impossible to meet these conditions with Bill C-20 and with our free trade agreement with Honduras.

Fourth, all trade agreements must respect the notion of sustainable development, as well as the integrity of all ecosystems.

Fifth, and finally, I believe that every time the Government of Canada signs a free trade agreement, the decision to pass the enabling legislation must be submitted to a mandatory vote on whether or not the terms of the agreement are acceptable.

I must point out that the NDP's position on free trade agreements is the polar opposite of the Conservative Party's position.

At the committee meetings I attended, I noticed that the Conservatives were presenting a false dichotomy with respect to free trade. The Conservatives claim that we either have to commit to their free trade agreement or choose total isolation, both diplomatically and economically.

The reality is completely different and much more complex.

I would like to illustrate my point by sharing a quote from a meeting of the Standing Committee on International Trade. During this meeting we heard from a very important and well-informed witness, Bertha Oliva, the founder of the Committee of Relatives of the Detained and Disappeared in Honduras. Her husband, Tomás Nativí, disappeared in 1981. During the meeting, the parliamentary secretary said:

Canada has a choice. In our own hemisphere we can either trade and engage nations—not just trading but helping build capacity—or we can choose isolation.

This is an example of the Conservatives' false dichotomy.

However, Bertha Oliva's response was particularly interesting. She said the following in response to the member for Durham:

We are not proposing isolation for Honduras. We don't want that. We don't want Honduras to be isolated from Canada or from the world. What we are saying is that we want the governments of the world and the Government of Canada to monitor the situation more regularly—and not only monitor the situation but also engage, have debate, and go to people in the communities where there are companies that have violated their rights, for which we have proof. We have proof that they have committed human rights violations.

Where those human rights violations have taken place and when Canadian companies are involved, we want there to be an attempt to repair the damage. There can be no claim that poverty and problems are being fought when, essentially, we have people who are ill, when there is no right to health care.

Bertha Oliva opposed the free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras, of course. She also told the committee:

Those who want to invest in Honduras must know that the situation does not make it possible to guarantee your investments.

Honduras does not have a stable legal system, and its governance system is unstable and undemocratic.

Ms. Oliva also pointed out that the conditions are not in place to strengthen the people either—far from it, in fact. Communities therefore do what they can to intensify pressure since they are not consulted, which then leads to human rights violations.

It is important to point out that, in her testimony, Bertha Oliva indicated that Hondurans cannot participate in democracy in a meaningful way and that they often do not have a say in decisions made by the government. She mentioned that there is a reigning state of terror in Honduras. Since the election, there have been murders among the political dissident community.

As my colleagues have often mentioned in the House, Honduras is an unstable country, where over 600 women and over 30 journalists were murdered for political reasons. The consolidation of state power has given rise to an alarming phenomenon, and that is that most people are being persecuted through legal means. As Bertha Oliva said, it is impossible for people to exercise their right to disagree with what is going on in Honduras.

Ms. Oliva's testimony is rather worrisome in and of itself, but many other witnesses also spoke out against this free trade agreement, including Pablo Heidrich, an economist at the North-South Institute. He said something that really struck me, which is that the economy of Honduras is smaller than that of the Ottawa-Gatineau region. One therefore has to wonder whether a free trade agreement with Honduras will really help the Canadian economy.

We are also talking about a very limited market since there is a very marked income inequality in Honduras. Knowing that Honduras has a smaller economy than Ottawa-Gatineau, one cannot help but wonder why the Conservatives are in such a hurry to sign this free trade agreement.

I look forward to my colleagues' questions.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the NDP's deputy international trade critic, I am pleased to rise at report stage of Bill C-20, which has to do with the trade agreement between Canada and Honduras.

I found my Liberal colleague's speech very interesting. My colleague from Victoria raised a particularly relevant question about whether human rights, environmental standards or health and safety standards would prevent the Liberal Party from voting in favour of a trade deal. He can say what he wants, but I attended two sittings of the Standing Committee on International Trade. The question came up regularly, and at no point did the Liberal member even mention this topic, except when the NDP invited witnesses who spoke about human rights.

As for the agreement between Canada and Colombia, which my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster mentioned, I was not a member of the House at that time. I did, however, follow closely what was going on in the House, since I was very interested in its work. Once again, I can say that the Liberals were probably among the biggest supporters of the agreement and among the fiercest critics of those who opposed the agreement because of Colombia's human rights violations.

My speech will focus on explaining the NDP's approach to international trade to our Conservative colleagues in government and our Liberal colleagues. The stories we keep hearing are 10, 15, 20 or 30 years old. Things have changed and we have also changed. As an economist, I have many times told committees, both in the House and outside, that I am not opposed to trade agreements. On the contrary, I support them. They play a very important role in Canada's economy. We cannot support and sign every trade agreement without considering some factors: what is the content of these agreements and what is the human rights and environmental situation? All of those questions should be taken into account.

At this time I can tell my friends in the House of Commons that the NDP's approach is to examine trade agreements under three different lenses. The first is human rights, which is essential, followed by environmental rights and workers' rights.

In the case of the Colombia agreement, for example, we were told that this type of agreement is vital in order to give the Colombian government an incentive to improve its human rights record. Nothing has changed since the agreement was signed. Furthermore, the Conservatives and the Liberals are collaborating in order to block a proper consideration of the reports on trade agreements that would indicate the progress made. We regularly receive reports, as that is a requirement that was introduced, but we do not even study them.

With respect to Honduras, the situation is problematic. We have said this many times in the House. It will be even more problematic in the future. Honduras is one of the most difficult countries to live in. We have often spoken about the number of homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. It is one of the highest rates, if not the highest, in the world. I am convinced that we will be discussing this topic again. There are also other elements.

At one of the meetings of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I cited the case of a journalist, Carlos Mejía. He was a member of the reflection, investigation and communication team for Radio Progreso, which is affiliated with the Jesuits. He really cannot be considered a radical, and he was working on the ground. Carlos Mejía was stabbed to death in his home. This crime has not yet been solved. He was the 34th journalist to be murdered since the 2009 coup. Some of them have been murdered since the supposedly democratic elections in 2012.

On a number of occasions, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights asked for protection for him and that the government take a special interest in his safety because he was in danger. The government did nothing.

I believe that 15 of these 34 cases were specifically tied to the work these journalists were doing on the ground, for example for the opposition or on the issue of corruption, in a supposedly democratic country.

The Honduran government has problems with governance and protecting human rights, yet we are being asked to support a trade deal with the country without adequately addressing that issue.

On this side of the House, unlike the Conservatives and Liberals, we feel that human rights is an important issue. I am not surprised by the Conservative stance because it is in line with their overall approach: they sign just about anything because these are side issues that are not overly important. I understand that. At least they are consistent.

However, their arguments are not coherent. We are being told that a free market will help the country strengthen its democracy, as though there is a connection between the two. History has shown that there is no direct link between a democratic political regime and the free market. In case there is any doubt, I have two specific examples.

The first example is that of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, a country that served as a testing ground for neo-liberal policies in the late 1970s after Salvador Allende was overthrown. It was such a popular experiment that the University of Chicago and its infamous school of economics sent researchers there to establish a free-market economy. The first delegation was led by Milton Friedman. Those who went were known as the “Chicago Boys”.

Was Augusto Pinochet democratic? Definitely not. He was the head of a totalitarian regime. Did Chile's free-market approach result in democracy? No one can seriously claim that. Augusto Pinochet remained in power a long time, until well after those policies were implemented. In the case of Chile, it is clear that totalitarianism and the free market went hand in hand.

We can go as far back as Benito Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy, which was a good friend to businesses. Once again, it was an undemocratic, totalitarian regime that fully embraced the free market at the time.

The government is telling us that free trade is absolutely essential to the progress of democracy and democratic governance, but that is nonsense. On several occasions, I asked the companies that testified before the Standing Committee on International Trade and our Conservative and Liberal friends to show us some kind of evidence that countries that have problems in the areas of democratic governance and respect for human rights have made any progress in that regard as a result of a free trade agreement, but no one was able to. Our friends seem to feel that it is enough that they believe it is true, but there is no evidence to support it.

I will not dwell any longer on the issue of human rights because I know many speakers want to address that issue, but it is of the utmost importance to us. That is why we responded favourably to the trade deal with Europe. That is why we are open to a trade deal with South Korea. It is because these two examples do not pose a problem in terms of human rights.

The second lens under which we examine free trade agreements helps us determine whether the potential partner is a strategic one. Of course, Europe and South Korea are strategic trade partners for Canada. However, of all the countries in the world, Honduras is currently Canada's 104th largest trading partner, so from a strategic perspective, I do not think that the government can argue that it is so urgent that we sign a trade agreement with Honduras that doing so should take precedence over the extremely important matter of human rights.

The third lens, which does not apply in this case, allows us to examine the content of trade agreements. The reason we are withholding judgment with regard to the agreements with Europe and South Korea is that we do not know the terms of these agreements. Nevertheless, we are going to use this approach with all trade agreements, rather than just blindly supporting them based on the unfounded principle that trade agreements are essential to the progress of democracy and democratic governance.

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 1.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the amendments we are proposing.

Bill C-20 does not reflect the approach we will take when we form the government in 2015. Our approach to international trade is different from the other parties' because we accord it more importance.

Before becoming an MP, I managed a business that was starting to sell specialty goods on its website in order to reach a broader market in Canada. When the company started getting orders from Europe and the United States, it started exporting.

Exporting companies in Canada do not get very much support at all. The data speak for themselves, especially when we compare Canada to European Union countries, the United States and Australia.

Canada spends $12 million to $13 million a year to support its exporting companies. Australia, which has a much smaller economy than Canada's, strongly supports its exporting companies by investing $500 million in them. That is a considerable difference. For every dollar the Canadian government spends on supporting exporting companies, the Australians spend $50 million on supporting theirs.

The same goes for the United States and the European Union. The countries that are enjoying real success when it comes to international trade are investing in their exporting companies.

That is not what happens here in Canada. The Conservatives would argue that they bring forward trade agreements and that it is all they need to do. However, when we look at the figures, we can see that the idea that just bringing forward trade agreements is somehow a guarantee of prosperity is very clearly denied by the facts.

First off, we know, and you know, Mr. Speaker, coming from an area of this country that has been devastated by some of the policies of the current government, that we have lost 500,000 full-time, family-sustaining jobs in manufacturing since the Conservative government came to power. That is appalling. The Conservatives would say that they have created some part-time jobs. As we know, at the end of December 2013, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce produced a very accurate and effective report that talked about job creation under the current government. It said that in 2013, 95% of the jobs that were created were part time.

We have lost half a million full-time, family-sustaining manufacturing jobs. The government has tried to replace them with part-time jobs and temporary foreign workers, but the reality is that in the end, the communities are much further behind. Since the Conservative government has come to power, there have been 300,000 more Canadians looking for work, about 1.3 million in total, than there were when the government assumed office. We are seeing increasing unemployment and a colossal loss of manufacturing capacity and jobs, and at the same time, we are seeing that the government has put in place strategies that create only part-time jobs.

The government would then defend itself by saying that it has signed some trade agreements, and that is a guarantee of future prosperity. I have the figures here of some of the countries with whom we have signed trade agreements and what has actually happened in terms of our balance of payments. When we look at Canada's balance of international payments, we are in record deficit under the current government. What that means is that we are importing far more from other countries than we are actually exporting. Our exports are stalled in part because of the devastation in manufacturing capacity. We have a record level of deficit in our balance of international payments.

When we look at merchandise trade with these countries we have signed free trade agreements with, we see in each case that Canada is actually in a deficit with each one. In Mexico, we are in deficit, and that deficit is growing. In Israel, we are in deficit, and that deficit is growing. With Chile, we are in deficit, and the deficit is growing. In Costa Rica, we are in deficit, and, again, the deficit is growing. Even with Switzerland, we are in trade deficit, and the deficit is growing. If we look at the countries of the European Free Trade Association, we see again a deficit. We see a deficit between Canada and Peru, and the deficit is growing.

The reality is that the government has signed agreements that have been very poorly negotiated, in many cases, and with regimes that do not reflect Canadian values, notably Colombia, where human rights violations have actually increased since the signing of the trade agreement. The fact is that the Conservatives cannot point to successes. We see in virtually every single case that we are in trade deficit, which explains the record deficit around international payments. We can see that the Conservative approach is just not working.

That is why we are offering a whole series of amendments today. What we are saying is that the government really needs to take a new approach when we have lost half a million manufacturing jobs and when its sole achievement is to say that 95% of the jobs it creates are part-time. People cannot pay their mortgages with a part-time job. They cannot put food on the table every day with a part-time job.

Conservatives would suggest they could take two, three, four, or five part-time jobs and maybe cobble together a full-time income. That is really not what Canadians expect. What Canadians expect is a government that actually cares about their economic prosperity and instead of signing poorly negotiated agreements, actually puts in place a trade strategy that includes—and this is extremely important—addressing the fact that Canada does almost nothing to support major exporting enterprises and businesses in our country. When we see Australia spending $500 million and Canada spending $12 million to $13 million—we have never been able to get the exact figure from the government—that shows a crucial lack of support for the export sector.

I come from Burnaby—New Westminster, which is the most diverse riding in the entire country, even though my colleague from Newton—North Delta will probably try to disagree with me on that. We have over a hundred languages spoken and diasporas from around the world. These are people who have come to Canada to build their lives here. We have important components of populations coming from Asia, Africa, South America, and Europe. The business trade organizations that many of these new Canadians set up to try to stimulate trade with their countries of origin are getting no support from the government at all.

There again we see another reason we are in deficit everywhere and bleeding red ink everywhere. The government really thinks that a ribbon-cutting ceremony or signing a trade agreement, no matter how poorly negotiated, is sufficient. It does not do any follow-up.

Mr. Speaker, I know you will be appalled by this situation. I can see it on your face. The fact that the government does not even do studies, prior to and afterwards, on the impact of the agreements shows how improvised it is. The approach of the Conservatives is improvised, and that is why it has been a failure.

In closing, I would like to say one last thing about Bill C-20. I will quote Carmen Cheung, a researcher at the International Human Rights Program:

These past five years have seen a dramatic erosion in protections for expressive life in Honduras. Journalists are threatened, they're harassed, attacked, and murdered with near impunity, and sometimes in circumstances that strongly suggest the involvement of state agents.

In my opinion, these are systematic violations, and my colleagues who will be speaking shortly will also quote experts who raised these points in committee.

It is clear that Canadians will not support this agreement.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

There are 53 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-20.

Motions Nos. 1 to 53 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-20, 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Energy Safety and Security Act

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-22.

We recommend supporting the bill in principle at second reading and calling for greater liability and global best practices. Our position at third reading will depend on the government's response.

This bill warrants further study in committee to see whether it can be improved. It will be hard to sit down with the Conservatives and improve a bill because they think they have all the answers. We know how that goes. We have seen it before.

Bill C-22 updates the Canadian nuclear liability regime and sets out the victim compensation procedures and conditions in the event of an accident at a nuclear power plant. It maintains the principles whereby operators have limited, exclusive, no-fault absolute nuclear liability, except in the event of war or terrorist attacks.

The bill increases the limit of absolute liability from $75 million to $1 billion. It extends the deadline for filing compensation claims for bodily injury from 10 years to 30 years to address latent illnesses. The 10-year deadline is maintained for all other types of damage.

The changes in terms of nuclear liability apply to Canadian nuclear facilities such as nuclear power plants, research reactors, fuel processing plants and facilities for managing used nuclear fuel.

Bill C-22 also updates the offshore regime for oil and gas operations, in order to prevent incidents and to guarantee a rapid response in the event of a spill. It keeps the idea of an operator's unlimited liability in cases of demonstrated fault or negligence. It raises the absolute limit of liability for offshore oil and gas exploration projects and sets it at $1 billion, without proof of fault. The current limit is $40 million in Arctic waters and $30 million in the Atlantic. The bill explicitly mentions the polluter pays principle and clearly and officially establishes that polluters will be held responsible.

The bill strengthens the current liability regime, but it does nothing to protect the environment, or Canadian taxpayers, because it still exposes them to risks.

The Conservatives are constantly behind our international partners and they ignore best practices when it is a matter of recognizing the dangers of an inadequate liability regime.

We have already expressed our opposition to the inadequate limits in the matter of nuclear liability. The provisions must be considered a step in the right direction in terms of the current limits, but this bill does not adequately consider the real dangers that Canadians are facing. We hope that we will be able to deal with this point in committee, if the Conservatives let us work in committee, as I was saying.

Only the NDP takes the protection of Canadians' interests seriously, while the other parties take a cavalier attitude to nuclear safety and the safety of offshore oil and gas operations.

If the nuclear energy industry is a mature one, it must pay its way. This bill continues to subsidize the industry by making taxpayers assume any financial risk in excess of $1 billion.

Taxpayers should not have to subsidize the nuclear industry instead of subsidizing other sources of renewable energy. Other countries feel that their citizens deserve better protection in the case of a nuclear accident.

Bill C-22 has come before the House before. It was then Bill C-5, which went through the committee stage and was passed at report stage in 2008. However, it died on the Order Paper when the Prime Minister called an election, ignoring the fact that it was supposed to be held on a fixed date.

Bill C-20 made it through second reading to committee stage in 2009, but it died on the order paper when the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. Bill C-15 was introduced in 2010 and then nothing happened for a year, until the 2011 election. This government claims that this is an important bill. Now, we have to sit until midnight until the end of June because the government says this bill is important, even though we have been talking about the same bill since 2008. All of a sudden this bill is important to the Conservatives.

The latest version of the bill does not give the public the protection it needs. Its biggest flaw is that it puts an artificial $1 billion limit on liability, even though the costs of a serious accident can be much higher than that. Taxpayers will be stuck paying for the remaining cleanup and compensation costs. In reality, the $1 billion limit is not enough, and imposing an artificial ceiling amounts to subsidizing energy corporations, since they will not have to cover the full costs of the risks associated with what they do.

I want to share some figures. The figure of $1 billion for liability may seem like a lot, but it is an insufficient, arbitrary amount if we consider the costs of cleaning up nuclear disasters and marine oil spills, which have happened in the past.

In Germany, for example, nuclear liability is unlimited, fault or no fault. Germany also has financial security of $3.3 billion Canadian per power plant. The United States has set an absolute liability limit of $12.6 billion U.S. Other countries tend toward unlimited absolute liability.

A nuclear liability limit of $1 billion would not have covered a fraction of the costs of the 2011 nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. The Government of Japan estimates the cleanup costs at more than $250 billion.

The government still brags about saving money for taxpayers and giving them a break. This same government is prepared to protect major corporations by setting the limit at $1 billion. However, we have seen that the disasters in other countries have cost more than $1 billion. When a disaster happens, someone has to pay. Why should Canadian taxpayers have to foot the bill for a disaster?

The NDP says that amendments will have to be put forward in committee to improve this bill. We are not against this bill, but we have to protect Canadians, who pay enough taxes already. That money is supposed to cover their own needs. The government is cutting funding for health care and all kinds of other things. Our roads are full of potholes. Everyone is mad because the government is not investing enough money in programs that people need.

The government is ready to let oil and nuclear companies get away with one heck of a deal. Their insurance should cover those costs. We cannot let them get away with not paying for insurance or paying only half as much as they should. If we do, and if a disaster happens, they will declare bankruptcy, and taxpayers will be on the hook for the bill. We have seen companies do that. As soon as the price gets too high, they declare bankruptcy. They should be the ones paying. They believe in the industry because it is profitable, so they should set money aside for possible disasters. Canadians are not the ones who should foot the bill, but that is exactly what they have to do.

The 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could cost the company $42 billion to clean up. The company has been sued, and there will be criminal penalties.

Is Canada ready to foot the bill for these companies? My answer is no.

Bill C-22 does not go far enough. We will recommend changing the numbers.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first let me start by acknowledging the support shown on Tuesday night for our motion to have the House work hard for all Canadians to ensure that we have a productive, hard-working, and orderly House of Commons. It was not just this side of the House that voted for this ambitious plan to let MPs reach decisions on many important issues, and I want to thank the Liberal Party for agreeing to join Conservatives in rolling up their sleeves this spring.

I know my hon. friend has a different definition of what our work is here in the House of Commons. He believes that our work here is to filibuster and fill every moment possible with as many speeches as possible to avoid decisions being made. I have encountered one or two Canadians who think the problem with politicians is too much talk and not enough action. Now we know where they get that impression.

On this side of the House, we are committed to action, we are committed to delivering results, and we are committed to decisions being made and to people participating in votes and making decisions on behalf of their constituents at home. That is why we need debates to also come to a conclusion so we can make those decisions and so we can have those votes.

Last night, for example, we had a great debate on Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian citizenship act. That is our government taking steps to modernize the Citizenship Act for the first time in some 35 years. What is even better, we just had a vote and a decision. Every single member, not just a dozen or so who might have spoken for a few hours but every single member of this House, got to have a say on behalf of his or her constituents and got to make a decision and advance a bill through the legislation process. That is what it is really all about.

Earlier this week, on Tuesday morning—before we adopted the government's ambitious work plan—a number of New Democrats expressed their support for Bill C-17, Vanessa's law. However, they did not walk that talk.

The honourable member for Chambly—Borduas said, “we do recognize the urgency [of this matter]”. Nevertheless, seven other New Democrats then got up after him to block this bill from going to committee. Among them was their deputy leader who said, “I also hope that the bill will go to committee quickly...”.

I wish that the New Democrats listened to their deputy leader. It would be disappointing to think that the NDP might be using Vanessa's law as a political hostage by filibustering it as a means to avoid debating other bills.

I would not want to ascribe such cynical motives to the House Leader of the Official Opposition, and I trust this is not a preview of how he wishes to approach the business of the House for the forthcoming three weeks, when Canadians actually expect us to accomplish things for them.

Looking forward to these three weeks to come, I am pleased to review the business the government will call in the coming days.

This afternoon, we will carry on with the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act. Once that has concluded, we will take up Bill C-6, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, at report stage. If time permits, we will get back to third reading and passage of Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, will be considered tomorrow at report stage and hopefully at third reading as well.

After the weekend, we will consider Bill C-20, which would implement our free trade agreement with the Republic of Honduras, at report stage.

Following Monday's question period, we will consider Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act, at second reading. That will be followed by second reading of Bill C-26, the tougher penalties for child predators act.

On Tuesday morning, we will start second reading debate on Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act. The hon. member for Richmond Hill spoke a couple of nights ago about this wonderful bill, Quanto's law, which will have a chance to be considered, thanks to having additional debate time in the House. Since I cannot imagine New Democrats opposing this bill, the only question is how many speeches will they give supporting it, and of course, how will giving more speeches make this bill become law sooner.

Following question period, we will resume debate on Bill C-20, on Canada-Honduras free trade, as well as Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, which I discussed earlier, Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, and Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act.

On Wednesday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-21, Red Tape Reduction Act. After private members' hour, we will begin report stage of Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, which underwent clause-by-clause study at the Standing Committee on Finance this week.

A week from today, on Thursday next, we will continue debating our budget implementation bill. Ideally, I would also like to see us finish third reading of the bill on the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of the Honduras that day.

Finally, any remaining time available to us that evening will be spent on the bills on which the NDP will be able to offer more, remarkably similar speeches confirming, time after time, their support. Although I appreciate their supportive attitude towards many parts of our government's legislative agenda, it would be great if they would let all members of Parliament have their say, in an ultimate expression of democracy and to help us move from mere words to actual deeds, so that all of us can tell our constituents that we have actually accomplished something on their behalf.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what an odd debate. I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. member for Burlington. He is the chair of the committee and I am the vice-chair.

I found some of his statements peculiar. The fundamental problem with the motion presently before the House is not the fact of staying until midnight. The NDP team has a reputation for hard work. Anyone who wants to entertain themselves by visiting my Facebook page would see that the people of Gatineau are actually advising me to slow down because they are worried about my health. Perhaps they are right, considering the flu I have at the moment. We in the NDP work very hard. A number of bills, for example, are before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, so that they can be debated in the House or in committee. It is not the work we are afraid of.

The cat is out of the bag. There are issues that our Conservative friends want to talk about, and they want to speak about them at length. Had I been asked, I would have said—before they even rose to speak—that I expected to see a great many Conservatives rise to speak in the House about Bill C-32. Why? Because it is an opportunity for the Conservatives to give Canadians the impression that they have been dealing with this issue—and this issue alone—for weeks, months and even years. They are the ones who stand up for victims. We are all deadbeats and have washed our hands of the problem. That is not true, though. Now, when workers’ rights were at stake, the Conservatives wanted to cut debate short.

The member said that nine bills had been passed and that he is embarrassed to return to Burlington. What I would say to him is that he is absolutely right to be embarrassed; the Conservatives did nothing with their majority aside from getting nine bills passed, and they had to resort to time allocation motions to ram the bills through. There is something not quite right with this government. The Conservatives are averse to debate. They do not like hearing opinions that do not coincide with their own. When the Conservatives too often hear something they disagree with, a red light suddenly goes on. We have had to debate many a time allocation motion. I do not know how many times I have taken part in debates in the House or how many speeches I have made expressing my dissatisfaction with the fact that we have been stripped of our right to speak.

The Conservatives made mention of Bill C-13. I am fortunate to be the NDP justice critic and to have had the opportunity to voice my opinion regarding this omnibus bill, right after the minister spoke. This is no small bill; on the contrary, it is approximately 50 pages long and has an impact on numerous other pieces of legislation. It does address the issue of cyberbullying, as the government likes to point out, but it goes much farther, so far that the committee is being flooded with requests for meetings. We hear all manner of experts warning us to be careful. That is what is missing in the House.

The Senate is referred to as a chamber of sober second thought, but we were not elected to this place in order to abdicate our duty to think. Members have a responsibility to be present in the House to voice and stand up for the opinions of their constituents. Canadians expect us to go about our work in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, to take the time to properly analyze bills. I am in favour of debating this bill in the House and referring it to committee for further consideration. More often than not, bills are analyzed at lightening speed.

The Conservatives will say that the House was given an opportunity to debate Bill C-13, the bill on cyberbullying, and thank God, especially given the time allocation motion that was foisted upon us so as to ram the bill through to committee.

Suddenly, things became urgent. Why urgent after the death of Rehtaeh Parsons, and yet not after the death of Amanda Todd? That was a question a witness asked us. The notion that the government would somehow need to act urgently does not really cut it with me; these things are more politically driven than they are concrete. It is a bit worrisome.

Bill C-13 is large and contains a number of disturbing provisions. When considered alongside the remarks made by the Conservative committee members, it leads me to believe that the Conservatives will not be very receptive to the many amendments proposed by expert witnesses. If past events are any indication, I am not very optimistic. Still, I am an optimistic woman by nature.

In light of this, I have trouble believing it when the government tells us, hand on heart, that its goal is to work harder. Working harder, for a Conservative, does not necessarily mean working more effectively and harder. It simply means that members end up working until midnight in order to discuss all the bills before the House, including those bills that have not been studied for an eternity.

For example, there is Bill C-2 on safe injection sites; Bill C-3 on marine transportation; Bill C-6, which implements the Convention on Cluster Munitions; Bill C-8 on counterfeit products; and Bill C-10 on contraband tobacco, which we finished studying in committee such a long time ago that I will have to reread all my material. Indeed, since then, we have studied so many other topics that I have almost had enough time to forget all about it. We will resume studying this bill at report stage. We could have covered it a long time ago. I have been waiting for some time for this stage to be completed in the House. Everything will have to be done over. It is a colossal waste of time for everyone concerned. There is also Bill C-11 on the hiring of injured veterans. If there is a category of people in our society who have huge needs, it certainly is our veterans.

Suddenly, the Conservatives are going to try and push all this through at once. The member for Burlington has done the math when it comes to the number of hours, and the government is going to try and give us a few hours for each bill. Then the government turns around and calls itself a champion of hard work. Well done, champion.

There is also Bill C-17, Vanessa’s law, about drug safety, an extremely important bill that must be debated; Bill C-18, concerning farm regulations; and Bill C-20, concerning the Canada-Honduras agreement, which is at report stage. I no longer even remember when I gave my last speech on that subject. It has already been a heck of a long time. The Conservatives have been in no rush, but all of a sudden, they are in a rush.

We will examine Bill C-21, concerning red tape for small businesses. The junior Minister of Tourism is travelling all over Canada to talk about the importance of eliminating red tape everywhere, while this bill is stuck in some office or other. It could have been debated a long time ago.

There is Bill C-22, concerning oil, gas and nuclear liability, and Bill C-24, concerning the Citizenship Act. These are bills that are announced to us with great fanfare at big press conferences, but then they stagnate and we do not see them again.

There is Bill C-26, about sexual predators. I expected that one would move quickly, because the Conservatives told us we had to work on this issue quickly. There is also Bill C-27, about hiring veterans in the public service. It is extremely important, I repeat, because it concerns a category of people in our society who have needs that are just as important.

Then there is Bill C-32, about the victims bill of rights. I think it is the reason why this government’s Motion No. 10 has no credibility at all. For a full year, I was treated to one press conference after another. If it was not the Prime Minister, it was the Minister of Justice with his senator from the other side. They told us they were going to work very hard, listen, set up panels and do everything we could wish for, and then they brought forth a charter that was denounced by many people, starting with victims, because they expected a lot more. That may be why the Conservatives kept their charter hidden for some time.

Apart from the minister, one Liberal and myself, no one has yet spoken on this subject. I am going to make a wager with my colleagues in the House. I expect there will be a time allocation motion on this. The Conservatives are going to rend their garments and plead that it is urgent, that it is extremely important and that it must be passed immediately, or the opposite will happen, because they will want to talk to us about it for hours on end. It becomes part of their narrative.

Every Conservative member wants to go back to their riding and have their householder and the excerpt from their speech in the House, which they made to show that they are protecting victims’ rights.

In the NDP, we want to talk about important issues and show that we could do even better than Bill C-32, specifically by amending it. We want to talk about the proposals made by the federal ombudsman for victims of crime. In fact, Bill C-32 does not contain a large percentage of her recommendations. A balance has to be struck. For every Conservative who speaks, the New Democrats will also speak.

When we want to talk about something, it is not important. That is the message we constantly get in the House, and, perhaps because we are approaching the end of the session, it is becoming extremely annoying, to put it mildly and stay within the bounds of parliamentary language.

It is appalling to see that people who are elected to represent the residents of their riding are silenced as often as we are by this government. We get told they are not interested. I have also heard the member for Burlington say—and I am going to talk to him about it again, in fact, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—that sometimes we just need to go and read because members all read pretty much the same thing.

If the people of Gatineau think the same thing as the people of Laval, I think it is important that this be pointed out. Who has more right than whom to speak in the House on a particular bill? There is something indecent about wanting to constantly silence people.

Sometimes, I tell the members opposite that they should stop imposing time allocation motions and motions to get things done, as they like to say. I very much liked the expression my colleague used yesterday, when he talked about motions that are “a licence for laziness”.

This is unpleasant. If they had taken the time spent on debating those motions and instead used the time to finish the debate on the bill that they were trying to stop from being debated, we would probably have finished. The fact is that not all members in the NDP caucus or the Liberal Party or the Green Party or whatever colour you like necessarily wish to speak.

However, if the government limits the speaking time of a single member who wishes to speak, we cannot claim to be living in a democratic system. That is what is known as the tyranny of the majority. I believe we have to stand up against that, loud and clear. Every time that happens here, we are going to speak out against it, in every way possible.

We are told that we could perhaps go faster. I listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs say that, and what he said made sense, in some respects. The way that Manitoba and the NDP government operate makes sense. Those consensus-based approaches make sense.

Quebec managed to pass a bill on a very sensitive issue, end-of-life care, with the agreement of all parties. There was an election, and the members all agreed to reinstate the bill once the election was over. That is being discussed.

The problem here is that the people on the Conservative benches are not talking to the opposition parties. All they talk about is strategies. We keep wondering who is going to pull a fast one on us. They use roundabout tactics such as counting how many MPs are in the House, catching them off guard, and forcing a party leader to go testify before a committee. This is unprecedented—and they say they are democratic.

Then the Conservatives get all offended when we say that Motion No. 10 is total nonsense. This is not about giving us more time. This is about taking all of the bills—there are more on the agenda than have already been passed, and that took much longer than the amount of time we have between now and June 20—and making us think they are giving us more time. They are not giving us a thing. I do not believe in Conservative gifts, and nobody in Canada should believe in any Conservative gift whatsoever.

The truth is that the Conservatives are going to shove their agenda down our throats because they could not get through it in a mature, parliamentary, by-the-rules way. They could have said that the House leaders would discuss it and try to see if some of the bills were more palatable or if we could agree to pass some of them more quickly. Then the real committee work could have started.

It is true, for Bill C-13, we had a lot of witnesses. However, I am not yet ready to give a seal of approval to the government in power, indicating that the bill has been studied in depth, because we still have the entire amendment stage. I believe that what the other side wants to accept is under so much remote control that the committee is not really doing the work. Instead, the higher-ups are dictating to our colleagues opposite what they have to do, while at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we are trying to bring out the best in the bill.

I have not even mentioned the upcoming Bill C-35, dealing with service animals. Bill S-2 deals with statutory instruments and may not seem like much. However, it is a very significant bill that is going to change an entire way of doing things in terms of regulations. We know that regulations have an impact on the everyday lives of our fellow Canadians in all kinds of areas: the environment, transportation, health and what have you. This is a real concern. I bet that we will analyze it very quickly. That concerns me.

The fact that we are extending our hours until midnight does not encourage any belief on my part that we will be having constructive debates followed by more productive work in committee. That is why the Conservatives have this problem with credibility. We are not the only ones saying so. When their measures are challenged in court, the Conservatives get slammed.

I will take a deep breath and take a little time to say that perhaps we should review our way of doing things. Our friends in the House may not know this, but the bill on prostitution may well be coming our way next week. We hear whispering in the corridors that the government wants the bill passed. It is huge, though, since it comes as a response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Everyone in the House knows that passing the bill will not be easy because there are people on all sides of that issue. I would bet that we are going to have just a few hours of debate before they pitch it—to put it very nicely—to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We can expect a hot and heavy summer on that one.

Extending the sitting hours until midnight just to work harder is one more tactic that is just like their time allocation motions, closure motions and any other kind of motion they can think of. It is part of the Conservatives' bag of undemocratic tricks. They will force these tricks on the House, but not on themselves, as ministers. Based on how the motion is written, I think it will be quite humourous. It will be interesting to see how many of them will be here in the House to happily participate in the debates on all the topics I mentioned, instead of at a cocktail party. That is why it is extremely important that we amend this motion.

Seconded by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “place” and substituting the following:

(b) when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply, Private Members’ Business, or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at that day’s sitting,

(ii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, it shall stand deferred until the time immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business at the next day’s sitting,

(iii) after 5:30 p.m. on a Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until 6:30 p.m. on the following Monday.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;

(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;

(c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1);

(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;

(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);

(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and

(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.

I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today. Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government.

As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf. We agree, and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons. However, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the facts.

In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament. With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process.

Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate. This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business.

Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.

When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership.

Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.

Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.

We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth.

Bill C-14, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government. Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities.

However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament.

During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

It is worth saying that again. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.

As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today. Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change.

Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year.

Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency. To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly.

Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.

In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking? Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed.

Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1. This bill implements our government’s budget—a low tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015.

We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime. Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit.

Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth. With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, we are doing our part.

Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children.

Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion.

It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation. Last month, we introduced Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place. I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible.

Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband. Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday.

Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal. I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill, having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies.

Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates. As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative.

Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries. It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products.

As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world. If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity.

Through Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry. The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth.

As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon. It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn.

Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.

My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future. We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities.

Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act. Through Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday.

The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.

Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday.

Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada.

We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective.

By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans. The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete. This initiative would do exactly that.

Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part. Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf.

I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.

I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to continue the work of our productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

International Trade

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on International Trade related to Bill C-20, 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.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We are doing clause by clause after the testimony and questioning on Bill C-20, 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.

We have with us Mr. Grinspun, associate professor in the department of economics at York University, and fellow and former director of the Centre for Research on Latin America and the Caribbean.

We'll yield the floor to you first, sir, and look forward to your testimony.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Very good.

We have enough of our members here to proceed. We just had a vote in the House, so the remaining committee members will be coming in as we proceed.

We have a bit of an abbreviated time so let's get started. We're dealing with Bill C-20.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I call the meeting to order. We have three witnesses with us. We'll go perhaps an hour and a half, perhaps a little bit longer, and then we'll break into committee business at the end.

We are dealing with Bill C-20, 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.

From Aura Minerals Inc., we have the president and chief executive officer, James Bannantine.

It's good to have you with us.

Our second presenters will be from Cavendish Farms, Vincent Taddeo, vice-president international; and from J.D. Irving Limited, Wayne McDonald, senior vice-president, corporate relations.

I believe you are splitting your time.

[Pablo Heidrich, Senior Researcher, Governance of Natural Resources program, North-South Institute]

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me and for the opportunity to speak with you today regarding Bill C-20.

My area of research at the North-South Institute is on international trade and investment. I will be providing my testimony from that point of view. I have been working and doing research on trade between Canada and Latin America for the last six years here. I have been researching also the investment relations of Canada with different countries in Latin America, particularly those that have signed FTAs, or free trade agreements, with Canada.

My presentation is going to focus then on the possible benefits that these FTAs might bring to Canada and also to Honduras. I will cover first a little bit of theoretical but also empirical research that has been done in Canada and abroad that tells us under what conditions those agreements can bring economic growth and economic development to both countries. I will later talk about the Honduras economic and governance conditions from an economic point of view. Finally, I will suggest some policies or instruments Canada can use in order to build a more successful relationship with Honduras.

Let's begin with the free trade agreements. There are currently about 400 free trade agreements functioning in the world. Most countries have signed at least one. It is actually a practice that is more common among developing countries than among industrialized countries. There are quite a lot of studies already on under what conditions those agreements are actually successful for the purpose that they are intended. Most FTAs are actually signed among developing countries and only a very small percentage are signed between developing countries and developed countries and there are good reasons for that. In that regard, most developing countries sign FTAs with other developing countries because they are trying to emulate the historical experience of the European Union and to some extent the experience of NAFTA as well, trying to bring it to their own situation and their own geography.

The literature tells us there is a very highly variable degree of success. Developing country businesses in general tend to be too small and not technologically advanced to make use of the opportunities in enhanced market access that these FTAs give. For the most part, exporters from developed countries find the enhanced access to the market of developing countries, particularly when those countries are small, quite underwhelming.

What I would say is that the practice of north-south FTAs is actually more difficult than the one between developing countries. One of the main problems in general tends to be the average levels of governance and effective rule of law in the developing country party. Even when those conditions are met, the developing country gains are not going to be significant, they usually are around 0.1% to maybe 0.2% of GDP per year for the first 10 years after signing and then they decrease.

Other indicators such as improving the legal system, improving governance, public education, and public health, bring anything between 10 to 20 times more gains per year than executing an FTA. In other words, the policy measures that affect trade for an economist, particularly those related to development, are of secondary importance when we are trying to support the economic growth of a developing country. What is of primary importance is governance and access to public education and public health.

Now I'm going to direct my attention to the specific FTA that Canada and Honduras have signed. I read the text and what I can say in summary is that these agreements are very similar to the ones that Canada has already signed with other nations in Latin America such as Panama, Colombia, and Peru. The substantial preferential access that is given to Honduras in textiles and clothing, fresh fruits and vegetables, and some processed foods, these advantages that are given to Honduras align fairly well with the comparative advantage that Honduras has already demonstrated in the last decade.

However, UNCTAD, which is the United Nations commission for trade and investment, has an ongoing ranking for countries on what market access they have to their main partners; and Honduras is one of the countries that is highest ranked in the world. In other words, Honduras does not need enhanced market access in order to increase its exports to the rest of the world, in comparison with most other developing countries.

On the other side, Canada gains from the FTA increased access to agricultural goods, cereals, and also meats, and some technology-based manufacturing. More relevant for Canada is the enhanced general investment protection that Jennifer has already mentioned, and in particular, I would say, this is an argument that comes more from economists, because Honduras is a country that is ranked by the World Bank as having one of the worst levels of governance and that affects all kinds of investment, not only domestic but also international. That is a big handicap for Honduras to receive any further investment.

However, it is very concerning to me that in this agreement, the Honduran side has already carved out some very strong exceptions to the application of this agreement, such as, for example, investment in construction, oil refining, fuel distribution, casinos, and the possibility also of excluding any Canadian firms from any future privatizations that the Honduran government would do. I can later explain in the question and answer period why the Honduran government would go for that.

My simple calculation is that bilateral trade between Canada and Honduras, if this agreement were ratified, would increase; however, the increases would be minimal for Canada and they would even be fairly small for Honduras, and that would only be in the case that Honduras would perform as well as the other Latin American partners that already have an FTA with Canada. I'm talking about Chile, Colombia, Peru, Panama, and Costa Rica. I have to say, even very early on, that Honduras is a totally different country from those five. The exception and one of the best gains, I think, for increased trade is that there would be more access for clothing and for textiles. Most other Honduran goods already arrive in the Canadian market with very minimal taxes, very minimal or zero tariffs.

On the other side, the Canadian exports would gain market access, but again, those gains would be fairly small because the average applied tariffs of Honduras are already very low. They are among the lowest in the world and the lowest in the region. They are around 5% to 6%. It's already very much a free-trading nation. Besides, it's an economy that is very small. To compare it to Canada, the economy of Honduras is smaller than the Ottawa-Gatineau metropolitan area. And that is only at the aggregate level. Once you input the fact that Honduras is the most unequal country, by distribution of income, in the most unequal region in the world, Latin America, then that market is really much smaller than Ottawa-Gatineau.

So if we are expecting to have big increases in Canadian exports to that market, we should know that that market is structurally handicapped from providing those gains, because there is nobody to buy those goods. Canada is not a country that is specializing in luxury goods to sell to a very wealthy elite. Canada sells grains, auto parts, and goods that tend to be consumed by businesses or individuals from the middle class, or from the poorer working class.

Again, comparing Honduras with other Latin American countries that have signed these FTAs with Canada, Honduras is anything between 2 and 20 times smaller as a market, and that is without considering income distribution. The population of Honduras is 8 million, and two-thirds live in poverty and one-third in extreme poverty. That is according to the Honduran government. The UN says quite worse things.

So I also have to say that towards the future—

[Tasleem Thawar, Executive Director, PEN Canada]

Thank you.

My name is Tasleem Thawar, and I'm the executive director of PEN Canada. Before I begin, I'll tell you a bit about PEN Canada. We're the Canadian centre of PEN International, the oldest human rights organization in the world, working in more that 100 countries. Though we are active in the international freedom of expression arena—in fact we're just back from Washington, D.C., testifying on Honduras at the Organization of American States Inter-American Commission on Human Rights—we don't often testify on Canadian foreign policy issues. However, as you've heard from Ms. Cheung, the state of freedom of expression in Honduras is deeply concerning. So here we are.

It's also important to point out that PEN Canada has no view on whether Canada should or should not enter into a preferential trade agreement with Honduras. That said, we do feel that bilateral negotiations with Honduras must be informed by the dire situation there and should be used as an opportunity to improve the conditions for freedom of expression. We believe this ought to be a priority for Canada as a major donor to the country and potential future preferential trading partner. A free and independent press is essential to a free and democratic society, rule of law, and combatting corruption. We believe Honduras' dismal record on freedom of expression poses great risk to Canadian companies and to Canada generally.

I have some brief points that I want to emphasize.

First, Honduras is far worse than any of Canada's current trading partners in the region. To give you an idea of the situation in relation to others, in the global press freedom rankings of 191 countries compiled by Freedom House, Canada ranked 29; Chile ranked 64; Peru ranked 89; and even Colombia, also plagued by narco-trafficking, ranked 112. Where did Honduras rank? They ranked 140, tied with Egypt, which has imprisoned two Canadian media workers in the past eight months. Since the coup in 2009, 32 journalists have been murdered in Honduras.

So this agreement should not be business as usual for Canada. When it comes to freedom of expression, this is a country that has performed far worse than its neighbours and Canada's other preferential trading partners.

Second, not only have Honduran institutions failed at protecting basic human rights for its citizens; there is a history of government involvement in these human rights abuses. Our research shows that the state not only failed to investigate crimes against journalists; in many cases state actors were themselves complicit in these crimes. This is a government that is plagued by corruption, and it has a record of failure in bringing perpetrators to justice.

Third, many of the issues that put journalists in danger are related to trade, investment, and business. There is evidence that journalists writing about sensitive subjects such as the environment, natural resources, and land conflicts are far more likely to be targeted than others. It follows that Canada and Canadian companies may very well be affected by the freedom of expression situation in Honduras. Even if Canadian companies in Honduras act according to Canadian values, we are dealing with a country where journalists are being killed for covering issues that may affect them nonetheless, either directly or indirectly. We need only look back at what happened in Nigeria with Shell and the killing of Ken Saro-Wiwa to see what kind of devastating impact this could have on the reputation of Canadian companies. Indeed, Canada's reputation generally could be at risk. Guilt by association is not uncommon in the international arena when it comes to human rights.

So what can we do to improve the situation in Honduras and mitigate these risks? If passed as it currently stands, Bill C-20 would implement a treaty that is silent in relation to an unfolding human rights disaster in Honduras. This is a missed opportunity. Bilateral trade negotiations and the resulting deepening of Canada's relationship with Honduras put Canada in a unique position to press Honduras to do more to address this crisis. It is not too late for us to take advantage of this opportunity.

Today we are asking the standing committee to recommend that Canada commission human rights assessments and reporting, and second, that we ensure that fundamental human rights are enforceable through the trade agreement.

I'll give you a bit of detail about the two tools.

One, human rights assessments are not new. They are done by many countries as part of trade agreements, including Canada with the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. There are two parts to this recommendation. First, in order to establish a baseline, Canada should commission an independent, impartial, and comprehensive assessment of the state of fundamental human rights in Honduras, including a specific focus on freedom of expression, and make the findings of this assessment public. Second, in order to ensure that progress is being made in meeting their human rights obligations, Canada should negotiate an agreement with Honduras whereby both parties would be required to submit an annual public, independent, impartial, and comprehensive human rights assessment report, with each subsequent report providing an update on how the issues noted in previous reports are being effectively addressed.

Finally, because there are serious doubts about whether Honduras is willing or able to fulfill its existing human rights obligations, we would like to see that fundamental human rights are enforceable through this trade agreement. This would mean incorporating language that references both of our countries' existing human rights obligations and making these enforceable within the treaty.

Thank you for your time. We look forward to your questions.

[Carmen Cheung, Researcher, International Human Rights Program]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of PEN Canada and the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law, I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to present on Bill C-20. I will be sharing my time with Tasleem Thawar, the executive director of PEN Canada.

Since 2010, PEN and the International Human Rights Program have worked together to research and report on threats to freedom of expression around the world. This January, we released our latest joint report, which focuses on impunity and violence against journalists in Honduras. I am a researcher for this report and our research included a thorough review of previous work published on the problem of impunity in Honduras, and extensive in-country interviews with journalists, human rights defenders, lawyers, government officials, and other stakeholders.

When we first embarked on this study, we were drawn to Honduras because we were, quite frankly, alarmed at what we were seeing: deadly violence against journalists in a country that until quite recently was not particularly notorious for such threats. Although Honduras has been plagued by violence and high crime rates for several years, the evidence suggests that the sharp increase in violence against journalists cannot simply be ascribed to this trend.

Our report finds that journalists are targeted for their work, and that they are especially vulnerable members of the population. As detailed in our report, freedom of expression in Honduras has suffered serious restrictions since the ouster of President Zelaya in June 2009. These past five years have seen a dramatic erosion in protections for expressive life in Honduras. Journalists are threatened, they're harassed, attacked, and murdered with near impunity, and sometimes in circumstances that strongly suggest the involvement of state agents. This has had a devastating impact on the general state of human rights and the rule of law in the country, since violence against journalists often silences coverage of topics such as corruption, organized crime, drug trafficking, and political reportage. Fearing for their personal safety, many journalists either self-censor or flee the country altogether.

Among the journalists and human rights defenders we spoke with, there is a pervasive sense that they are under threat, and that the state is, at best, unable or unwilling to defend them, or at worst, complicit in the abuses. This general feeling is borne out by the numbers. As our report sets out, only two convictions have been secured in the 38 journalist killings between 2003 and 2013—an impunity rate of 95%.

Investigations by the national police are conducted poorly, if at all. Indeed, the national police is widely acknowledged to be highly corrupt, notwithstanding decades of so called “purification”. When we were in Honduras, the deputy minister of justice and human rights told us that the police officers and police forces suffer from serious institutional problems, including infiltration by organized crime. A representative from an intergovernmental organization told us that his office operates under the assumption that narco-trafficking groups have established links with politicians, the army, and the police.

The taint of corruption and the culture of impunity have undermined trust among state agencies and public confidence in key institutions. Public distrust of the police is so great that only about 20% of crime is reported, and of that, less than 4% gets investigated. According to Honduras's own statistics, less than 1% of all crime in Honduras is subject to a police investigation.

Serious problems are evident throughout the criminal justice system. Police will say an investigation is under way when there is none. The office of the special prosecutor for human rights does not have the jurisdiction to try those responsible for the murders of journalists, and lacks resources to conduct even the most basic of investigations into human rights abuses.

We met with two of the special prosecutors for human rights defenders during our time in Tegucigalpa. One of them, Rosa Seaman, told us that she was personally responsible for 200 cases. However, her office received only enough funding for her salary and a vehicle. She had virtually no investigative resources, no team beyond herself and the other special prosecutor for human rights defenders, no investigative analysts, and no technical capacity to even trace the source of threats sent by email or telephone.

She estimated that realistically, she could only investigate and prosecute about one case per month. That means 12 cases out of the 200 that she is responsible for. Meanwhile, she and the other prosecutor we spoke with also reported being subject to threats for their work in protecting human rights. Therefore, while a special prosecutor for human rights exists on paper and as an institution, its ability to carry out its mandate is seriously compromised by severe underfunding and threats to the safety of the prosecutors themselves.

To be clear: under international law, when the state is unable or unwilling to prosecute crimes, this is state complicity in human rights violations. Honduras is facing a serious human rights crisis. This is not just a matter of working with Honduras to move beyond a troubled past. Violence against journalists, complete collapse of expressive life, and impunity for violent crimes and human rights abuses remain the norm there.

Ms. Thawar will set out why this is important for Canada and our interests in the region.

I thank you for the opportunity to address the committee, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We'll call the meeting to order.

We want to thank our witnesses for coming forward.

We're into Bill C-20, which is the act to implement a free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, and environmental and labour cooperation agreements as well.

With us today we have from Honduras Solidarity Network, Karen Spring. Thank you for being here. I believe we will start with her testimony. Then we have from PEN Canada, an international human rights program, Tasleem Thawar and Carmen Cheung, and I believe you'll be splitting the time.

We'll start with Karen. The floor is yours.

[Cameron MacKay, Director General, Trade Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

I thank the committee for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-20, the Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras, and the parallel Agreements on Labour and Environmental Cooperation.

I am currently the director general for trade negotiations at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. From 2010 to 2012, I was Canada's ambassador to Honduras.

I'm joined at the table today by my colleagues Henri-Paul Normandin, who is the director general for the Latin American and Caribbean bureau; Paul Huynh, deputy director for tariffs and goods market access; Vern MacKay, director of investment trade policy; and we also have Pierre Bouchard, director of bilateral and regional labour affairs at Employment and Social Development Canada.

Mr. Chair, members of this committee are well aware that to compete and succeed in international markets in this hemisphere and beyond, Canadian companies need a level playing field with respect to tariffs and market access. The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement achieves that goal. It is a concrete demonstration of the government's commitment to an ambitious pro-trade plan, as well as our strategy for engagement in the Americas.

Of course Honduras is a relatively small trade partner, but there is potential for long-term growth, and several Canadian companies are already active there.

Indeed our bilateral trade is already growing. From 2009 to 2013, Canada's two-way merchandise trade with Honduras grew 59%—from $176 million to $280 million. Just over last year, from 2012 to 2013, Canada's exports grew by almost 17% with imports growing more than 7%. To support Canadian businesses operating in Honduras, Export Development Canada, EDC, has assisted 28 Canadian companies and had a business volume in Honduras of more than $23 million in 2013.

But Canadian companies face some stiff competition in Honduras. Honduras already has free trade agreements in force with eight partners: the United States, the European Union, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Chile, Taiwan, Panama, and Colombia. It is also negotiating free trade agreements with Peru and Korea. Each of these agreements gives the businesses from those countries a measurable competitive advantage in Honduras over their Canadian counterparts, including clear price advantages in terms of lower tariff rates. Once our FTA enters into force, Canadian exporters will be able to compete with them head to head.

Today Canadian exports to Honduras face, on average, tariffs of 10.5% for agriculture products and 4.8% for non-agricultural goods. If Parliament agrees to implement this free trade agreement, it will help Canadian companies take advantage of Honduras' growing economy by immediately eliminating duties on almost 70% of Honduran tariff lines, with most of the remaining tariffs to be phased out over periods of 5 to 15 years.

The range of products that would benefit includes: agricultural and agri-food products, forestry products, plastics, chemical products, vehicles and auto parts, and industrial machinery.

This agreement will have benefits for communities across Canada, and especially with respect to the agriculture and agrifood sector. For example, pork producers from Quebec and Ontario; processed potato product producers from New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Manitoba; linseed producers in Saskatchewan; and beef producers in Alberta will all benefit from the removal of Honduran tariffs as high as 15% on their products.

With the Honduran approval last fall of Canada's beef and pork inspection systems, Canadian producers and exporters of beef and pork can take advantage of the tariff reductions on day one of the implementation of this free trade agreement.

This agreement will also eliminate tariffs on a wide variety of Canadian industrial goods exports such as chemical products, wood, pulp and paper products, vehicles and auto parts, as well as fish and seafood. The gains in goods market access will benefit companies in diverse sectors right across Canada.

Canada's service sector also stands to benefit. The FTA goes further than Honduras' existing commitments under the World Trade Organization's General Agreement on Trade in Services in sectors of export interest to Canada, including professional services and information and communications technologies. Overall, the FTA will provide secure, predictable, and equitable treatment for Canadian service providers.

Investors will also benefit. The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement includes provisions designed to protect bilateral investment through legally binding obligations, and to ensure that investors will be treated in a non-discriminatory manner. Through the FTA, investors will also have access to transparent, impartial, and binding dispute settlement. The investment provisions of the FTA will support a stable legal framework that protects Canadian investments in Honduras and vice versa, including guaranteeing the transfer of investment capital and protecting investors against expropriation without prompt and adequate compensation. The investment provisions also include an article on corporate social responsibility, which recognizes that both governments expect and encourage their respective companies operating abroad to observe internationally recognized standards of responsible business conduct.

The FTA also contains strong provisions with respect to government procurement. Honduras has numerous infrastructure projects under way, which relate to ports, airports, and the production of energy from renewable sources. These projects aim to improve, among other things, access, quality, and sustainability of infrastructure services for the rural poor. The FTA will expand access for Canadian suppliers to these types of procurement opportunities, reduce the risk of doing business in the region, and create attractive opportunities in areas such as environmental technology, engineering, infrastructure projects, and construction services.

Finally, in keeping with Canada's overall approach on free trade negotiations, Canada has negotiated parallel agreements on labour and environmental cooperation. The agreement on environmental cooperation, like others that Canada has signed, commits both Canada and Honduras to effectively enforce our environmental laws, and to ensure that we do not relax or weaken those laws to encourage trade or investment. Similarly, the agreement on labour cooperation ensures that increased business between our two countries does not come at the expense of labour rights.

Canadian companies that do business abroad rely on fair, transparent, predictable and non-discriminatory trade rules. With the Canada-Honduras Free Trade Agreement, we are helping to provide Canadian companies with the rules they need to compete and win abroad, and build a stronger Canadian economy here at home.

Of course, Hondurans will also benefit from this FTA. Canadian companies invested in Honduras, and Canadian importers buying Honduran exports, are already providing jobs and opportunities there. Over time, this FTA will create the conditions for more such opportunities for Hondurans. Committee members are well aware that Honduras is a country facing challenges on all fronts—with respect to poverty, violence, narco-trafficking, and respect for human rights, to name a few.

Honduras needs help, and Canada is responding. Canada is engaged with the government, civil society, and other international donors on the ground in Honduras to address their human rights, security, and development challenges.

The Canadian government's view is that prosperity, security and democratic governance—including full respect for human rights—are interconnected and mutually reinforcing.

The governments of Canada and Honduras agree that increased prosperity through trade and investment, supported by a strong free trade agreement, can contribute to the reduction of poverty and social exclusion in Honduras.

Thank you, we will be pleased to take any questions the committee might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We will call this meeting to order.

We want to thank the department for being here.

We are studying, pursuant to the order of reference on Monday, March 31, 2014, Bill C-20, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras. That is an environmental agreement as well as a labour agreement. We have with us the department, which is sort of tradition to have a department here to kick us off on this for the first hour. Then maybe we'll get into witnesses in the second hour.

So with that I believe it's Cameron MacKay. You are going to lead us in that and you have an entourage with you. Welcome to committee and we look forward to your testimony and we'll follow it up with some questions. The floor is yours.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is supporting Bill C-20 because we see the value of free trade agreements. We believe it is one very effective tool in being able to increase overall trade in Canada. We could ultimately deliver on more middle-class jobs and provide other opportunities for both businessmen and women.

The question I have for the member is this. To what degree does she believe her government is going beyond free trade agreements to attract investment in Canada, to increase the trade coming into Canada and going out, but, more importantly, to deal with the trade deficit that the government is ultimately responsible for? What is the government doing, beyond free trade agreements, to get Canada back on track to having a trade surplus, something we had prior to the Prime Minister taking office?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but notice that a number of Conservative members of Parliament stand in their place and talk about Bill C-20 and make reference to the fact that they have 38 free trade agreements under this particular Prime Minister. It is important that we distinguish, when we talk about the number of 38, one of them is with the European Union, and the European Union is 28 of that 38.

From my understanding, and I look for the member's comment, it is not the traditional type of agreement that we are talking about today. For example, in the case of the European Union and those 28 countries, there is no legislation before the House today regarding free trade.

I am wondering if the member might be able to inform the House as to when he believes we will actually have the legislation for the European Union agreement. If he likes, he could also provide comment on the pork industry in Honduras. The trade agreement would be of great benefit, we anticipate, in Manitoba, particularly in his riding.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to talk about the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement and the many benefits it would bring to our agriculture and agri-food producers and exporters.

First I would like to emphasize that our Conservative government clearly understands that our standard of living and Canadians' future prosperity will be generated by deepening and broadening our trading relationships, which is something missing from the comments earlier today by the Liberals and the New Democrats. That is why our government is committed to securing and deepening access to traditional markets such as the United States while broadening and expanding access to dynamic and fast-growing economies around the world.

Pursuing new trade opportunities is a win-win situation for Canada and its trading partners. Canadians benefit from the jobs, prosperity, and consumer benefits that come from increased trade. In turn, our international partners, many of which represent developing countries, benefit from the ever-expanding middle class and improved standard of living that is lifting more of the world's population out of poverty. This was mentioned earlier today by the member for Mississauga South in her comments.

We are also creating new opportunities for our exporters, opportunities that are bringing jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity to hard-working Canadians.

As Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector becomes more modern, innovative, and competitive, the sector is becoming a more significant part of Canada's economy. In fact, in 2012 the agriculture and agri-food industry accounted for one in eight jobs in Canada, which translated to employment for more than two million Canadians. It also accounted for 8% of Canada's gross domestic product.

In 2012 our overall agriculture and agri-food exports exceeded $44 billion, ranking Canada the fifth-largest exporter of agriculture and agri-food products in the world. That is why our government continues to work tirelessly to improve access to international markets for our agricultural exporters.

Whereas the Liberals completed only three trade agreements over their 13 years in government, in eight years Canada has signed or concluded new free trade agreements in 38 countries, including Colombia; Jordan; Panama; Peru; the European Free Trade Association, including Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland; Honduras; the 28 members of the European Union; and, most recently, South Korea. Sadly, the ideologically driven NDP has consistently opposed these agreements.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement we are debating here today is an example of the actions our government is taking to support Canadians as they compete and win in the global economy. Our government will ensure that Canadian agriculture and agri-food producers and exporters remain competitive with exporters to Honduras, and I want to emphasize why this is so important.

As members of this House are aware, Honduras has also concluded free trade agreements with the United States and the European Union. The United States is Canada's biggest competitor in Honduras, and many Canadian exports are in direct competition with those of the United States. Canadian products are now at a competitive disadvantage, as they continue to face duties, while exports from the United States enjoy duty-free access. Over 87% of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods to Honduras are now entering duty free.

Our government will not let Canadians compete on an unlevel playing field. It is time this House passed this agreement.

Our agreement with Honduras is a comprehensive agreement that covers market access for goods, including agriculture and agri-food products. Some of these products include Canada's high-quality beef, pork, wheat products, frozen french fries, malt, maple syrup, pulses, whisky, canola seed, and canary seed. These products would enter Honduras duty free upon implementation of this FDA. This is welcome news for our agriculture and agri-food industries and for our exporters.

For instance, our beef and pork exporters could take immediate advantage of restored access to the Honduran market following the recent approval of the Canadian meat inspection system. Our pork sector would also reap benefits from an FTA with Honduras. Canada's exporters of purebred breeding swine, swine genetics, and pork offal would benefit from the immediate elimination of Honduran tariffs of up to 15%. As well, cuts of Canada's fresh, chilled, and frozen pork would gain from immediate duty-free access. Our pork industry is optimistic about the potential for an increase in our pork exports to Honduras.

Canada's exporters of frozen french fries would also benefit from the immediate elimination of Honduran tariffs of 15%. Likewise, our pulse exporters would benefit not only from the immediate elimination of tariffs ranging from 10% to 15% but also from the eventual removal of tariffs of up to 30% within the next 10 years.

I have outlined only some of the benefits of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement for Canadian agricultural exporters and their producers. Suffice to say, the Canada-Honduras agreement is excellent news for the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector.

This agreement would support more Canadian jobs by enhancing our ability to export more goods and services to this market, including agricultural goods. Expanding Canada's trade and investment ties around the world will help protect and create new jobs and prosperity for hard-working Canadians.

All these initiatives are critical to the economic future of our country, yet they are also a representation of Canada's past. Canada has always been a trading nation. This year we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Twenty years ago, trade within the North American region was over U.S. $288 billion. In 2012, total trilateral merchandise trade reached nearly $1.1 trillion. That is nearly a fourfold increase.

Canada is now the top export destination for 38 out of 50 U.S. states. Of course, the U.S. remains by far the top export destination of all provinces. Over eight million U.S. jobs depend on trade and investment with Canada, and over 2.4 million Canadian jobs, one in seven, depend on exports to the U.S.

NAFTA has provided a solid foundation for Canada's future prosperity on which Canada continues to build to advance North American trade and competitiveness.

Canada has also punched above its weight when it comes to multilateral trade. By continuing to actively pursue broader market access and new investment opportunities, we are providing Canadian businesses and exporters with access on preferred terms to the largest, most dynamic, fastest-growing economies and regions around the world. That is why the implementation of this free trade agreement, and all free trade agreements, is a priority for this government.

I ask hon. members in the House to support Bill C-20.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier about why Liberals support Bill C-20. What I would like to discuss is what the government lacks in overall trade strategy, what is going wrong, and why, after signing all these trade agreements, we still have deficits.

I will lay a few facts on the table. The more trade agreements that the government signs, it seems the more persistent the long-term trade deficit is. Liberals are hopeful that will change. The government seems good at making announcements, but for all the announcements it has made, what have the results been?

I will lay out a couple of facts. A recently released report from Stats Canada on manufacturing exports for the past decade had this to say:

Canadian exports of manufactured products fell by more than 7% from 2002 to 2012, a drop of $20.7 billion. The United States led the decrease, as their imports of Canadian manufactured products—

Keep in mind that these are manufactured products.

—declined by $44.8 billion.

That is serious.

The share of Canadian manufacturing exports to the United States also declined, falling from 88.0% in 2002 to 78.2% in 2012.

Those figures are from Stats Canada.

Having said that, in terms of the decline of exports to the United States, we do know, and I think we would all agree in the House, that we have to expand our trade beyond the United States. We are too dependent on that one market. When we look at the global situation—and I have a chart here, which members cannot see—in terms of the trade balance, Statistics Canada has reported that in 48 of the past 62 months Canada has faced a trade deficit. That is worrisome. We are not doing well.

Why are we not doing well? A prime example is the grain crisis right now. When the government made the changes in so-called grain marketing, it forgot that transportation is functional to marketing. The government destroyed the logistical system in its decision to get that product to market. Marketing is not just about signing a deal; it is having the infrastructure, the ship turnaround time, the railway capacity, and the logistics of the total system in place to feed that market.

That is where the government is going wrong. It is not looking at all of the other factors in trade that need to be put in place to take advantage of the trade deals, and that is what is short in all of the trade deals that the government has signed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, based on those last comments by the member who just spoke in response to a question about all the agreements they signed, I cannot help thinking that it is not really hard to sign an agreement when one is giving away the shop. It really is not hard at all, and that is part of the problem with some of these agreements. We support free trade, but we want to negotiate an agreement that is of benefit to Canada. We will be supporting this Bill C-20 and the Honduras agreement, but we do think that, in most agreements, trade negotiations could have been negotiated a lot better for the benefit of Canada.

Bill C-20 would implement the free trade agreement and the related agreements on environmental and labour co-operation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and signed in this city on November 5 of last year. Both sides of that agreement are very important. I have listened to the criticism from the NDP and, in fact, I understand it. There are concerns, rightfully, about labour violations and about crime that is happening in Honduras, and that has to be uppermost in our minds in terms of the trade agreement we have signed with them.

I would say to representatives from Honduras that we as Canadians expect improvements on the labour agreement side, and we expect improvements in terms of the abuse of their workers, of violations in terms of citizens of the country's communities that mining endeavours are engaged in, and on goes the list. I will not belabour the point, but we expect Honduras to do much better than what we have seen from its record in the past, and we are putting it on alert. As members of the Liberal Party, we believe we cannot work in isolation. When we sign a trade agreement with labour and environmental agreements on the side, we believe it gives us a better leverage as a county to demand better human rights and social and economic responsibility on the part of the government and the business community in that country with which we have signed an agreement.

Honduras has a relatively small economy. In 2012, Canadian businesses exported only $39 million in quite a narrow field of goods and materials, which I will get to in a moment; and we imported $219 million from the Honduran economy. In 2013, those numbers were improved upon somewhat, with $45 million of products exported to Honduras and $234 million of imports. We have a deficit trade balance and there is no question about that. We would like to see the numbers the other way, but it is a place to start. I know in the community I used to represent, the farming community, beef and hogs is one of the bigger exports that we think would gain an advantage and access into the Honduran market as a result of this particular agreement.

As the last speaker said, the agreement is one of many, and the last speaker as well—like many of the government speakers have done—talked about Canada positioning itself for long-term prosperity through these trade agreements.

The problem is that signing a trade agreement in and of itself does not mean long-term prosperity. We can look at the records of the countries with which we have signed trade agreements over the years, and we will find that, in many cases where we have had a surplus going into a trade agreement, we have found ourselves in a deficit trading situation over time.

Why is that? Why are other countries doing better under trade agreements after they sign with us than they were doing before? That is what we have to examine. What other things do we have to do within the country to ensure we take advantage of these trade agreements?

We should not just sign them, as the government is doing. It is not hard to sign an agreement, as we have seen with the CETA agreement under the current Prime Minister. He needed one because of the political domestic situation in his country. He basically pleaded to get agreement, sold out several industries in Canada, including dairy and the procurement for municipalities, and added $900 million to $1.9 billion to the drug costs in this country. That is the kind of agreement he signed because he pleaded to get one, rather than negotiating from a position of strength.

I will come back after question period to talk about what we have to do to make trade agreements work for us, rather than have the terrible record we have in this country. Over the last 62 months, 48 were in a trade deficit with the Conservative government in charge. It is the first government in 30 years that has had an annual trade deficit. It is doing poorly in terms of the real facts.

Just negotiating an agreement is not the only answer.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-20, which would implement a trade agreement with Honduras.

In 2013, when I sat on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, we studied what was happening in Honduras at length. I believe I know enough of the facts to oppose this bill.

The despotic regime that reigns in Honduras is characterized by its anti-democratic practices, its corruption, its failed institutions and its history of human rights violations.

Canada should not be signing a free trade agreement with that country. I do not understand how some of my colleagues from the other parties dare support such a treaty, considering what we know about Honduras.

In my view, when it comes to considering a trade agreement, we must determine whether the partner respects democracy and human rights. That is absolutely not the case here, as my NDP colleagues demonstrated earlier. I will add to the debate what we learned in the Subcommittee on International Human Rights.

Honduras has a poor record on rule of law, as we know. Human rights are being trampled there. There are many cases of murder and corruption, and they go largely unpunished. Professor Gordon of Wilfrid Laurier University, who testified before the committee, said that the possibility of a free election needs to be called into question. Some members of the opposition parties have been assassinated, others have been threatened and so on.

Violence and repression have reached new highs since the coup in 2009. In 2013, there was an average of 10 killings a month. According to Professor Dana Frank from the University of California, 80% of crimes in Honduras go unpunished. According to the Committee of Relatives of the Disappeared in Honduras, there were more than 10,000 complaints of human rights violations by security forces in 2010. The legal authorities did not follow up on these complaints.

Human Rights Watch published a report in December 2010 that mentioned that the state does not co-operate in investigations. There are widespread doubts about whether there is judicial independence. Another report published in February 2013 criticizes the fact that no progress has been made.

The NGO Freedom House ranks Honduras as the second most dangerous country for journalists. According to the National Human Rights Commission in Honduras, 36 journalists were killed between 2003 and 2013, and 29 have been killed since President Lobo took power.

In June 2013, Anibal Barrow, a TV news anchor, was kidnapped from his car and killed. No suspects were convicted.

Furthermore, a handful of companies with ties to the government own most media outlets. Self-censorship is common. It is alleged that journalists are corrupted and advertisements are manipulated to ensure that coverage is positive and to silence opponents. A recently passed law penalizes anyone for criticizing a company or unfairly criticizing the government. These conditions make it difficult to assess the real situation in the country.

These issues caught the attention of the U.S. Congress last summer. In June 2013, 24 American senators signed a letter to express their concerns about human rights in Honduras. In addition, 94 members of Congress urged the U.S. Department of State to cease all military assistance to Honduras in light of the violent repression.

Furthermore, there has been some criticism of the charter cities that Honduras wants to create. These charter cities would give foreign companies unrivalled and exclusive access to cheap labour and natural resources in Honduras. Basically, they want to create nations within Honduran territory. In all the areas where the charter cities are proposed, there are significant land issues that have been going on for decades.

The most significant area is in the Aguán valley. That area has been allocated for a potential charter city. It is also an area that has seen huge investments in tourism. There has been a significant amount of protest against the charter cities, once again because the communities where these cities will be built are being excluded from any sort of dialogue.

The individual who proposed the charter city project, an economist named Paul Romer, has since pulled out of the process, complaining that there is no accountability or transparency. This has raised a significant amount of controversy in Honduras, and yet the trade agreement we are currently debating seeks to take advantage of those charter cities.

The second criterion to take into account when assessing trade agreements is whether the agreement has any strategic value to Canada. Well, I have no idea, because this agreement was negotiated without any transparency.

Despite repeated requests, the Government of Canada refused to make the text of the agreement public during the negotiation process. I have to wonder how some members of the House can support a trade agreement without knowing the details, especially when we are well aware of the human rights situation in that country.

This agreement is stained with the blood of Hondurans. If we enter into a partnership with such a regime, we run the risk of tarnishing Canada's reputation on the international stage.

In 2011, the people of Brome—Missisquoi elected me to this place with the hope of building a different Canada. Considering the facts that I just outlined, I cannot support Bill C-20, and I encourage anyone who is still undecided to oppose it.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the MP for Northumberland—Quinte West.

As members know, our government has been focused on what matters to all Canadians: jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That is why we are currently pursuing the most ambitious trade expansion plan in our country's history. In less than seven years, Canada has concluded free trade agreements with 9 countries and is negotiating with 30 more. Consider this: one in five Canadian jobs are dependent on exports. That is 20% of all Canadian jobs. Our prosperity hinges on opening new markets for Canadian goods, services, and investments.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would have a tremendous impact on Canadian businesses and workers in the fields of agriculture, professional services, value-added food processing and manufacturing, and commodity- and resource-based industries. This agreement would open up significant opportunities for Canadian companies in Honduras, as well as the broader region. The free trade agreement between Canada and Honduras would also further Canada's foreign strategy of deepening our engagement in the Americas and support the vision of enhancing economic integration in the hemisphere.

On the other hand, the NDP's anti-trade record is very clear. Going all the way back to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1988, New Democrats have opposed every single free trade agreement Canada has ever signed into law. They believe that the global economy is something hard-working middle class Canadians should fear. Their vision for Canada to be a country that turns inward out of insecurity: a Canada that cowers, a Canada that lacks confidence, and a Canada that actually cannot compete. Our government categorically rejects this view. We know that Canadians can compete with the best in the world and win.

In November 2013, I signed the Canada-Honduras agreement on labour co-operation, which was negotiated in parallel with the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement. Our government strives to demonstrate on the international stage that a competitive economy includes safe, healthy, and productive workplaces. We expect all of our trading partners to ensure safe working conditions consistent with international standards. That said, this agreement would help ensure a level playing field for Canadian workers and employers when competing internationally for trade and investment in the context of our expanding economic relationship with Honduras.

Our government is pleased to work with our partner countries in the Americas to ensure mutual prosperity within the region and achieve greater levels of international co-operation on labour issues. This free trade agreement would increase export and investment opportunities for Canadians by creating a potential preferential and more predictable trade and investment environment. At the same time, the labour co-operation agreement would ensure that these economic advances are not made at the expense of workers' rights. The labour co-operation agreement between Canada and Honduras would help protect labour rights and maintain productive and healthy labour environments in both countries.

This agreement will create jobs and contribute greatly to Canada’s continued economic growth and prosperity. As a Canadian, I want to see my country prosper. As Minister of Labour, I am happy to say that while we are working hard to advance our historical trade agenda, our government is ensuring that international labour rights and obligations are respected.

As Minister of Labour, I am happy to say we will be working hard to advance our historical trade agenda, and our government is ensuring that international labour rights and obligations are respected. It is of vital importance that prosperity does not come at the expense of workers' rights. That is why the free trade agreement with Honduras is accompanied by a parallel labour co-operation agreement. This agreement includes strong and comprehensive provisions for the enforcement of labour rights and a transparent complaint and dispute resolution mechanism.

Under the terms of this labour co-operation agreement, Canada and Honduras have committed to ensure that their laws respect and embody the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The declaration covers the right of freedom of association, the right of collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced and compulsory labour, and the elimination of discrimination in the workplace. Through these provisions, we demonstrate our shared commitment to improving labour standards and protecting workers' rights.

In the Canada-Honduras labour co-operation agreement, both countries have committed to protect workers' health and safety on the job, as well as provide compensation in cases of work-related injuries or illnesses. Both countries have further committed to establishing and maintaining minimum employment standards, including standards with respect to wages and overtime pay.

Finally, we have also agreed to provide migrant workers with the same legal protections as those afforded to nationals. This prevents discriminatory working conditions and protects some of the most vulnerable workers.

Canada recognizes Honduras' ongoing efforts to bolster its enforcement of national laws and fundamental labour rights, and encourages its efforts to continue along this path.

It is clear that Honduras is just as committed as we are to the success of this accord. In fact, when I met with my Honduran counterpart in November 2013, we reaffirmed our commitment to the effective implementation of a high-quality labour co-operation agreement. However, as one can appreciate, the commitments we make in these agreements are only credible if there is a means of enforcing them. That is why I am pleased to say that the Canada-Honduras labour co-operation agreement includes a strong dispute-resolution mechanism that is transparent and easy to use.

If either Canada or Honduras should fail to respect internationally recognized labour rights and principles or not enforce domestic labour laws, they could ultimately face financial penalties. As part of the Canada-Honduras labour co-operation agreement, the Canadian government has agreed to work with Honduras to improve its labour standards and better protect workers.

Our government recently provided funding for various technical assistance projects that are strengthening the capacities of the Honduran Ministry of Labour to enforce domestic labour laws. These have focused on key issues including workers' rights, improving labour inspections, promoting more vibrant and constructive dialogue between government workers and employer representatives, and encouraging the development of sound occupational health and safety practices.

Our government has been clear that trade liberalization and labour rights go hand in hand. Canada has more to offer the global market than just the robust quality of its products and services. We also have a reputation for honesty and reliability. We keep our promises and we play by the rules. That is why the Canada-Honduras labour co-operation agreement is important, and I am confident that this agreement would help create well-paying jobs for Canadian workers, as well as making sure that those workers in Honduras are seeing a higher standard for the labours that they are embarking upon at home.

I ask my fellow parliamentarians to support Bill C-20 to implement the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement and the parallel labour co-operation and environment agreements. This legislation would further strengthen Canada's economy and provide a foundation for future trade opportunities. It would also promote and ensure fair and productive workplaces that would benefit both countries.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I would think that one of the preconditions for entering into a preferential trade agreement would be to provide some level of assurance. Once we sign off on that deal, we would be sending signals to Canadian investors that this is a safe place, a good place to invest their dollars.

We have yet to have the government come forward and show us how the Government of Honduras is addressing the erosion of rule of law and the erosion of democratic processes, and frankly, I think credible Canadian investors would also want to look to the issue of human rights abuses.

No, I do not see that the government has brought forward a credible case for the signing off and the voting in favour of Bill C-20.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise in this place and speak to Bill C-20, which would set forth a trade agreement between Canada and the country of Honduras.

As my colleague from Victoria has stated, the regrettable fact is that this transparency and participation by the members of this place has occurred late in the day, which has been the case with every trade agreement that the Conservative government has brought forward. It is unlike the process that is followed in most western democracies, where the duly elected members of Parliament are provided with information from day one of the negotiation process.

The kinds of matters that parliamentarians should be informed of before a bill comes to the House, where essentially the deal is already cast in stone, would include critical factors that the government professes it has given due consideration. These factors would include the human rights record of the country that Canada is seeking to provide preferential treatment and trade with. It would include the value added to Canadian trade and whether it is worthwhile to send officials off to spend time negotiating the trade deal, as opposed to putting efforts toward nations where these factors already exist. Is there a stable democratic regime, including democratic processes and the rule of law? That is clearly an important factor.

Surely one of the reasons we enter into trade agreements that provide preferential trade provisions is to showcase to potential investors from Canada that this is a place where they can do business and that we are giving preferential rights. Therefore, Canadian investors, whether large or small, would be given some level of assurance that their investment would be safe and protected under some kind of a rule of law regime.

We have seen recently, with the demise of some regimes around the world, that the government has not been willing to do that. Our party, frankly, has raised concerns in dissenting reports. Whether this bill goes through or not, one would raise the question of whether the government is providing any riders to this, informing Canadian investors that some of their investments may well be at risk because of the state of the government regime in Honduras.

I will briefly reiterate concerns that have been raised by others in the House about the state of the regime in Honduras. The current government regime came into place in 2010, through what was said to be a very undemocratic and illegitimate election. We have heard litany after litany of continuing human rights abuses, killings, arbitrary detentions, severe restrictions on public demonstrations, protests on freedom of expression, and interference with the independence of the judiciary. We are told that Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world and is considered a very dangerous country for journalists.

Normal investors would ask whether it would be safe for them to invest their dollars there. Is it going to be safe to send their workers there if they decide to set up some kind of special operation?

As has been shared in the House, Transparency International ranks Honduras as the most corrupt country in Central America. It is a major drug smuggling centre, and it has the worst income equality in the region. Clearly it is a nation that could use assistance. One would ask, instead of rushing into a trade deal to give preferential treatment to a small portion of the population that has control of the dollars, should we not be working with other donors around the world in trying to help Honduras build a more democratic regime?

For the remainder of my time, I wish to speak to the abject failure of the government in living up to its commitments that it would pursue an economic strategy for sustainable development. Trade deal after trade deal that the Conservative government has brought forward has undermined previous undertakings by the Government of Canada to make protection of the environment or sustainable development a key component of the trade deals.

Why am I deeply concerned about this? I had the privilege of being the first head of law and enforcement for the NAFTA environment commission, based in Montreal. It was a breakthrough agreement, under the NAFTA trade agreement with Mexico, Canada, and the United States. While some argued that it should have been encompassed in the actual trade deal and it was promised that it would happen in the next trade deals, at least it came forward and was signed by all three governments.

We have seen that the government has essentially shred the basics of that initial very well-founded agreement. Unlike under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, where the three signatories to the NAFTA agreement, Mexico, Canada, and the United States, signed on to create a council of environment ministers to oversee all of the issues to do with environment and trade, we see no such council here.

Every trade deal that the government has initiated, including this one in Bill C-20, does not have duly elected officials to provide the oversight. It will simply be a committee of government officials, unspecified. We do not know who in Canada or in Honduras will be overseeing and ensuring that the rights of the people in Honduras will be protected should there be Canadian investment.

There is no independent secretariat, which is a very important part of the NAFTA agreement. It should be a full-time, employed secretariat with experts, representatives from both nations, delivering the work. It should be ongoing, digging in to make sure that economic development actually protects the environment towards the future.

There is an absolutely zero accountability engagement of the public from impacted communities in this trade agreement under Bill C-20. That is unlike the NAFTA environmental side agreement where there was the creation of a joint public advisory committee, with representatives of industry, the public, and farmers, who would regularly advise the council of ministers. There is no such body.

Under the NAFTA agreement, we had a national advisory council appointed in each of the countries. There is no national advisory council. There is absolutely no scrutiny and no involvement from the Canadian public on how this deal would proceed and be implemented. Also, there is none of the same in Honduras.

Under the NAFTA environmental agreement, there was a provision for any citizen within North America to file a complaint of a failure to effectively enforce environmental law. When the NAFTA deal was signed, there was a great hue and cry that there was going to be all this economic development and wondering whether it was going to undermine environmental protections that where already there. There was a provision allowing any resident of the three countries to file a complaint, which would be duly investigated and reported on publicly. There is no such provision.

Under Bill C-20, a resident of Honduras or Canada could file a complaint to some undesignated official in that country. Given the lack of credibility of the government regime in this country in taking environmental damage seriously, and given what has been stated about the state of governance in Honduras, how can we have faith that any citizen might be brave enough to come forward and file such a complaint? How can we have faith that it would be dealt with in any kind of a credible manner, unlike the NAFTA agreement where there is a clearly specified framework for effective environmental enforcement?

I can speak to that fact because I have been a member of this incredible international body on co-operation, on effective environmental compliance and enforcement. There are 180 countries around the world, working together and talking about the specific components of effective enforcement of environmental law, to give credibility to that kind of a structure. That framework was set out in the environmental side agreement to NAFTA. It is completely absent in Bill C-20.

My final comment would be that a very important part of the NAFTA environmental agreement is transparency and participation. Throughout the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, there is the right to file a complaint of failed enforcement, the right of private access to remedies if someone feels the environment is not being protected, and procedural guarantees to resort to courts if a community is damaged. None of these provisions exist in the side agreement.

We see a great downgrading of what once was a model for sustainable economic development around the world, which Canada initiated. The government has completely shredded that regime and paid it no heed whatsoever. Its talk about participation, transparency, and environment protection is clearly reflected in this agreement; it is completely absent.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in the strongest possible terms in opposition to Bill C-20, an act that would implement a free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Honduras.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague for Edmonton—Strathcona.

At the second reading stage of a debate, we are looking at the principles of a bill, and it is those principles that I want to address today.

Bill C-20 is a government bill that would bring Canada in closer economic terms with Honduras. I am ashamed and embarrassed that our country is considering such a bill. This agreement is about providing preferential trade terms to Honduras, and I cannot believe, for reasons I hope to outline, that Canadians would accept our doing so.

I will start by saluting the excellent work of our trade critic, my colleague for Vancouver Kingsway. He has reminded us that the NDP is fully aware of the importance of trade to our country. We want expanded trade deals that support Canada's exporters, which are important to our economy. However, the process and content of Bill C-20 are so wanting that I am embarrassed the bill is before Parliament today.

Canadians want a trade policy that will strengthen our economic relationships with significant economies. They want things that would assist our exporters. They want to encourage value-added production to many resources of our economy. They want a balanced trade policy. They want a process whereby we enter sectoral preferential trade agreements in a way that takes into account the views of Canadians and agreements that are not negotiated in absolute secrecy, as appears to have been the case here.

The Conservatives took office in 2006, and by all objective measures, their trade performance has been wanting. They came into office with a current account surplus of $18 billion. Now, after their performance, we have a current account deficit of $62 billion. So we have gone down about $10 billion a year since the Conservatives came to power.

What about the kinds of things we are exporting? Well, the rip-and-ship approach to trade seems to be paramount for the Conservative government. Just we in British Columbia deplore the export of raw logs, the Conservative government seems to think that exporting raw bitumen is an acceptable trade policy.

Compared to other countries that had to weather the recession like us, we are about dead last when it comes to current account performance. Seventeen other countries around the world between 2006 to 2012 came into the same global recession. How did we do by comparison? Terribly.

The criteria that we need to use, in our judgment, to assess trade agreements of this sort are threefold.

First, is the country that Canada is proposing to enter into an agreement with a country that respects democracy, human rights, fair labour practices, and the environment? I will argue that is definitively not the case with Honduras.

Second, would this economy be of significant strategic value to Canada? That is hardly the case with Honduras.

Third, are the terms of the particular agreement satisfactory? I will argue that they are not.

Do not take my word for it. I will not repeat all of the human rights atrocities that my colleagues have brought to our attention, nor I will not talk about the recent military coups. All of that is well known. However, I will cite from the CIA's World Factbook, hardly a left-wing document, to talk about the country that our government wants to do business with in this preferential fashion:

Honduras, the second poorest country in Central America, suffers from extraordinarily unequal distribution of income, as well as high underemployment.

The US-Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement...came into force in 2006 and has helped foster foreign direct investment, but physical and political insecurity, as well as crime and perceptions of corruption, may deter potential investors; about 70% of FDI is from US firms.

It goes on to say that:

An 18-month IMF Standby Arrangement expired in March 2012 and was not renewed, due to the country's growing budget deficit and weak current account performance. Public sector workers complained of not receiving their salaries in November and December 2012, and government suppliers are owed at least several hundred million dollars in unpaid contracts. The government announced in January 2013 that loss-making public enterprises will be forced to submit financial rescue plans before receiving their budget allotments for 2013.

Honduras is hardly an economic marvel for Canada to be associated with. It is our 104th export market in terms of export value, and thus is hardly an important economic trading partner.

How did we get here? We arrived here because of a complete lack of transparency in the negotiations and a failure to listen to civil society representatives, many of whom have been there, such as human rights activists, environmental organizations, and labour organizations. None of these people have been listened to at all. I just cannot understand the principled argument for entering this agreement.

For example, in 2012 the AFL-CIO in the United States and 12 Honduran labour organizations filed a formal petition with the U.S. Department of Labour alleging labour violations by companies in the apparel, textile, and other industries, accusing the Government of Honduras, and this is key, of “...failing to enforce its labour laws under the Central America Free Trade Agreement by not upholding laws that enable workers to unionize, organize and bargain collectively or promoting acceptable working conditions”.

That is the kind of record this country has, and yet our government thinks we should have an agreement with it.

We believe in moving forward with trade. However, this is a very corrupt country, which Transparency International has talked about in such critical terms. Honduras is a country where attacks on journalists are rife; a country where rural violence is such that over 90 people have been killed in recent years in land disputes in one area, most since 2009; a country where more than 90 LGBT people were killed between 2009 and 2012; and a country where prison conditions are inhumane, including overcrowding, inadequate nutrition, and poor sanitation. All of this is from Human Rights Watch.

According to the Conservative government, this is the kind of country we should be doing business with and giving preferential trade agreements to. I disagree and my constituents disagree as well. The Council of Canadians has spoken powerfully in opposition to it. Experts from the Department of Foreign Affairs have also testified in negative terms about the kind of activities going on in this particular country.

In our judgment, if it is good for Canada, then let us do it. If it is good for the people on the other side of the table with whom we would be proposing to do business, let us do it, but this is not that kind of agreement. When we take into account the basic facts about Honduras, which I have brought to the House's attention today, this is not a country with which we want an agreement.

Again I have to go back to the process. Why does the government want to do this in secrecy? Why has it failed to make the text of the agreement available to those organizations that could comment intelligently on it? Rather, it wants us to have a yes or no vote on something.

The failure of the government in Honduras to enforce the rules on the environment and labour issues is telling. The kind of corruption that the government has experienced and its lack of concern for democracy is telling. The Conservative government, in our judgment, ought not to be entering into an agreement of this kind. It is easy for the Conservatives to say that our party is opposed to trade, but we are not. We believe in trade. We understand it is important, but a trade agreement with a country like this is abominable.

The House resumed from March 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say here what I said on Twitter last week; that is, I would like to thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for the working relationship that we have enjoyed over the last couple of years. I wish him well with his new critic responsibilities.

Now let me thank the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his first Thursday question. I welcome the hon. member to his new role as the House leader of the official opposition. I have been told by my staff that he is the tenth House leader from across the aisle with whom I have had the pleasure of working.

While I am confident that his predecessor has briefed him on our government's approach toward facilitating a hard-working, productive, and orderly House of Commons, I see that he has already fallen into one of the grievous errors of his predecessor. For a whole bunch of reasons, I would encourage him to look in some detail at the House of Commons rules and procedures.

For example, he was concerned with time allocation and referred to it again as limiting debate, yet when he reviews the rules, as I know he is going to, and I know he will do that with some enthusiasm in the near term, he will notice citation 533 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada , sixth edition, which reminds us that:

Time allocation is a device for planning the use of time during the various stages of consideration of a bill rather than bringing the debate to an immediate conclusion.

That is what we have always tried to do here: schedule debates so that we can make decisions, have fair and adequate debate, and give members of Parliament an opportunity to decide questions. It is not to curtail debate; it is to schedule and facilitate decisions being made. I hope that the member will have regard for those rules, something that had escaped his predecessor.

However, I should say that I do look forward to working with him on our business in the future. That said—and I hope that he will not take personal offence to this—in our scheduling of these matters, we will continue to work off of the Gregorian calendar, not the Julian calendar.

Today, we will continue the third reading debate on Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act. Tomorrow, we will start the second reading debate on Vanessa’s law, Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Monday will see the third day of second reading debate on Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act.

That is one that I know he is a great supporter of.

Tuesday, April 1, shall be the first allotted day. It being April 1 after all, I assume that the NDP will ask us to debate one of its economic policies.

Finally, starting on Wednesday, we will debate our spring budget implementation bill to enact many of the important measures contained in economic action plan 2014, our low-tax plan for Canadians, as we make further progress on balancing the budget in 2015.

I might also add that with regard to the grain situation, Bill C-30 is now before the House. There have been very positive discussions among the parties to date. I hope that they will lead further to being able to have that bill passed through at least second reading on a fairly constructive basis. I hope those discussions will yield fruit, in which case there might be some change to the schedule I have presented to the House today.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-20. Maybe I should start by commenting on the remarks of my colleague from the New Democratic Party, who confirms why the NDP members often scare business. It is a scary proposition if we stop to think about their attitudes toward trade. They can put up walls and prevent merchandise from coming into the country, but I give this advice to my New Democratic colleagues: they might want to open their minds to the facts of how important trade is to Canada.

It is estimated that up to 80% of economic activity or jobs in Canada are attributable to trade. Canada is a trading nation. In response the NDP members say, well, we are talking about trade between Canada and Honduras. I listened to their comments on Bill C-20. They say that Honduras is a bad country, a very bad country. I get that message. That is what they are saying. Do they know that there is currently over a quarter of a billion dollars of trade between our two countries? Are they suggesting that we should abandon that trade also? Are they suggesting that Canada should not trade with nations like Honduras, period?

We should be concerned about that. I can appreciate that in the history of our nation, the NDP has never voted in favour of a trade agreement. It has never done that. It does not seem to recognize that there is some value to trade. In representing their constituents, New Democrats need to realize that many of them have their jobs because of world trade. We should not fear trade, but recognize that there are opportunities for Canada to benefit from it.

Those are the questions I have posed to the government and New Democrats. Let us recognize the value of trade if we manage that file right.

I will get to the Honduras trade agreement specifically, but when we look at the overall trade balance, we see that that when the Conservatives inherited government, there was a multi-billion trade surplus. Today we have a multi-billion trade deficit. What does that mean? Other than stating the fact that Conservatives have done a poor job on the trade file overall, it means that Canada has been deprived of tens of thousands of good, solid jobs. Do not underestimate the impact this has had on the middle class in Canada, because the government of the day has not done its homework.

In part we have to bring this right to the Office of the Prime Minister. One of the speakers talked about the government reaching 37 trade agreements. What he did not highlight is that the process for a number of those agreements began during a Liberal administration. It was Liberals that started them. What they failed to realize is yes, there is a difference in attitude in regard to—

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak right after my colleague from Surrey North and after my many official opposition colleagues who made very relevant speeches, the first being the NDP's international trade critic, the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

I want to get off to a good start by quoting the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 18, verses 15 to 17:

If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.

But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’

If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Despite all of our efforts and all the times we have reached out, the government has shamefully imposed time allocation for the 52nd and 53rd time, in front of millions of witnesses, the millions of Canadian we proudly represent with dignity here in the House of Commons.

Despite the fact that I always try to treat government members like my sisters and brothers, the Conservatives have repeatedly spit in our faces. That is what they always do. Democracy has been denied from the outset. Now, we are studying a bill that, if passed, will be another source of shame for the people of this country. This is very serious.

Before thinking about my speech and delivering it here in the House, I took the time to listen to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade had to say. I also listened to the entire speech given by my esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, who is the NDP's international trade critic.

To begin, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade tried to create a smokescreen by extolling the virtues of the future free trade agreement between Canada and Europe. He did not disclose a single word of it, though. We are still in the dark about this free trade agreement, which we may support. The government is completely refusing to co-operate on that front.

As the member for Vancouver Kingsway said so well, other than the bill that was introduced in the House of Commons, we know nothing about the impact this agreement will have. The real problem goes beyond the government's claims that it wants to create jobs and bolster the Canadian and Honduran economies. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and the entire Conservative government—with active, enthusiastic support from the Liberals—are defending the indefensible. If this agreement goes into effect, it will go against the spirit of key international human rights treaties. That is unspeakable, not to mention completely immoral. Beyond the so-called economic arguments—which are more like wishful thinking, astrology or some other pseudo-science—there is no argument as convincing as denouncing the fundamental immorality of the bill introduced in the House.

Now I would like to focus on my Liberal colleagues. I was shocked to hear the speech from the hon. member for Toronto Centre. The Liberals are advocating a position that is very far removed from the position of Lester B. Pearson's government.

The Liberals' philosophy is some 500 years behind, stuck in a time of slavery and exploitation of the colonies and entire populations, the world over.

It is not so surprising to see the Liberals getting on board with the Conservatives. It has been said time and again in the House: there are major problems in Honduras. Organized crime is widespread. Democracy was wiped out in 2009, and there is no indication or meaningful evidence that this democracy is really vibrant or beneficial to the people of Honduras.

It is very easy to understand why this government is defending tooth and nail the bill we are considering and debating in the House for such a horribly limited amount of time. We know that the Conservatives have a penchant for fraudulent ways. They were caught using an in and out scheme and allowing their data bank to be used to voluntarily lead thousands of voters astray to false polling stations during past elections.

It is incredible that I am standing here in the House right now denouncing things that no party should even imagine or consider doing.

Currently, the party in power is denying its responsibility, denying reality and, in fact, is continuing along its merry way as though nothing happened. It even suggests that there were administrative issues at play when we talk about the in and out scheme. So it comes as no surprise that it is defending Bill C-20, a bill that might just be a blight on Canada's reputation.

I hope that my Conservative and Liberal colleagues will listen to reason and change their positions on this.

The situation has been described at length, but I want to go over it again. It is chilling to think about the murder rate and the number of people who live in fear in that country. In fact, it is not complicated; the entire population of Honduras lives in fear daily, except of course a very limited group of people that must represent, at best, a few thousand people. In fact, it is probably just a few hundred people only. They live in comfort, safety and luxury. In Honduras, a truly very small elite group enjoys this type of benefits.

How can they justify supporting a government that tolerates the reign of organized crime? Can any of my colleagues on the government or Liberal benches answer that? I have asked the question several times. Nobody has had the guts to give me a straight answer on that.

In closing, I would like to debunk an urban myth that the government has slyly, though crudely, tried to cultivate. It would have us believe the warped logic that if we support economic development, democracy will just materialize. That kind of logic is anything but divinely inspired. First of all, that is absolutely not the case, because there is no mention of the economy in this.

This urban legend belongs in the same category as the urban myth perpetuated all over social media and the Internet about how if you pass a car at night that does not have its headlights on, you should not flash your brights at it because it is part of a gang initiation ritual. Before I was elected, I had a little free time, and I researched that. I discovered that no law enforcement organization in North America had ever recorded a crime related to that kind of thing.

The government is making things up and trying to mislead the Canadian public, just like it does with other issues. Enough is enough.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I love the fact that the member pointed out that when the Conservatives inherited the government from Paul Martin, there was indeed a substantial trade surplus. Somehow they have converted that into a trade deficit. That means tens of thousands of lost opportunities in terms of good, solid jobs.

Am I to understand that the NDP will be voting against this bill? We recognize the value of trade. My colleague talked a great deal about the countries the NDP recognizes as worthy of having trade agreements with. Am I to draw the conclusion that the NDP will be voting against Bill C-20? It might have been referred to earlier. It is quite possible that I missed that point, but I would like clarification on that issue.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the parliamentary secretary's question with regard to whether the NDP is for trade.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

I am honoured to speak to Bill C-20, the free trade agreement with Honduras. Let me talk about how we got here today. This bill has been under time allocation. For Canadians who are watching, time allocation is when the Conservatives shut down a debate. They do not want to debate the bill. They do not want Canadians to find out what it is exactly they are trying to rush through. We have seen this over and over. In fact, they have moved time allocation motions 53 times in this Parliament. Not only that, they have had closure on six debates.

I am lucky to have the opportunity to speak in the House, but there are many other members who are not going to get the opportunity to speak about this bill that is being rushed through the House of Commons. What is the rush? Are Conservatives trying to hide something from Canadians?

We saw the shenanigans this morning in regard to the unfair elections act. The Chief Electoral Officer spoke at committee, and we had time allocation motions here in the House. These are shenanigans by the government, which is trying to hide the real facts from Canadians. I will talk about some of those.

The parliamentary secretary talked about why we are against trade with Honduras. Before I get to that, what are the principles? What should we be looking at when we look at trade agreements with other countries? There are a number of things we need to address to decide which countries we should have trade agreements with.

Trade is a reality. We are a trading nation, and Canadians are very competitive. We can sell our products to other countries. I am very proud that Canadians have products other countries want.

There are three fundamental criteria to assess trade agreements. First, does our partner respect democracy, human rights, adequate environmental protection, labour standards, and Canadian values? If these are not being met, is the partner willing to meet some of these requirements?

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

Let us talk about how democratic Honduras is. Let us talk about its human rights. All Canadians know the history of Honduras. In the last 15 or 20 years, I have known the history of Honduras. It is undemocratic and corrupt. In 2009, a democratically elected president was overthrown in a coup, and condemnation was worldwide.

Elections were held, and those elections were fraudulent. They were not fair. Guess who condemned those elections? It was the European Union, the United States, and many countries around the world. What does Canada do? We want to enter into a trade agreement with a corrupt dictator of a country that is known as the capital of Central America for drug laundering and so on. That is not the type of country we want to enter into free trade agreements with.

Of course we want to trade. We should be looking at trade agreements with countries that are strategic to Canadian products and where we can increase trade with those countries. Let us take a look at those countries. Let us look at Japan. Why do we not have a trade agreement with Japan? We have been negotiating with Japan for a number of years.

In fact, we started trade agreement negotiations with South Korea before the United States did. Guess what? The United States already has a trade agreement with South Korea.

Our pig and beef farmers are losing billions of dollars every year because the Conservative government has not put a priority on trade agreements that would be beneficial to Canadian producers.

We should be negotiating trade agreements with emerging countries, such as India, Brazil, and South Africa. These countries have populations that need the products we have here. Yet the Conservative government is negotiating a trade agreement with a dictatorship and a corrupt government.

We have $38 million in exports to Honduras right now, which is not very much. The Conservative government wants to say that it has trade agreements with 15 countries. Well, if we add up the trade with all the little countries like Honduras and Liechtenstein, it will not add up to even one agreement with one of the emerging countries or Japan or South Korea. Those are the countries we should be pursuing.

Let us talk about the Conservative government's trade record.

Eight years ago, when the Conservatives came into government, we had a trade current account surplus of $18 billion. What is it today after eight years? We have a deficit of $62 billion. That is a swing of $80 billion, which is roughly about $10 billion a year. Under the current government, we have a trade deficit.

There is also a merchandise deficit. Merchandise is value-added goods that we export. Under the Conservative government, we have had 23 straight months of a merchandise trade deficit, and it is growing.

For us to provide good jobs, we need to export goods we add value to. They are secondary goods. However, most of the products we export are either not processed at all or are barely processed. That is the Conservatives government's record.

How do we improve on that? We improve on it by getting our product to markets. Under the current government, we have seen what is happening in the Prairies. The wheat is rotting in the fields under the Conservative government. It has been unable to convince the railroad companies to get the product out to the ports.

Once it gets to the ports, guess what is happening? At the port in Vancouver, there has been a simmering labour dispute for the last four or five years. I have spoken in this House to ask the government to address the situation before it gets to a point where we have a shutdown. Guess what? The deadline for a strike at the major port of Vancouver was this morning at 12 o'clock Pacific Time.

What has the Conservative government been doing for the last four years, or even the last six months? It has been sitting on its hands. The Conservatives could have appointed a mediator six months ago. When was a mediator appointed? It was this morning. Talks are ongoing and hopefully things will be resolved, but it is under the Conservative government that we are on the verge of having a major port shut down.

To support our exporters, we need to build infrastructure, ensure that our ports are freely functioning, ensure that our traders are supported, and ensure that we have consulate and trade services overseas so that we can identify buyers for our products. Those are the kinds of things the Conservative government needs to do.

The current Conservative government has failed our exporters.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. whip for the opposition for her very kind comments about the abilities on this side of the House with regard to procedure. Of course, I am only as good as the team that I have.

However, I will say that one thing I have tried to outline and to make clear over some period of time is that the use of time allocation is very distinct from the use of closure. We have chosen an approach in this government to use time allocation as a scheduling device to set an amount of time that we believe is appropriate for debate on any particular issue, which, as the hon. member in her own comments confirmed, in some cases results in even more time being allocated than is necessary for debate.

One of the benefits, though, is that the time does not have to be used. If all speakers complete their discussion of the subject, the debate can collapse and we can move on to other matters. So, really, no time is to be lost from that approach. It is a very positive thing, one that allows certainty for the benefit of all members about how much debate we will have, when votes will happen, and when decisions will be made. That is the most important thing for us in our work up here: making decisions and getting the job done.

As for this morning, I know that the NDP keeps seeing conspiracies and ghosts behind curtains, particularly the House leader for the NDP, who has that concern.

I think everyone knows that the only time one can move these time allocation motions—and we do not need to have a great command of the Standing Orders to know this—is at the start of government orders, at the start of the day. So I really had no choice.

However, the committee had considerable flexibility, which it did exercise. There was no conspiracy. There was no obstruction.

I hope that the opposition House leader will take the benefit of the two weeks to calm down, hopefully look around, see that there are no people waiting behind every curtain and every tree, out to get him, and that some of the conspiracies he imagines are simply not there. It will lower his blood pressure. It will make his life much more comfortable, in total.

I know that the opposition whip will share that advice from me, with him.

This afternoon we will continue debating Bill C-20, Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, at second reading.

Tomorrow, we will conclude the second reading debate on Bill C-25, Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act.

Then, we will return to our constituencies, where we will have a chance to reconnect with our real bosses.

When we return on Monday, March 24, the House will have the seventh and final allotted day. At the end of that day, we will consider the supplementary estimates, as well as interim supply, so that these bills will be able to pass through the other place before the end of our fiscal year.

The government's legislative agenda for the balance of that week will focus on protecting Canadians. Tuesday, March 25 will see us start the second reading debate on Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, a bill that will implement world-class safety standards in the offshore and nuclear sectors. That evening we will finish the debate on the motion to concur in the first report of the foreign affairs committee respecting the situation of Jewish refugees.

On Wednesday, March 26, we will consider Bill C-5, the offshore health and safety act, at report stage and third reading. This bill will complement legislation already passed by the provincial legislatures in Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, given the shared jurisdiction that exists in the offshore sector.

On Thursday, March 27, we will have the fourth day of second reading debate on Bill C-13, the protecting Canadians from online crime act. Through this bill, our government is demonstrating its commitment to ensuring that our children are safe from online predators and online exploitation.

Finally, on Friday, March 28, I hope that we will be able to start the second reading debate on Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act, also known as Vanessa's law.

Second Reading

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary obviously refused to answer my question. He prefers to stay stuck in his daydream.

In the House at this time, Bill C-20 on the Honduras free trade agreement is not even an economic issue. It is a moral issue because in light of the total lack of respect and the crimes committed in Honduras, the government, with the complicity of the Liberals, is supporting a government that tolerates the reign of criminal groups.

It is shameful for the people of Honduras and for Canadians to see this complicity and this support for the type of situation prevailing in Honduras right now. That is incredible.

How can the parliamentary secretary justify this position?

The House resumed from January 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-20, 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, not more than one further sitting day after the day on which this order is adopted shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second 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 said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-20--Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreements could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-20, 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

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

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the members of the procedure and House affairs committee are very much looking forward to when the NDP members cease their filibuster and actually allow the committee to get on with the business of hearing from witnesses. It is the NDP, in fact, that for many months called on this government to ensure that legislation was in place by the end of this spring. Oddly, its efforts to prevent any evidence from being heard on this legislation is in contradiction to that. I look forward to that changing, now that the House finally voted on that question conclusively this week.

I would also like to note that something else the House voted on this week is Canada's economic action plan 2014. The House endorsed a plan that sees our government on track to balance the budget next year, all the while keeping taxes low and protecting the programs and services upon which Canadians rely.

Unfortunately, the hon. member for Papineau voted against this sound budget, which received both accolades and praise from all parts of the country and diverse sectors of the economy. Perhaps the member does not appreciate the extraordinary effort that went into such a fiscally sound budget. After all, the Liberal leader does hold the view that budgets balance themselves. We know better. We understand the hard work that fiscal leadership actually requires and the hard work that governing demands, something with which he is apparently unacquainted.

With the budget adopted, the House will work on other legislation. Today, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act. Tomorrow, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act. That debate will continue next Wednesday, if need be. Monday, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-18, the Agricultural Growth Act. Tuesday shall be the sixth allotted day. Finally, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first let me wish you and everybody else a happy new year.

This afternoon, we will continue the NDP's opposition day. Tomorrow, we will consider Bill C-8, the Combating Contraband Products Act, at report stage and third reading. Should we need to call a second bill, we will resume debate on Bill C-2, the Respect for Communities Act, which went through its seventh day of debate on Monday.

Monday and Tuesday shall be the third and fourth allotted days. Wednesday and Thursday, we plan to continue the second reading debate on Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act.

As for the invitation from my friend, I certain would not want to tread upon the very important responsibilities of the whips, and I am sure they will carry out those discussions among themselves.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals support Bill C-20. The Liberal Party is strongly in support of the principle of free trade as an essential part of Canada's economic growth in the 21st century.

I would like to talk a bit about our broader vision of what we need to do with trade and how that fits into our overall economic vision, and then I would like to talk about this specific agreement and how we need to work hard in implementing it to live up to the principles of Canadian democracy and how Canada wants to conduct itself in the world.

On trade, 19.2% of Canadians work in jobs that are directly in the export sector, and up to 80% of the Canadian economy, depending on how one counts it, is dependent on exports. We are a small country in a vast globalized world economy, and without being open to that world economy, without being an active energetic participant, we have no chance of thriving and, crucially, no chance of creating middle-class jobs, which we need and which we are failing to create in sufficient number and quality right now.

However, what we need is not just a number of piecemeal agreements with small countries like Honduras. What Canada needs to be successful is an economic and trade vision that is much more ambitious, wider reaching, and which fully and ambitiously integrates Canada into the global economy. Therefore, while Liberals support this trade deal with Honduras, we believe our country needs to be more energetically engaged with other emerging market economies that are growing strongly and where we see the rest of the world competing now for a position.

In particular, I would like to draw everyone's attention to what is happening right now in Africa. A lot of us are accustomed to seeing Africa as a development story, a poverty story. The reality of the new Africa today is that it is one of the world's hottest emerging markets. Some of the leading countries in Africa have had, for more than five years, 5% economic growth year on year. This is real; this is huge. We are seeing investors pouring in, and we are seeing a competition between the big and ambitious countries in the world, notably China and the U.S., for a strategic position in Africa. Where is Canada? Africa is a continent to which we urgently need to turn our attention when it comes to trade deals, and what a great way for us to have a positive impact on the world.

The other part of an ambitious global economic agenda and global trade agenda for Canada is thinking about where we want to position our country in the world economy. Right now we are living in a winner-take-all global economy. That applies to countries, and it applies to individuals and companies. Frankly, we are not seeing from today's government a sufficiently ambitious and forward-looking economic agenda for our country.

One of my favourite books at the moment is a book by economist Tyler Cowen called Average is Over. His central contention is that we are living in a moment when if a company is the best in a space, the top talent in a space, the top city or top country, it will succeed. However, if one is in the middle and just average, there is no future. That is a lesson that Canada desperately needs to learn and that the Canadian government needs to make as the centre of its policies.

We need to be building an overall trade agenda, an overall economic vision in which we are creating in Canada a platform for being fully engaged in the world economy, but also a platform for which we have companies headquartered in Canada doing business around the world, rather than the old branch plant economy. That is not going to work. It is not going to create enough great jobs for the 21st century. This reality of an ambitious trade agenda, an economic agenda fit for the 21st century, we believe, is going to become ever more apparent in 2014.

Already this week, the first week of our new session, we have heard a lot of assertions from the Conservative benches about Canada's economic excellence, how we are better than anyone else in the G7 and so on. That is going to be less true in 2014, as the other G7 economies, which suffered so greatly from the financial crisis and from which Canada was spared thanks to the wise bank regulation policies of the Liberal government in the 1990s, have now healed. We are going to see that in 2014. We are already seeing a very strong comeback in the U.S. and the U.K., but our relative performance is looking much worse already, and we are not even through the first month of 2014.

That says that we have coasted. We have coasted on the fact that we did not have a financial crisis and we have not put in place a powerful, forward-looking economic agenda that is going to build prosperity for the middle class in the 21st century, and that includes trade. Piecemeal agreements with small countries are a good start. However, we need to be a lot more ambitious and have a much broader vision.

When it comes to the Honduras deal in particular, my hon. colleagues in the NDP have raised the important point that this is a trade deal with a country that has a very troubled record and very troubled reality on many political labour and environmental issues. We in the Liberal Party believe that it is important for us to do this deal. Not every country in the world is perfect, and we have to trade in the global economy. We believe that having a strong trading relationship can and must be a way to be a positive force in those economies. However, it will only work if it is more than words.

In implementing this trade deal, we have to be very aware of what is going on in Honduras and to the possibility that by having a trade deal with this country and having our companies engaged with it we could be complicit in political, environmental and labour violations. We do not just sign a deal and walk away; we have to watch closely and be absolutely certain that we and Canada are behaving well.

I would like to point to the fact that rather than having a binding mechanism for labour and environmental standards in the side agreements, article 816 of the free trade agreement states:

Each Party should encourage enterprises operating within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internationally recognized standards of corporate social responsibility in their internal policies....

That puts a great onus on us to be aware, to watch and to be absolutely careful that those political, environmental and labour standards are watched and observed.

As the MP for Toronto Centre, I would like to draw particular attention to the tremendous abuse and repression that the LGBT community faces in Honduras. Even as we broaden and deepen our economic relationship with Honduras, this is something that we have to be absolutely aware of and watchful about. We have to take great care that the Canadian companies that will be working and trading there, and will have a relationship with Honduras, are not party to that and are in fact acting against it through their example.

Regarding the environmental standards, we have to be watchful about this. If, as the Labour Party believes, we are to use our trade agreements with troubled countries to be a force for moving those countries in a positive direction, we have to take incredible care. We have to take incredible care about the labour and environmental standards as well. This is how we ensure that free trade is a great deal for the Canadian middle class. Without watching those labour and environmental standards, trade with a country which is poorer than Canada, like Honduras, can be dangerous for the middle class.

Again, we cannot simply sign a piece of paper and walk away. This trade deal has potential. That is why we support it, but we have to be extremely vigilant. We must also move toward a broader vision, something much more than one single deal.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course the issue before this House is Bill C-20, which is a trade agreement that purports to extend special trade preferences to a particular country.

Trade occurs every day in this world, and the hon. member is quite correct about that; but when we sign a trade agreement, we are singling out a specific jurisdiction for special treatment. I view that, and I think Canadians view that, as a privilege that ought to be earned by that country, and we should be selective about which countries we accord such a preference. Those countries should be selected based on how much they will improve the economy of Canada and whether they conform to acceptable standards of conduct.

Ultimately, there are some cases in the world, such as Iran today, where, if their conduct becomes so egregious, then Canada and other countries will actually implement trade restrictions on the country. They will freeze assets and restrict trade, and that is ultimately a tool available.

That is not what we are advocating, but that Canada pursue a better trade policy with responsible nations and not extend preferences to countries that are so atrocious in their behaviour domestically.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats believe that Canadians recognize the importance of trade to our economy and want an effective, strategic trade policy that expands trade opportunities and supports Canadian exporters.

We believe that Canadians want a trade policy that produces good jobs in our communities and encourages the development of value-added production to our many resources here in Canada.

We believe that Canadians want a trade policy that strengthens our economic relationships with growing significant economics that add strategic value to the Canadian economy.

We believe that Canadians want trade agreements that preserve our ability to legislate in the public interest, protect our social programs, and promote local economic development.

We believe that Canadians want their government to pursue a balanced trade policy that builds trade and at the same time fosters positive democratic development, human rights, and environmental standards, both in Canada and in the nations with whom we trade.

New Democrats also know that Canadians care about the process by which we implement trade policy. Canadians want an open, transparent, and accountable process in all aspects of the development of trade policy and agreements.

Canadians want and deserve to be consulted about their priorities and kept advised about the progress of trade negotiations. After all, they know that trade agreements are not negotiated on behalf of political parties or special interests but are negotiated on behalf of all Canadians and all sectors of our economy. This is particularly the case as trade agreements have become more comprehensive and increasingly deal with areas of policy that have historically been considered to be of purely domestic concern.

Since the Conservatives took office in 2006, by all objective measurements Canada's trade performance has been deplorable.

In 2006, the Conservatives inherited a current account surplus of some $18 billion. Today, after eight years in power, Canada has a current account deficit of $62 billion. That is a negative swing of some $80 billion, an average decline of $10 billion for every year the Conservatives have been in power.

Over the last two years, even as we have pulled slowly out of the global recession, Canada has experienced 23 consecutive months of merchandise trade deficits.

We have also seen an alarming shift in the quality of our exports. Under the Conservatives, there has been an increase in the percentage of our exports that are raw or barely processed, reversing a decades-long trend toward an increase in our value-added products. Nor can this poor performance be explained away by the recession that Canada experienced between 2008 and 2011.

A comparison by the Library of Parliament of Canada's trade performance to 17 other countries around the world between 2006 and 2012, countries that experienced the exact same global recession, collapse in commodity prices, and currency fluctuations, found that Canada came dead last in current account performance.

This poor trade record is consistent with the Conservatives’ poor performance economically, across the board. A look at major economic metrics provides comprehensive evidence of the government's economic failure since it took office in 2006.

I hear laughing on that side, but we will see if those members still laugh after hearing these statistics.

The national unemployment rate in 2006 was 6.6%; today it is 7.2%. The youth unemployment rate in 2006 was 12.2%; today it is 14%. Among the 34 OECD nations in employment creation since 2006, Canada ranks 20th. The number of governments since 1935, in the last 80 years, that presided over a slower rate of real economic growth per capita is zero. The per cent of our federal debt accumulated since 2006 is one fifth. The percentage increase in our real average manufacturing wage from 2006 to now is zero. The percentage drop in productivity since the Conservatives came to power is a negative 1.9%.

The conclusion is obvious. The Conservatives have had eight years to implement their trade and economic policies, and the unacceptable results are there for all to see.

The Bank of Canada has explicitly stated that a major contributing factor to Canada's stalled economic performance is due to our under-performance on the trade file.

Canada is a trading nation. Our economy is historically, and continues to be, substantially dependent on our export sector and increasingly, with global supply chains and integrated production, on our import experience as well.

It is therefore vital that Canada implement a smart, effective trade policy and pursue well-negotiated beneficial trade agreements with strategically important growing and significant economies that will help Canadian businesses and create good jobs for Canadians.

That brings us to the matter before the House: Bill C-20.

With all the issues and deeply entrenched problems facing Canada's trade sector, what do the Conservatives bring to this Parliament today? They bring Canadians a free trade agreement with Honduras. Now, this is not surprising. Although the Conservatives like to brag about the trade agreements they have concluded in the last eight years, the facts, again, tell a different story. In truth, they have concluded a total of six trade agreements with the following countries: Jordan; Panama; Peru; Colombia; a goods-only agreement with four small European countries including Liechtenstein and Iceland; and now Honduras.

As is obvious, these are agreements with small economies of limited strategic interest to Canada. Trade agreements with major developed and developing economies like Japan, India, South Korea, Brazil, China, and South Africa—agreements that would have a material and positive benefit for the Canadian economy, if negotiated well—the Conservatives have been unable to conclude.

New Democrats believe that we should apply three important criteria to assess trade agreements.

First, is the proposed partner a democracy that respects human rights, adheres to acceptable environmental standards and Canadian values, and if there are challenges regarding these, can it fairly be said that they are on a positive trajectory toward these goals?

Second, is the proposed partner's economy of significant and strategic value to Canada?

Third, are the terms of the proposed agreement acceptable?

The proposed free trade agreement with Honduras fails this test. Again, let us look at the facts, and take a closer look at the country to which the current Conservative government wants Canadians to extend preferential trade benefits and closer economic relations.

Honduras is a country with a seriously flawed human rights record; weak institutions; corrupt police and army; and a history, both entrenched and recent, of repressive, undemocratic politics. The last democratically elected government, that of President Manuel Zelaya, was toppled by a military coup in June 2009. This coup was staged by the Honduran army under the pretext of a constitutional crisis that had developed between the supreme court and the president. Following the coup, the government suspended key civil liberties, including freedom of the press and assembly. In the ensuing days, security forces responded to peaceful demonstrations with excessive force and shut down opposition media outlets, causing deaths, scores of injuries, and thousands of arbitrary detentions. The coup was widely condemned around the world, including by all Latin American nations, the European Union, the United States, and the UN General Assembly.

In January 2010, Porfirio Lobo Sosa assumed the presidency through what has overwhelmingly been deemed undemocratic and illegitimate means. Of course, holding an election mere months after the violent military overthrow of the elected administration is hardly an acceptable context for a free and fair election. Indeed, most foreign governments and election-monitoring agencies refused even to send observers, and many countries rejected the results of the election. The recent election held in November 2013 has similarly been condemned by independent observers.

Since 2009, NGOs of all types have documented serious human rights abuses. Extra-judicial killings; kidnappings of political figures; intimidation of citizens; severe restrictions on public demonstrations, protest, and freedom of expression; and interference in the independence of the judiciary are well established in Honduras.

Here are some basic facts from independent sources about the situation in Honduras.

Honduras ranks 85th out of 167 on the Economist Intelligence Unit's 2012 democracy index. That is a slide from being 74th; in other words, it is getting worse.

Honduras is now classified as a “hybrid regime”, rather than its previous designation as a “flawed democracy”.

Transparency International ranks Honduras as the “most corrupt country in Central America”, which is no small feat. It is a major drug-smuggling centre, and it has the worst income equality in the region. The U.S. state department estimates that 79% of all cocaine shipments originating in South America land in Honduras. Drugs move from South America through countries like Honduras and other Central American states into Mexico and the United States and Canada.

Independent observers have noted the increasing levels of violence, as well as organized criminal and gang activity associated with the trade in illegal narcotics. According to The Economist, “the countries in 'the northern triangle' of the Central American isthmus”—and that includes Honduras—“form what is now the most violent region on earth”.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports that in 2011 there were 92 murders per 100,000 people per year in Honduras, making it the most violent country in Latin America. In 2012, Honduras became the murder capital of the world, reaching a record high of 7,172 homicides in 2012, or 81 per 100,000 people.

In 2013, on average there have been 10 massacres per month, according to the investigative website InSight Crime, which defines “massacre” as an instance where three or more people are murdered at one time. In the previous four years, fewer than 20% of homicide cases have been investigated, let alone prosecuted.

As pointed out by the Americas Policy Group, this high level of impunity serves to mask political violence.

Since 2010, there have been more than 200 politically motivated killings and Honduras is now regarded as the world's most dangerous place for journalists. According to a 2013 Human Rights Watch report, Honduras has the region's highest rate of journalists killed per capita, with some 23 having been assassinated in the last three years alone. According to the Honduran national human rights commission, 36 journalists were killed between 2003 and mid-2013, and 29 have been killed since President Lobo took office.

Today, journalists in Honduras continue to suffer threats, attacks and killings, and authorities consistently fail to investigate these crimes effectively. Peasant activists and LGBT individuals are particularly vulnerable to attacks, yet the government routinely fails to prosecute those responsible.

In June 2013, 24 U.S. senators signed a letter expressing concern about the human rights situation in Honduras. Ninety-four members of Congress have called on the U.S. State Department to halt all military aid to Honduras in light of its violent repression of political activity.

At least 16 activists and candidates from the main opposition party, LIBRE, were assassinated since June of 2012, and 15 more have been attacked. On August 25, 2013, just months ago, three leaders of the indigenous Tolupan were shot and killed. There are extensively documented cases of police corruption, with 149 extrajudicial killings by police recorded between January 2011 and November 2012 alone.

In January 2013, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers called the dismissal of four Supreme Court justices by the Honduran government a violation of international norms and a grave threat to democracy.

This is what Mr. Neil Reeder, the director general of the Latin America and Caribbean bureau in DFAIT testified before committee:

...institutions...are...weak. Impunity is pervasive and corruption is a challenge.

Corruption within the Honduran police force is a particular problem, which the Government of Honduras...recognizes. Largely because Central America is situated between the drug-producing countries of South America and the drug-consuming countries to the north, Honduras...[has] been particularly affected by the growth of transnational drug trafficking, human trafficking, and the impact of organized crime.

Another element of the violence affecting Honduras is the presence of street gangs, known as maras, which rely on extortion and other forms of crime as...income. Honduras has more of these gangs than all other Central American countries combined, and their activities contribute to crime and insecurity in the country. Honduras now has...the highest homicide rates in the world, at 81 per 100,000, as compared with 1.8 per 100,000 in Canada.

This is the profile of the country that the Conservative government wants Canada to extend preferential trade access and closer economic relations to.

In terms of significance to the Canadian economy, the facts reveal the following.

Honduras ranks 120th out of 186 countries on the United Nations Human Development Index. The World Bank categorizes Honduras as a lower-middle income country, and Honduras suffers from extremely unequal income distribution, extreme social inequality, high unemployment, poor health and education. This is the country that the government wants Canadian businesses to compete with.

Honduras is currently Canada's 104th export market in terms of export value. In 2012 merchandise exports totalled a meagre $38 million and imports $218 million, marking a significant trade deficit. Internal DFAIT analyses confirm that only marginal benefits for the Canadian economy are expected from this deal.

Although Canada's extractive sector has interests in Honduras, Canadian mining companies have been ensnared in controversial local struggles with citizens and indigenous groups and face allegations of environmental contamination.

In terms of the process used by the Conservatives to arrive at this deal, there has been a complete lack of transparency in the negotiation process of this trade agreement. Despite repeated demands by civil society in Canada, the Government of Canada failed to make public the text of the agreement during the negotiation process, and further, the government's token environmental impact assessment of the free trade agreement, released in October, omitted any assessment of the impact of Canadian investments in Honduras because these figures are considered “confidential”.

Also, as is usually the case with the Conservatives, they have allowed no opportunity for either this Parliament or Canadians themselves to comment upon or influence the agreement before it is signed. We are left with a choice of only voting yes or no. The labour and environmental side agreements are inadequate, given that they are not accompanied by any real enforcement mechanism to ensure they are adhered to. Through the investment chapter of the Canada-Honduras trade agreement, corporations can sue the Canadian government in international tribunals, hindering Canada's ability to make decisions aimed at protecting the public good.

Considering that Honduras is an undemocratic country with weak institutions and low standards, and is of insignificant strategic interest and has a record of serious human rights abuses, New Democrats believe that the majority of Canadians would not agree that preferential trade terms be accorded such a nation.

What the New Democrat opposition wants is a strategic trade policy where we restart multinational negotiations, where we sign trade deals with developed countries that have high standards and developing countries that are on positive trajectories. These are countries like Japan, India, Brazil and South Africa. These are the countries we should be signing trade agreements with, not undemocratic countries like Honduras that are drug trafficking centres, human rights violators and have low standards that will hurt Canadian business.

I could do no better than to adopt the words spoken by two Canadians, Mr. Garry Neil and Ms. Stacey Gomez, who said:

...we really do not believe that it is good public policy for the government to be pursuing trade and investment agreements that are economically basically meaningless with volatile and undemocratic nations like Honduras....

We have long maintained that under the right conditions, trade can generate growth and support the realization of human rights. These conditions simply do not exist in Honduras. Canada should refrain from signing the FTA with Honduras until there is a verifiable improvement in the country’s democratic governance and human rights situation. Until these things are achieved, the Canada-Honduras FTA will do more harm than good.

I believe these are wise words. New Democrats will vote against the agreement accordingly, and I urge all members who want trade to be a positive force in the world economically, politically, socially and environmentally to join us in doing so as well.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

moved that Bill C-20, 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-20, 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)