Debates of March 6th, 2014

Oral Questions

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder when the member for Wascana will apologize to the Minister of Transport for his misogynist remarks.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, human beings in this world can be muzzled too. It does not just apply to other kinds of beings. However, the point here is clearly that farmers in western Canada are in severe difficulty and we want answers from the Conservative government. If it helps to get those answers and to get that action for farmers, I am quite happy to withdraw any muzzling remark. Let us have some action.

[An hon. member]

That is not an apology.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will certainly treat it as such.

The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer will now ask the Thursday question.

Business of the House

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today the Conservatives broke their own record for shutting down debate by using time allocation for the 52nd and 53rd time since the 2011 election. Add this to six closures—most recently on debate related to the fabricated evidence that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville presented to the House of Commons—and you have 59 instances of the Conservatives using the Standing Orders to shutdown debate in the House. That is quite the record and quite the legacy.

The government House leader's command of the Standing Orders is so exceptional that, today, he forced time allocation of one sitting day on a bill that was slated to pass in less time than that. We were actually in favour of the bill and we could have passed it fairly quickly. This prevented other work from being done. It is incredible what we are seeing in the House right now.

Today, in its latest stroke of parliamentary brilliance, the government tried to sabotage the testimony given by the Chief Electoral Officer in today’s committee hearings on its unfair elections act, Bill C-23. Unfortunately after stumbling out of the gates, the Conservatives were forced to abandon their plan.

The Conservatives' disdain for our democracy and its institutions would be shocking if they did not make such a regular display of it. Canadians deserve much better than a government that behaves as though it is above the law.

My question for the parliamentary leader is this: what brilliant tactics does he have in store for the House after the riding weeks that will further display his dazzling command of the procedures and practices of this place?

[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.

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.

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be here today to have the opportunity to speak about the benefits of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement for Canadian businesses, and in particular for Canadian investors and service providers.

Our Conservative government has refused to sit on the sidelines while other countries go around the world securing better markets for their products and services and more favourable treatment for their investors. Canada's prosperity requires expansion beyond our borders into new markets for economic opportunities that serve to grow Canada's exports and investment.

I have to compliment the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade, and the parliamentary secretary for international trade, for the work they have done, and the steady and secure commitment they have had to ensuring we have free trade agreements around the world. I also want to include the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, who has done some tremendous work on this file as well.

That is quite a contrast to what we have seen in the past, and what we see from the official opposition. Liberals were in government for 13 long and agonizing years for Canadians. While they were there, trade was not a priority for them. Certainly for the few years that I was in Parliament when we were in opposition, trade was never a priority for the Liberal government of the time. In fact, during those 13 long years in office, the Liberals only signed three trade agreements. That was at a time when trade was expanding all around the world. They did not see that it was any type of priority.

In contrast, our Conservative government has reached agreements with 37 countries. We can see the difference there. There were 3 that were reached over 13 years, and in the time we have been in government, there have been 37 of those agreements. We are even expanding. We are improving the three agreements that were reached under the Liberals, to try to maximize the benefits they produce for hard-working Canadians and their families. Once again, the Liberals have proved they just cannot get the job done.

Actually, three agreements is far better than what we would have had if the NDP had ever found its way to power. We have had some extreme statements from some of its members about their attitudes toward trade. The NDP member for British Columbia Southern Interior wrote that free trade agreements “threaten the very existence of our nation”, or when the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour said that trade agreements are job-destroying.

We see their perspective, but it is not grounded in reality. Actually, the NDP trade critic has been quoted as saying that this trade agreement, along with ones with Colombia, Peru, Chile, Costa Rica, and Panama, are “not key economies with any kind of strategic value for Canada”. It speaks about the NDP and its commitment to trade, but it also speaks about its commitment to those economies that are smaller than ours and those people whose place in the world we can help to improve. New Democrats have consistently opposed any efforts to open up new markets for Canadian businesses. Apparently, they also oppose the opportunity for smaller nations to open up economic opportunities for their people as well. They are just ideologically opposed to international trade.

We heard a number of times earlier today from their critics wanting to know what the connection is between human rights and international trade. Obviously, those connections are very tight. When the member opposite was asking my colleague earlier if he could name one trade agreement where human rights have been improved by an international trade agreement, I would argue that every trade agreement improves human rights, in every country where they have had them. If we believe that a human right is the chance to have opportunity that is free from coercion—and investment agreements and social agreements are part of that—obviously it improves the conditions in every country when we have these agreements in place.

Going back to this specific agreement, we are committed to improving access to foreign markets for Canadian business. We want to support opportunities for increased economic growth and creation of new opportunities for Canadians and Canadian companies. Canada's exporters, investors, and service providers are calling on us to help open doors for them internationally. That is why we believe in, and are pursuing, an ambitious pro-trade agenda.

The Canada-Honduras free trade agreement is part of our plan to help Canadians compete and succeed in a global economy. The agreement is a comprehensive trade deal that will provide our companies with a secure predictable framework for doing business in the Honduran market. It will also enable Canadian businesses to compete on a level playing field with key competitors from the United States and the European Union. These countries are already benefiting from free trade agreements that they have with Honduras, and we believe it is critical to keep pace with these competitors.

I would like to talk about some of the benefits that this agreement would bring to current and potential Canadian investors in Honduras. Foreign investment is a critical component of today's modern and global economy. It creates jobs, facilitates the transfer of knowledge, and increases production efficiencies through economies of scale in the host economy. Foreign investment also links our companies to global value chains and to new economic opportunities, which in turn enhances their competitiveness and increases the flow of goods and services between Canada and its trading partners.

At the end of 2012, Canadian direct investment abroad reached an all-time high of $712 billion. That is almost $1 trillion. Foreign direct investment into Canada stood at about $634 billion. Those are significant numbers.

This comprehensive Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would include high standard investment provisions, which are designed to protect bilateral investment through legally binding obligations. I talked a bit earlier about the investment agreements that are part of these deals and that go toward creating and building institutional strength in many countries so that parallel human rights develop as well. These investment obligations would incorporate several key principles, including things like minimum standards for non-discriminatory treatment, protection against expropriation without compensation, and the free transfer of funds. This dynamic would help to foster an investment relationship between our two countries and pave the way for an increased flow of investment for the years ahead.

Through the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement, investors would also have access to a transparent, impartial, and binding dispute settlement mechanism. It is important to stress that while its agreement would ensure that investors and their investments are protected, it would not prevent either Canada or Honduras from regulating in the public interest, including with respect to health, safety, and the environment.

Investment provisions of the free trade agreement would also include an article on corporate social responsibility. This is something that the opposition often brings up. It has been included in this agreement. It recognizes that both Canada and Honduras expect and encourage companies to observe internationally recognized standards of responsible business conduct. Of course, this would include Canadian companies operating in Honduras.

Overall, this agreement would enhance investment opportunities for Canadian investors in Honduras and make sure that Canadian companies are treated on a level playing field, as I mentioned earlier, with our American and European counterparts.

In addition to the benefits for investors, this free trade agreement would provide Canadian companies with better access to government procurement opportunities in Honduras. Our Conservative government has been at the forefront of efforts to expand and secure access to foreign government procurement markets. Through the negotiation of these types of agreements and obligations, our government is working hard to enable Canadian businesses to take advantage of the opportunities that are presented in these markets through these agreements.

Increasing access, competition, and fairness in government procurement would also support our own domestic interests in obtaining best value in government procurement for Canadian taxpayers. Most of our free trade agreements from NAFTA—Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Panama—have obligations on government purchasing.

I understand that my time is running down, so I would like to talk about how the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement would guarantee secure access for Canadian suppliers through these types of procurement opportunities, reducing the risk of doing business in the region. Moreover, it would ensure that Canadian suppliers can compete on the same basis as their main competitors in the American and European businesses that I have referred to, which already benefit from the free trade agreements that they have with Honduras.

Let us turn for a minute to how this agreement would benefit Canadian service providers. Professional telecommunications and financial services are already exported to Honduras. The free trade agreement would provide secure, predictable, and equitable treatment for Canadian service providers exporting their services to Honduras. The Canada-Honduras fair trade agreement would provide opportunities for Canadian service providers beyond Honduras' existing World Trade Organization's general agreement on trades and services commitments in the sectors that export interests to Canada, such as natural resources, professional services, and information and communication.

In conclusion, taken together, the provisions of the free trade agreement on trade and services would level the playing field for Canadian service suppliers with their American and European counterparts. As members can see, this is a high-quality agreement, with the potential to benefit Canadian investors and service providers. However, they would only be able to seize these opportunities if we ratify this agreement.

I urge all hon. members in the House to support the timely implementation of the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member, who was one of the key members going around the country basically saying that if we blow up the Canadian Wheat Board look at all the choices we will have. The Canadian Wheat Board was all about trade, and what do have now? We have a disaster in terms of getting our product to market.

Trade agreements are great and wonderful, but if we do not have a government that is willing to force the transportation infrastructure to move that product to market, it does not make much difference. On the wheat side, we have already lost a market to Japan. We know that a grain company is pulling out of a market in Algeria because farmers have the product but there is no way to get it to the marketplace.

On the Honduran trade agreement, what is the member going to do to assure us that in accompanying the agreement, the government would be willing to act and respond to ensure that the transportation infrastructure is in place to move our product?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised to again hear the member opposite being so negative about trade. That fits in with the 13 years that the Liberals spent in power and only three trade agreements came into place.

I do not know if he understands about the coercive trade element that was involved with the Canadian Wheat Board. I think he does understand because it was an important issue for him. I was one of those who produced our grain. For many years we sat with the majority of our grain in our bins because it was unable to move it across the Prairies or unable to even sell it and market it. While he was here, there were many of us who were having to survive on about 50% of the income that we had in our bins.

If he is talking—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It is the same this year.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

He is heckling me from across the way because he does not like to hear this, but the reality is that the product is going to move off the Prairies. We are working with the railways and the grain companies. We are going to be successful in moving farmers' products off the Prairies. They will, and they are, having a good year.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the member for Malpeque with respect to developing infrastructure to help our exporters get their products to market.

I also understand what the prairie farmers are going through. They have a bumper crop of wheat, and yet they are unable to get it to market because of the government's inaction to get the railroads working for the farmers.

We have another issue. The port of Vancouver is on the verge of being shut down. That dispute has been simmering for the last four or five years. There have been a number of issues. I have pointed to those issues in this House in the last six months. This morning there was a strike notice and a mediator is being appointed today. That should have been done a long time ago, so that we are not on the verge of having a major port shut down.

My question to the member across is this. How can he expect exporters to get their products to market when the government is unwilling to help our exporters get the products to market?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, please let us not pretend that the New Democrats are friendly toward trade because they are not. They stand up and criticize us, yet they do not even want this agreement. There would not be any product to take to market if they had their way. When they talk about these agreements as job destroying, saying they would destroy the very existence of this nation, obviously they have no interest. They do not even want to see these things go offshore.

We are working with the industry across western Canada, the railways, the grain companies, and the farm groups. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Transport are working with them, and we will get that product off of the Prairies.

I also want to point out that in terms of agricultural products, this agreement includes a number of things, such as pork, maple syrup, agriculture, agri-food products, wood, and pulp and paper products. The opposition members stand against moving Canadian products from those areas to Honduras. They do not want this agreement in place. There are other things, the aerospace industry, information and communications, fish and seafood, chemical products, plastic products and so forth. The New Democrats opposite stand opposed to our agreement with Honduras and the benefits that it would provide to Canadian companies.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard some optimism in my colleague's remarks, because he was urging the government to get moving on its negotiations with Japan and South Korea. I infer from his comments that the NDP caucus has already agreed to get behind these two agreements. They may be the first agreements in the history of that party it will get behind to help the one in five Canadian jobs that are attributable to trade. We will try to grow that pie.

I have two questions I would like the member to address. The trade critic of that party referenced the elections as being unfair. The most recent elections in Honduras were monitored, and the international community has been supportive and has called the results full and fair. Could the member tell me where his support is for that statement?

Why is my colleague not in favour of helping to increase the GDP of a country in our hemisphere that has a terribly low per capita GDP? Increased trade globally would actually help the people of that country.

I would like him to comment on those two issues: his reference to the election results and the overall question of trade raising people out of poverty.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats will support a good trade deal, a trade deal that would help our exporters and help us get our products to market.

We refuse to support a trade deal with a country that has a poor human rights record. I do not have to let Canadians know how democratic Honduras is. We know the history of Honduras. We know what has been happening there. There has been wide condemnation of Honduras' human rights record and its ability to hold fair elections. That is widely documented. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to Google it and find out for himself.

[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, under the Conservative government, we have seen our trade deficit grow. I agree with the member that we have a large trade deficit, and the government is not taking steps to address it.

I have given two examples already. One is that the wheat is not being moved out of the Prairies. It is fine and dandy to sign these free trade agreements, but if we cannot get our products to markets, we are not going to be able to sell in those markets. We have seen what has been happening at the port of Vancouver.

The government needs to take action and support our exporters to get their products to their markets. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are not doing that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have time for a quick question and answer. The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will get straight to my question. The Conservative member said that there were a lot of poor people in Honduras and that this agreement would help them. However, we know that there is a huge disparity between the rich and the poor. My concern is that this agreement will make the rich richer and the poor poorer. The government has not implemented any measures to prevent that from happening. I would like to hear my colleague comment on that.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the twisted logic of the Conservative government on how this trade agreement would help the poor.

The government is corrupt. In a corrupt country, there is no trickle-down effect. Everything is absorbed at the top. The poor will remain poor in Honduras unless there is less corruption and an honourable government. That is not the case.

The government could have used some of its weight to ensure that labour rights, human rights, and environmental rights were honoured in Honduras. Unfortunately, the government has failed to do that.

[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.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, Canada is a respectable country.

If Canada signs free trade agreements with countries that violate rights and commit acts of violence against their own citizens, does this not give other perhaps less respectable countries permission to do the same thing? Does this not also tarnish Canada's reputation?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Hochelaga raises an excellent question.

A little earlier in the House, I had the privilege of talking about one of the many things I am reading right now, an essay on economics by the renowned economist Esther Duflo, who is one of President Obama's advisors in the United States. I think she still is. Her essay is entitled “Repenser la pauvreté” or “Rethinking Poverty”.

The economic framework and the framework of democratic institutions are crucial factors when we talk about developing countries, poor countries and extreme poverty.

One thing that all economics experts can agree on is that it is impossible for a country to provide economic security and favourable conditions for economic development if it does not make people feel secure and if there is no sound government that guarantees individual rights.