Debates of June 3rd, 2014

Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, the reason we are pursuing this is that our government has an agenda that is firmly committed to the subject of free trade, because free trade has been key for Canada's success economically. It is a major reason for our prosperity, starting with the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has allowed our economy to enjoy considerable success and avoid the fate of many other countries that did not do likewise.

In fact, with a country of our size, for us to really enjoy the kind of economic success that our human potential and our natural resource potential allows us, we have to be able to find markets for those goods and services. As an island by ourselves, selling and consuming only what we produce and selling only to ourselves, we could never enjoy the kind of prosperity we can enjoy by sharing our goods and products with the world and enjoying all that the world has to offer.

That is why, as a party, we are firmly committed to the concept of free trade. It delivers jobs. I understand that the hon. member comes from a party with a very different perspective, and he said it well when he said the following. This is the House Leader of the Opposition:

We should be holding multilateral negotiations based on fair trade, not free trade, because free trade has cost Canadians dearly.

We disagree. I understand that it is the perspective of New Democrats, but we actually believe profoundly that free trade is a good thing; that taking away taxes on goods and products people wish to buy is a good thing; that allowing Canadians to sell their goods and services into other countries around the world is a good thing; that less money to the government in taxes and tariffs is a good thing, if that money stays in the pockets of Canadians; and that more opportunity to sell what we have to offer, to show the talents Canadians have, and to benefit from the selling of our goods and services means more prosperity and jobs for Canadians.

That is the fundamental difference. We think free trade is a good thing. The hon. member and his party think free trade is a bad thing. That is why, of course, we have not received their agreement to advance the bill further, and that is why it is the case that we have to ensure that we bring this matter to a vote.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed by the government House leader's answer. The debate we are having right now is not to deal with the issue of the bill, but to deal with the procedure and process the government has once again chosen to enter into. The government was unable to negotiate a way we could pass the bill without having to use time allocation.

Time allocation puts restrictions on members of the House and the number of members who are able to contribute to the debate. Obviously, given that this is the 68th time, I believe, what we have witnessed is the government's inability, since acquiring a majority, to get a consensus on passing legislation.

I recognize that the House Leader of the Opposition jumps with glee that this is number 68 and seems almost to be happy with that fact. It is not a good thing. It would be far better if we had opposition and government working together to ensure that there was a proper way of passing legislation through the House.

This way, the legislation that is very controversial is assigned more hours of debate. Pieces of legislation that have good solid support do not require the same number of hours of debate.

Every time the government House leader stands to move time allocation, it highlights the fact that we were unable to accomplish a consensus. I think it is sad for members of Parliament and for all Canadians when this form of closure is brought in. We should not take it as a normal process, and this is what we have seen.

Does the government House leader anticipate that all bills will be brought in under a normal process of time allocation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is a good one. I certainly do not hold the Liberal Party at fault in this case for our not having come to an agreement on the appropriate amount of time for this bill. Had it only been a matter between us and the Liberals, there would have been no difficulty in coming to such an agreement. As I understand it, we share a perspective on this particular bill and on the appropriate way in which to manage House business.

I will remind the hon. member that we saw that remarkable experience this past Friday, when for the first time ever, the NDP stood up and said no, it did not need time allocation and was prepared to let a bill advance. Therefore, we can assume that what happened in all the other 60-plus cases, in terms of the NDP's perspective, was that it did not have the view that it was not necessary. In fact, it made it quite clear that it was necessary and it enjoys seeing the tally run up.

What we have tried to do as the government is adopt a balanced approach to try to assess as best we can the amount of interest in speaking to each particular bill and to utilize time allocation, as I think it was originally intended by those who inserted it within the Standing Orders, as a scheduling device to allow for adequate and appropriate debate but also to allow for decisions to be made. This is an important matter on which we need to have such a decision made, because it is a question of a free trade agreement that was entered into some time ago.

There have been criticisms, oddly, from the opposition, which claims to be concerned that free trade agreements are not moving quickly enough. Yet now we are trying to advance a free trade agreement, and there is from that same opposition party the complaint that we are advancing it. We can see that between the lines, it really only has one perspective, and that is the perspective of the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster that free trade is a bad thing. We disagree. We think free trade is a good thing. It delivers jobs. It delivers economic growth for Canadians. It delivers prosperity and opportunity for the future.

That is why we are very pleased that we will be having the opportunity, in the days ahead, to allow every member of Parliament a say in whether Canada will have a free trade agreement in place with Honduras and whether we will be able see the growth in sectors such as agricultural products and food products. Where we already have some trade, we have seen huge opportunities for future growth, opportunities for farmers to benefit, opportunities for those who work in the food processing sector, and opportunities for Canadian investors to benefit more. These are all good news for Canadians, and that is why we should be allowing this to advance to a vote and allowing Canadians an opportunity to share in the benefits of free trade, even with Honduras.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the government House leader. He suggested that all of us would have an opportunity. I guess he meant to vote, because he is certainly limiting the opportunity for us to speak to a particular bill. I guess the government House leader's view of things is that as long as we get to vote, even if it is in the negative, we have had our say.

The good folks in Welland did not send me here to stand up all the time just to vote without my telling the House what they think. That is what they send me here for. It is to tell the government what they believe and what they think.

Let me tell the House what free trade has done for the folks in Welland. We have seen one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Nearly every single manufacturing job they had in Welland is gone.

The government House leader talks about agricultural processors. Let us start with the canning factory in St. Davids , which left to go to the United States, because it could. The Bick's pickle plant left because it could. It went to the United States. The Heinz Canada plant in Leamington left. Why? It was because it could go to the United States. I could go on and on and list them.

The issue is not whether we should enter into trade. That was abundantly clear long before I came to this place. This country is a trading nation. I do not think that is the issue. The bottom line is that there are many impacts associated with these free trade agreements. That is why they are so important to debate, because the impact can be staggering.

In my riding is the St. Catharines GM plant, where I used to be employed. When I was there, not that long ago, 9,200 people worked in that plant. Now there are 1,500. If we look at the GM chain across Ontario, we see there used to be 35,000 employed. Now there are fewer than 8000. Where did they go? They went to Mexico. How did they get there? NAFTA gave them the right to go there.

There are winners and losers. That is why we need the time to debate who the winners and losers are, because fundamentally, that is what drives this debate. I do not disagree with the House leader that we need a trading agenda, but when there are winners and losers, we need the opportunity to tell the House and the government side the potential impact on us in certain parts of this country. Then it can try to balance those impacts, because ultimately, it is Canadians who are injured by free trade.

There is no question that there are winners. However, to force it in such a manner and make it sound as if our economy will come crashing down tomorrow if we do not have a free trade deal with Honduras is truly beyond words. Surely we do not need to use time allocation on a free trade deal with Honduras. That just seems beyond the pale in this particular case.

I look to the hon. House leader to find a way to negotiate with the other side. I recognize that we might be tough to negotiate with, but we are not supposed to be easy to negotiate with. We are the opposition. No one said we were supposed to be patsies.

If the government would come to the table in an honest and sincere way, maybe we could strike some deals. One never knows, but one should keep trying.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging some of the challenges faced by some of the food sector, particularly in Ontario food processing. We know this sector has been facing challenges in Ontario due to rising hydro rates. A lot of new regulatory provisions that have been put in place by the provincial Liberal government have significantly handicapped our manufacturing sector.

I have experienced those kinds of job losses in my constituency. What the managers always tell us is that they do not want to get in a public political fight, but they tell us that hydro rates and provincial regulations have been hostile to businesses and have been critical in their making decisions. They say that when they are finding ways to increase their productivity and be more efficient, when the bottom line, the pro forma, does not work, naturally they will go elsewhere, especially when a lot of what they are producing goes elsewhere.

That is the key. When we talk about the auto sector, for example, if Canada was to only produce autos for Canada and no longer for the United States, we would be producing a lot less autos. That would mean a lot less jobs in Canada, but that is the vision my friend holds out.

The fact is, it is not an NDP world of a fixed economy. It is that fixed pie economy, the notion that there are so many dollars out there in the global economy and we will carve it up and everyone gets a slice. The NDP thinks if we enter into a free trade agreement, somehow that means we will give away part of our slice to someone else.

That is not how economies work. We know that economies can grow and shrink. When did economies shrink most of all? It was in the Great Depression, when we saw the world response to increased tariff walls to try to bring in protectionist measures to protect their economies. The result of that was the greatest depression in the history of mankind. It was brought on exactly by that philosophy of protecting one's fixed pie. When have we seen the greatest growth and the greatest prosperity? It has been when we have had free trade.

When we had the negotiations on the NAFTA and the free trade agreement with the United States in his neck of the woods, in the Niagara Peninsula, there was talk, as he said, of winners and losers. They said that the great loser would be the wine industry. It would be wiped out. No more would we get that precious Baby Duck that was produced in the Niagara Peninsula. The wine industry would be gone.

What happened? It was not about winners and losers; it was about winners and winners. The wine industry sharpened its pencil and improved its techniques. It got better, and now Niagara has a world-class wine production industry, very different from what it was back in 1988. It is a really first-rate wine industry, proof that Canadians can compete and do compete, and that free trade brings prosperity, success, and jobs for Canadians.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, somewhat paradoxically, we have just witnessed an excellent debate between my colleague for Welland and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. This is in no way related to the procedural matter before us, namely a request for an explanation into why a time allocation motion has been imposed.

This is an illustration once again of just how important this debate is. We can safely predict that the sun will rise. Similarly we can predict that each day, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will move a new time allocation motion, arguing that he knows what the NDP’s position is. I could very well respond that the Conservatives’ position is also well known. However, that is not what debate is about. Debate should focus on the impact that a bill will have on each of the country’s ridings and on its positive or negative consequences. If as many members as possible are not allowed to express their views, then the whole purpose of the debate process is lost.

Fortunately we will have a new government in 2015, otherwise I have a hard time understanding how we can ask 30 more members to sit in the House only to be gagged.

My question is very simple. How can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons reconsider his planning to allow substantive debates in which as many members as possible get an opportunity to speak, instead of limiting debate and gagging us every time?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that I should plan the agenda so we could hear from more speakers. I did that about a week and a half ago, and I seem to remember he voted against the House sitting later and having more speakers.

Therefore, I am very puzzled by this position of the New Democrats. They say we should have more speakers and then they try to shut it down. Earlier today, when we were embarking on more debate, they tried to shut down the House entirely so there could be no more speakers today. Just earlier, the House leader of the official opposition complained that Conservatives, having had a few people deliver the position of the party and having set out what we all agreed in, were letting more New Democrats speak. He wanted to hear more Conservatives speaking and fewer New Democrats. I can understand why; perhaps he too gets tired of hearing NDP speeches. I do from time to time.

All I hear from the New Democrats is a series of positions that are inherently contradictory. If they want to talk about time allocation and whether it is necessary, last Friday we had the experience of the New Democrats standing and saying they were ready to advance a bill so it was not necessary to move time allocation. This was the first time in three years they made that move, after we introduced such a motion. It was remarkable. I welcome more such moves by the New Democrats. I invite them to do that more often.

I think every Canadian can conclude fairly what happened in each one of those other cases about why it was impossible to come to agreement to advance a bill.

However, he is right. We should talk about the benefits of this agreement, such as who gains and what are the impacts on communities. I look to some of the important sectors. There is, for example, agriculture, which we just talked about. Beef producers would be likely to gain from immediate market access. Quite a few of those I know across Canada. Pork producers would benefit in many NDP ridings. Just in the agriculture sector, there are potato producers, vegetable oil producers, grains producers and a range of processed food products, which are all areas where it is anticipated and projected that there would be significant gains. Indeed, the stakeholders who are engaged in the process of producing these products have said that they support the agreement, that they want it in place and the sooner it is in place, the sooner they can get on with selling more, creating more jobs and delivering more prosperity for Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for elucidating to the House the importance of sectors like agriculture. In my riding of Okanagan—Coquihalla, many ranchers stand to benefit from this legislation among others, including CETA, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, and also the recently announced South Korea free trade agreement.

Earlier today the NDP put forward a motion to adjourn the House. The NDP actually voted against extending House sitting hours. The fear I have is that the cattle producers in my part of the country will not get the benefit of access to these markets unless we can have a debate, come to a decision, and see these pieces of legislation become law.

Could the minister comment on these issues?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are very significant gains to be made through this free trade agreement. I talked about the agricultural sector, but it is through the full range of goods and services that Canadians produce. In fact, when this agreement with Honduras is fully implemented, 98% of the tariff lines, which are laid out on what the tariff is for a particular product, against Canadian goods and services will be eliminated.

That means 98% of the different types of products will enter Honduras tariff free. That is a huge upside and a huge opportunity. That is an opportunity in manufacturing, in agriculture, in our natural resources production, in our energy sector, and in a whole range of things that Canadians do and produce. That means there is an opportunity for jobs and economic growth.

We have an opportunity, but the only way we can seize it is by putting this agreement in place. That is what we are seeking to do here. We are seeking to deliver benefits for all Canadians, including the Canadians from the hon. member's constituency in the beautiful Okanagan Valley, where I know they are also interested in the opportunity, not for government to owe them a living but for them to have the opportunity to make their own living, to achieve their own success. They are not afraid of competing with the best in the world because they know Canada can do it, and Canadians can do it successfully.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask a question to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who is maintaining his intellectual dishonesty.

I am so sick of hearing members, particularly government members, playing semantics. Yes, we voted against the motion that would have taken powers away from members of Parliament. He said that we voted against a motion to extend debates until midnight. Yes, that was in the motion, but there was a lot more in that motion. Every time the Conservatives speak, they forget to mention the truth and the facts. I wanted to point that out today.

We said 100 times that we were prepared to work until midnight every night. The proof of that is that most of the members who are rising to speak during these extended debates are New Democrat members. I would like my colleague to clarify that and to be honest with the Canadians who are watching these debates.

As for today's motion—the debate is actually on a motion to allocate the time for debate on this bill—I get the impression that the Conservatives have lost all sense of democracy and do not see how the House of Commons is useful. It seems as though the Conservatives think that the House of Commons is only useful for voting. The only thing to do is to vote, even though historically, the House of Commons has been used to debate ideas, as we all know. Members come to represent their ridings and debate the issues of the day. The voters of Sherbrooke did not send me here to have me vote three times a day and then return to my riding. They voted to send me here to debate the issues that are important to our country.

I would like my colleague to tell us whether he realizes what an important role the House of Commons plays in Canadian democracy and why it is important to have debates. I know he will tell me that we have debated enough, that debates do not serve a purpose, and that we know their position and they know ours. Nevertheless, I would like him to understand that the House of Commons serves a purpose. Historically, the House of Commons has been used to debate meaningful ideas. Could the member comment on how important the House of Commons is to Canadian democracy?

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

Mr. Speaker, first I will address the issue of the motion for extended hours under which we are sitting. The member said that there was more in it than simply the extended hours, and that was why the NDP objected. Let us look at the more that was in it. There were three basic elements.

The first element was that all votes on substantive motions, if deferred, instead of being deferred to the end of government business, would be deferred until after question period the next day. I do not recall this being something that was an earth-shattering violation of democracy. It would have been 6:30 p.m., at the end of government business. Everybody thought it made more sense to do it at a time when everyone was in the House and when it could be done efficiently rather than at midnight every night. That is not unreasonable.

The second element that I did not refer to was it made it so that motions from the opposition to adjourn the House could not be made after 6:30 p.m. and motions to adjourn the debate could not be made after 6:30 p.m.

These were the elements that were so offensive to the folks who said they were willing to work late. They were willing to work late; they just did not want to lose the right to not work late. They want the ability to adjourn the House even though they have no problem with working late, but it is terrible if they cannot adjourn the House.

Members can see my problem here. The problem is the New Democrats do not want to work late. They do not want the additional hours. They do not want the debate that they claim to support to occur, and there could be no better example than this bill. They say that we should debate the bill's merits. There is some good stuff in there, but it is complex, so we have to debate the benefits and the negatives, except what did the NDP members do? They put forward a number of amendments. I cannot remember if it was 53 or 63, but the sum total of those amendments was to delete every clause in the bill.

Shall we have a thoughtful debate about that? I do not think that is a thoughtful debate. It is a silly debate. There was a separate amendment for every clause to be deleted. If that ain't process gone wild, I don't know what is. Most people say, “If you don't like it, vote against the bill, say you're against the bill, say you're against free trade, say you think free trade is a bad idea”. We think free trade is a good idea. That is why we are voting for the bill.

You can say free trade is a bad idea and vote against the bill, but that does not mean we should not deny people the opportunity to vote in the House on the bill. That is what we want to see happening.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to questions, I would remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair and not directly to their colleagues.

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Conservative House leader. Does the member find something wrong with having an amendment to a bill?

I remember the Reform Party, which is the Conservative Party today, on the Nisga'a bill for British Columbia when there were 471 amendments. We started voting in the House on a Monday and we finished on a Wednesday. As a matter of fact, maybe I should not say this, but they were falling asleep in the House. It was not because they were interested in the vote; they were just playing the game, and they did not want that bill.

Does the member remember that, or is his memory too short to remember what they used to do when they were in opposition? I would like to hear if he remembers, or if he was not born at the time.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I was not here. Second, I was never a member of the Reform Party of Canada. In fact, I was President of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and I am a very proud member of the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario right now as well.

Of course, I am proud of that heritage and proud of its long history in delivering good results for Canadians. One of the best things the Progressive Conservative Party ever did for Canada was the delivery of the free trade agreement with the United States, a seminal crossing of a watershed, which was quite a debate in 1988.

In that debate in 1988 on free trade, the Progressive Conservative Party was advocating the benefits and opportunities that would come from free trade. However, the NDP at the time and the Liberals, although they have come around, were saying that it would be end of the universe, our economy would collapse, and Canada would be in terrible shape.

Many years later, the debate is over among Canadians. Broadly speaking, they see that free trade has proven to be tremendously successful. Canada has enjoyed tremendous prosperity such that we now have the strongest fiscal position in the G7, and the strongest economic growth and the strongest job growth in the G7 since the downturn, all because the country has embraced free trade.

Yes, it is true, there are some who still oppose the concept of free trade. They exist in some debating societies, they still exist in some fringe groups, and they still exist in the NDP in Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #162

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Canada Post; and the hon. member for Québec, Veterans.

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.

[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.