Debates of June 5th, 2014

Canada-Honduras Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's points, but moving away from the theory to the practice, let us look at the example of Colombia, a country that has very similar struggles on the political level. Canada signed a free trade agreement. What we have seen is that Canadian companies, with great gusto, have gone into that country and have developed particularly the resource extraction sector and have treated people in similar ways, sadly, as some of the state agents we hear about in that country. We hear of security groups. We hear of vigilante groups that attack indigenous activists, peasant activists, and labour union leaders who are seen as threatening to Canadian companies.

Sadly, some corporations that have head offices in Canada, and I would not call them Canadian corporations, benefit from free trade agreements like the one with Colombia. They will certainly benefit as a result of the one with Honduras and will sadly disrespect the human rights of the people in these countries in a way that would never be acceptable in Canada. Therefore, we cannot accept this free trade agreement before us today.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question related to trade, but it goes beyond just free trade agreements. As the member would know, Canada already trades, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, with Honduras. If we use the logic of the New Democrats, we should not have trade agreements, because, for all intents and purposes, they have never voted in favour of trade agreements, but they voted not to support this one based on human rights, and so forth. I can respect their reason for concern. I genuinely respect why we should be concerned about that.

The question I have specifically for the member is this. If the New Democrats do not believe we should have free trade with Honduras, do they believe we should be allowing trade with countries of this nature? Would he support reducing trade? It would seem to be a logical extension of the arguments that many of his caucus colleagues have made, that Honduras is a bad country and we should not trade with it. Would he advocate that, where we can, we should look at reducing trade where there are issues related to human rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of my colleague to reduce my arguments to argument ad absurdum, but I think the absurdity is coming from the other side. There is no issue of the NDP ever embracing the idea of stopping trade that occurs on its own versus the idea of deepening trade and producing all kinds of structures that could enhance corporate power and would end up creating worse conditions, quite possibly, for the people in the other country, quite apart from the effects of what they might feel in Canada. That is actually not my concern, no.

However, I would like to correct him so he can start asking my colleagues another zinger that his colleague from Kings—Hants thought he was asking. Yes, we voted for the Jordan free trade agreement, but we did so for reasons that were very considered. It does not have an investor state provision such as this one does and—

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

That's after you voted against it.

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

We did, Mr. Speaker.

The labour co-operation agreement also includes enforcement mechanisms that include options for an independent review panel, et cetera, whereas what we have here is a provision in the agreement, article 816. I will read it quickly. It is very short. It says:

Each Party should encourage enterprises operating within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internationally recognized standards of corporate social responsibility...

That is a very different situation between those agreements.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak again on this issue this evening.

I was involved in multilateral negotiations at the international level for over 25 years. I know how complex this process can be and how issues can sometimes be extremely complicated. Many factors must be considered when we negotiate agreements.

I am rather intrigued by the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, who spoke about free trade in general terms. His party that applauded the recent agreement with the European Union without even having read it. I clearly remember his leader, the hon. member for Papineau, rising in the House to applaud the Prime Minister for signing an agreement with the European Union, which he had not even read. We should show some sensitivity when we are dealing with these issues.

As I have always done with international issues, I read several reports, particularly the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which deals with aboriginal people. As we know, a number of mining companies are active in Latin America. Relations with first nations, with the aboriginal peoples of these countries, are very important.

I am familiar with the hon. member's experience. I wonder if he could tell us about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that, in the Honduran context, all the important procedural duties, including the duty to seek the prior informed consent of indigenous peoples, are almost certainly not in a position to be enforced.

Canadian mining companies and agricultural companies that might get involved are going to have to rely on the acquisition of land and rights near land that will not conform to international standards.

I would predict that there is going to be a serious problem. I can only agree with my colleague about the irony of a leader standing up in the House, giving unqualified support to a document he had never read and now having his trade critic criticize people because she cannot read it.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very well-researched speech. I wonder if he could comment on the following sentence:

...an FTA would provide international legitimacy to a political regime and economic model that is oligarchic, oppressive and unjust.

Those are not my words. They are from Ricardo Grinspun, an associate professor in the Department of Economics at York University, who appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade on May 1, 2014.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite proud to note that economist Dr. Grinspun happens to be a constituent of mine, so of course, he is correct, for all sorts of reasons, including the substance of what he said to the committee. That is consistent with that last quote I gave from Stacey Gomez. What we are doing by way of providing preferential treatment to a country like Honduras, with its human rights deficit, its democratic rights deficit, and the atrocities committed there, as evidenced at that committee but also by the experiences of my colleague, and witnessed by my colleague from Toronto—Danforth, is that we are validating a regime and political practices that Canada should not be. That is the harm of this deal. That is why approving this deal cannot be considered to be a benign act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this of my colleague, after what frankly was one of the most brilliant speeches I have heard since arriving in this House two years ago. I would have liked to have asked the Liberal trade critic from Toronto Centre, but there was great competition to ask questions, and I did not get to ask one.

We heard from the Liberals tonight that somehow or other they are interested in wanting this agreement signed, and they support this bill, but at the same time, they are sort of signalling that, maybe at some point when values are offended to too great an extent, we might well withdraw from this treaty. There were some hints of that in the Liberal trade critic's speech on January 29, when she said, “it will only work if it is more than words”. I was wondering if my colleague can help me understand what is going on here.

She also stated:

...we have to be very aware of what is going on in Honduras...[otherwise] we could be complicit in political, environmental and labour violations...; we have to watch closely and be absolutely certain that we and Canada are behaving well.

With respect to the problem with the side agreements being voluntary, she states:

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.

With respect to what is facing the LGBT community, it means that “we have to be absolutely aware of and watchful about” this.

She goes on:

Regarding the environmental standards, we have to be watchful about this.... we have to take incredible care.

I am wondering if my colleague from Beaches—East York can help me understand where the Liberal Party may be going with this approach?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question and more so for the lovely statement about my speech. I am going to disappoint him now because I cannot accommodate that question with a response. After I heard the Liberal trade critic I was confused by that party's position and I do not think the confusion was just mine alone. It is a confusing position that those members take.

The little quote that I caught from the Liberal trade critic was, “We'll go in, eyes wide open”. My question is: what is it that she needs to see that she has not seen already?

I will go back to the Human Rights Watch World Report from 2014. The opening talks about Honduras suffering from rampant crime and impunity. It talks about police abuse and corruption. It goes on to talk about the supreme court justices being removed for unsatisfactory administrative conduct. It talks about attacks on journalists. It talks about rural violence. These are all things that my colleague from Toronto—Danforth talked about in his speech and in his personal experience during his time in Honduras.

If those things that are cited over and over again in all sorts of publications, including the Human Rights Watch report, are not enough to offend one's values and to say no, then the Liberal Party is as ethically bankrupt frankly as the ideological responses that come from the Conservative Party on the issue of trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, according to Transparency International, Honduras, the most corrupt country in Central America, is a key player in the drug trade. There are also confirmed ties between government members, the police and drug dealers. Moreover, this country has the greatest income disparity in the region.

Instead of giving preferential treatment to this country, should the government not help it achieve a healthy democracy, understand and respect human rights and labour law, and fight corruption and impunity? Would this not be the best way to help that country? I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank my hon. colleague for that question because it gets us to the point that the only type of engagement that the Conservative Party seems to know is one of trade. The third party seems to know that as well, except that it is at least wise enough to express care and caution and all the rest of those things.

There are many other forms of engagement, including trade with conditionality. This is the opportunity that Canada has with all sorts of countries around the world. If they are interested, if there is a prospect, if they are on a trajectory toward improved human rights and democratic rights for the citizens of that country, then there are opportunities to engage in conditional trade. There are opportunities to engage in other ways around, simply, development, development of state capacity for democratic institutions and all the rest of it. It does not have to be a trade-based form of engagement.

All of those things are open to us as a country to play an important role in enriching the citizens of Honduras, and by enriching I do not mean simply in monetary fashion, but enriching their lives in terms of freeing them from a society that is riddled with crime and danger as we have heard many times through the speeches tonight.

These opportunities are available to us. The NDP understands that one trade agreement, one template, is not sufficient. It is ethically bankrupt. There are opportunities for us to engage around the world in all sorts of different but meaningful, productive, and constructive ways with different countries.

[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.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are like the cows watching the train go by. The world has changed and the NDP has not. The world embraces trade. Every country aspires to have bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements, and Canada has been very aggressive on the bilateral free trade agreement front. We have negotiated 43 free trade agreements since 2006 and the NDP has opposed every single one of them.

I would like to ask my hon. friend this. Why do New Democrats favour higher taxes, particularly a $21-billion carbon tax, and reckless spending that would push us far into deficit and increase our debt, and oppose free trade that would help Canada become a more prosperous economy, bearing in mind that one out of five jobs depend on trade in this country? Why are they stuck in the 19th century? Why do they not bring themselves into the 21st century and realize that free trade leads to jobs and prosperity and it is great for Canada? It is time they accept it.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

That is quite rich, Mr. Speaker, from a party that has been quoting Ricardo from the 18th century all day. It is absolutely ludicrous that Conservatives come forward with these questions.

When we look at what the government is doing with Honduras, it is supporting a corrupt government, it is supporting drug traffickers. It is actually not looking at making sure that we can protect the environment and protect journalists. My hon. colleague earlier was quoting individuals who were being taken away in cars and the Conservatives think this is a good government to deal with.

New Democrats are not the ones stuck in the 19th century. We are a progressive group who wants to ensure that there is fair trade, that we expand our trade with countries that actually reflect our values and grow our economy. Unfortunately, they are stuck in the 1950s.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I heard my hon. friend correctly, he said that the government supports drug traffickers. If he has any evidence of that, I would like him to table that in the House.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you can just look at this bill. Conservatives are supporting the Honduras government, which is implicit in a lot of the drug trafficking that is happening in Honduras. Therefore, it is a very simple answer.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am glad there is agreement on that.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

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

Mr. Speaker, because the Conservatives keep asking all the easy questions of my colleague, I am going to ask a more challenging one, in part because I got asked a more challenging one, and it is this. How does one make sense of the Liberals' policy and position on this particular agreement? Their position seems to be that values matter. They support the agreement, values matter, they will go in with eyes wide open. My colleague cited all the violations of human rights, democratic rights, and others in his speech. If that is not enough for the Liberals to say this is a problem, I do not know what is.

I am wondering if the member can reconcile the Liberal position for me.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beaches—East York for the question, but I cannot fathom an answer as to where that is coming from. It seems that the Conservatives and the Liberals and a lot of their allies frequently present that false dichotomy to Canadians.

They always say that they need to engage through this free trade agreement, but, really, when it comes to importance of what we can do as Canadians and represent Canadian values, we can call for engagement that focuses on building institutional, judicial, and democratic capacities, such as protecting freedom of speech, protecting vulnerable groups, confronting the rampant post-coup society, and redistributing the power and wealth in one of the most unequal countries in the Americas. That is what we could be doing as a country and as a Parliament to ensure we support that type of growth in Honduras.

[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.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that it was the NDP that sent its deputy leader down to Washington D.C. to argue against the oil sands and to try to destroy Canadian jobs. The NDP leader called the oil sands a disease.

The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour referred to free trade as job destroying. The NDP committed in its platform—and it has been reaffirmed at convention after convention—that if it ever gets into power, it will be renegotiating NAFTA. The NDP member for British Columbia Southern Interior said that free trade threatens the very existence of Canada.

Given the fact that the member's party seems to be approaching free trade with ideological blinders, I would ask him to please remove the ideological blinders, stand up for Canada, stand up for Canadians, and stand up for Canadian jobs, and let us get this Canada-Honduras agreement through the House so that it can benefit both Canada and Honduras.