Debates of June 9th, 2010

Scott Simms Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Mr. Speaker, I want to just ask a question of my colleague and I want him to flesh out some of the history behind this and dig deeper into what he was saying. When he talked about the agreement, he talked about growth and economic growth and how this is going to be of great benefit to this country, as far as the economy is concerned, and I am assuming in sectors such as agriculture being one of them. I would like the member to focus just for a moment on the responsibility aspect, and perhaps he can flesh out in his mind or give the basis of why we are creating what we call parallel agreements for the environment, for example.

I particularly paid great interest to the social aspect of it because of things like workers' compensation, which I brought up earlier. I think that is going to be of great benefit to all countries. But in this particular case, what makes this side agreement so special and why is it going to be beneficial to Colombia? Why was it so necessary?

Ed Fast Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, as does the House, Colombia has had a very difficult labour situation. It had a very problematic human rights environment. There are many indications in Colombia now that it is making progress in trying to address some of the issues of violence, violence against unions, and making progress in the area of social responsibility.

That is why these parallel agreements on labour and the environment, and the incorporation of requirements for social and corporate responsibility within the free trade agreement, allow us to export our values that I already articulated in my speech to a country that has not had that legacy that we take for granted in Canada.

Jean-Yves Laforest Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, earlier, in his speech defending and promoting this agreement, the member opposite said that the Government of Colombia had demonstrated that it wants peace and that it is able to respect human rights.

Has it demonstrated that by the fact that 39 trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in 2007, and 46 were murdered in 2008? Is that the kind of absurd proof he is talking about?

I would like to know what the member was talking about when he said that the government had demonstrated that it was committed to finding peace.

Ed Fast Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I suppose there are two perspectives on the issue of engaging with countries that have had problematic human rights regimes and problematic labour regimes. One is to isolate them. One is to keep them out of the international trade community, set them apart, perhaps even impose sanctions.

The other perspective is to say these are countries that desperately need our knowhow, our knowledge, our technology, and above all they need to understand the values that make strong democratic countries and societies. We have chosen to follow the route of engaging with these countries.

What is really interesting is that one would expect that if the country of Colombia were so opposed to expanding its human rights framework that it would resist efforts to impose conditions on issues such as labour, corporate responsibility and the environment, but Colombians have welcomed that engagement. They have said they want to become more like the Canadas of this world. They embrace those values of freedom and democracy, and especially human rights. They want to partner with us to help build those democratic institutions.

In response to my colleague across the way, I would say the proof is in the pudding. I would say look 10 or 20 years down the road. I am confident that 20 years from now Colombia will look quite different. It will have a much more robust human rights framework. It will have a much more robust labour framework, one that all of us can be proud of, and can say that we were a part of.

Chris Charlton Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in opposition to the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement on numerous occasions in the House. I am delighted that, through the incredible leadership of my NDP colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, we so far have been able to stop this bill from becoming law. Now the government is shutting down debate through a draconian time allocation motion because it knows it cannot win its bill on its merits.

While I still can, let me explain again why we feel so strongly about this ill-conceived trade deal. In fact, in the roughly 10 minutes that I have to participate in today's debate, I will give 10 reasons why the Canada-Colombia trade deal should be scrapped.

First, Colombia is still the most dangerous country in the world for unionized workers. More labour leaders are killed in Colombia every year than in the rest of the world combined. Trade unionists are terrorized to put a chill on union organizing. This keeps unions weak and wages miserably low. It benefits businesses' bottom line and keeps Colombia attractive for foreign investment.

Who is being targeted? The prime targets are activists who are trying to organize or join a union and bargain collectively or who are engaged in industrial disputes or in fighting privatization. They are teachers, prison guards, agricultural, food and health care workers and others from almost every sector. Who is killing these union organizers? Most of the murders are committed by paramilitary death squads. Paramilitaries are illegal armies that fund their operations through Colombia's illegal drug trade and illegal contributions from some companies like Chiquita Brands International. The paras have been classified as a terrorist organization by the Canadian government, along with other armed groups, such as the FARC leftist guerrillas.

The second reason is that Colombian labour law is simply not up to ILO snuff. A union-busting culture dominates Colombian society. Colombia's labour laws stifle unions and workers' rights. Recently, in order to show it is doing something positive, the Colombian government passed two labour code reforms, one on the right to strike and one on “associative labour cooperatives”, but even with recent changes, they still do not come close to International Labour Organization minimum standards.

Colombian workers face huge legal and bureaucratic obstacles to register a union and to bargain collectively. Some say it is easier to form an armed group than a trade union in Colombia. These anti-union laws, plus the violence and terror directed at unionized workers, have helped keep Colombia's rate of unionization at less than 5%. With its huge informal sector and high unemployment rate, which is officially over 11%, it means that only one in every 100 workers can negotiate a collective agreement, the lowest of any country in the western hemisphere.

Third, there seems to be impunity for the killers in Colombia. Not enough is being done to bring them to justice. Very few of the crimes against unionized workers and other civilians have been investigated. Even fewer of those responsible have been convicted. This is called impunity. The victims are often accused of being guerrilla sympathizers. Their murders are then not questioned. Ninety-seven per cent of the murders of union activists remain unsolved.

That brings me to the fourth reason. Simply put, no justice, no peace. The government insists that it has demobilized the paramilitaries so that they are no longer a threat. Under a program called the justice and peace law, paramilitary combatants were supposed to hand in their arms and admit to their crimes in exchange for reduced sentences, but thousands of the demobilized have simply walked away from the program and formed new, deadly groups, like the Black Eagles, who terrorize the poor and anyone who dares to dissent from Uribe's security plan. The Black Eagles even sent a nasty threat to the Canadian embassy in Bogota. This is a far cry from Colombian's demands for a process that exposes the truth of paramilitary crimes, delivers justice and ensures reparations to the victims.

Reason number five is the shocking government ties to paramilitaries. Today, 62 mafia-like ex-paramilitary drug trafficking criminal networks control economic activities and political institutions in 23 of Colombia's 31 provinces.

Violence and insecurity prevail in the countryside. Colombia's independent supreme court, one of the country's few bright spots these days, has launched a series of groundbreaking investigations into paramilitary presence in the Colombian congress. More than 60 congress members from Uribe's coalition, 20% of the congress, are being investigated for crimes like collaboration with paramilitaries, getting rich from drug trafficking and collusion in election fraud. Thirty of them have been indicted.

That leads to reason number six. The army and the government are implicated in crimes against humanity. In a suspicious move in August 2008, Uribe extradited 14 jailed paramilitary bosses to the United States on drug trafficking charges, a much lesser crime than their crimes against humanity. These criminals are now conveniently out of the way of supreme court investigations into their links with Uribe's and his officials' involvement in atrocities. The International Criminal Court of the Hague is looking into these events.

In November 2008, the world was outraged to learn that 27 high-ranking army officers were accused of a horrifying crime known as false positives. This involves the soldiers kidnapping and executing innocent civilians, dressing them as FARC guerillas and claiming they were killed in combat. This practice developed in response to President Uribe's demands for results in fighting the FARC insurgents and offers of bonuses based on a body count. These revelations are just the tip of the iceberg in a series of charges of army involvement with executions, extortion, ties to drug traffickers and other crimes against humanity.

It is no wonder then, and this is the seventh reason, that diverse Colombian peoples are vehemently opposed to this trade deal. Colombia's unions have said no to the NAFTA model because it will cause more unemployment, poverty and hunger. Signing a free trade deal with Uribe will signal that state terrorism and killing trade unionists is okay.

Colombia's paramilitary opposition, the Alternative Democratic Pole, or PDA, opposes free trade because it will annex the economy to multinational corporations. For example, it will provide new land grabs for Canadian mining companies that get powerful new rights but not responsibilities. The Association of Indigenous Councils of Northern Cauca carried out a popular referendum in 2005 in which 98% said no to free trade. In October 2008, tens of thousands of people protested the free trade model, linking it to the death of mother earth.

This brings me to reason number eight. More trade and investment will hurt, not help, human rights. Independent human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and others, warn that this deal could actually undermine the struggle for democracy in Colombia. Without international pressure, the Colombian government will have no incentive to make improvements in human rights.

The ninth reason for opposing this deal is that Canada's own parliamentary trade committee said that human rights must come first. In 2008, Parliament's Standing Committee on International Trade undertook an in-depth study called “Human Rights, the Environment and Free Trade with Colombia”. Committee members even went on an official mission to Bogota to hear first-hand what people thought. The international trade committee report said:

The Committee recommends that an independent, impartial, and comprehensive human rights impact assessment should be carried out by a competent body, which is subject to levels of independent scrutiny and validation; the recommendations of this assessment should be addressed before Canada considers signing, ratifying and implementing an agreement with Colombia.

Last, we come to reason number 10, specifically for my colleagues across the way, who first introduced this bill solely to support the international efforts of George Bush. Well, there is a new president south of the border and Barack Obama says yes to workers' rights. There is no way that this trade deal will pass south of the border anytime soon.

Let us do the right thing here in Canada, too. Let us put human rights before free trade and carry out an independent assessment of human rights violations in Colombia before ratifying and implementing this deal.

Leon Benoit Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the New Democratic Party does not represent much of rural Canada. Maybe there is a reason for that. I listened to the presentations by the NDP members and not a bit of concern did they show for farmers across this country. This free trade agreement would mean that my neighbours and other farmers right across Canada would have a better market for their peas, lentils, wheat, barley and other agriculture products.

Do the NDP members even consider that in opposing this free trade agreement? Not at all. They oppose all free trade agreements. Every one of the free trade agreements that our government has negotiated will help provide a market for more agriculture products. That helps farmers. That helps my friends and my neighbours. The members of the NDP do not seem to care what it does to farmers in their constituencies and in neighbouring constituencies.

Why does the member not show a bit of concern for farmers and new markets that would be available for them, particularly at this time of low farm prices?

Chris Charlton Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to take that question seriously when he says that New Democrats do not represent rural Canada.

Has the member actually looked at a map of this country? I would encourage him to have this conversation with the member for Western Arctic. He should have a look at the map and see how much of Canada we actually represent. He should have a look at northern Ontario. All of those seats are NDP seats. Please, have another look at the map.

With respect to the member's question, we know that exports have actually gone down after we have signed free trade agreements so this agreement is not going to help the farmers in the member's riding. Moreover, if the member is so absolutely certain that this free trade deal has nothing but benefits on all of the points that I raised, then why is he so afraid of putting this deal to an independent assessment before it is ratified and implemented?

I would encourage the member to do that. The member should stand up and say that he is willing to do that if he is so certain he is making legitimate points in this House.

Scott Brison Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I want to help the hon. member with a little bit of a fact check.

She said that the agreement was a George Bush agreement, that Canada was following the Bush administration. In fact, negotiations between Canada and Colombia on this free trade agreement began in 2002 under former prime minister Jean Chrétien. In fact, they preceded the discussions with the Bush administration.

Second, with respect to the Obama administration, President Obama has commended the Uribe government for its progress on human rights. On the congressional side, we received a copy of a letter this week, which was tabled at the trade committee, from a large number of Democrat and Republican congressmen who support the FTA and urge President Obama to move forward with the legislation.

Third, 91% of Colombians voted for political parties both in the congressional and in the most recent presidential elections that support of all of these FTAs that Colombia has been signing. So, Colombians support it.

Last, the ILO has taken Colombia off its labour black watch this year. That is a significant move forward.

I know the hon. member is a fair, honest and unbiased member of the New Democratic Party, and as such she will agree that these facts are important and that all members have a responsibility to adhere to the facts. I would appreciate the member's input in this very important matter.

Tim Uppal Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, due to the motion moved during routine proceedings today, a number of members were unable to table petitions. There are people here in Ottawa to witness the presentation of those petitions. Therefore, I would ask for unanimous consent to revert to routine proceedings for the sole purpose of allowing members to present petitions, provided we return to government orders.

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin

The hon. member does not have unanimous consent. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.

Chris Charlton Hamilton Mountain, ON

Mr. Speaker, I did not quite realize how important it was to the member for Kings—Hants to put on the record that it was actually Chrétien's relationship with President Bush that started the free trade agreement, but I am certainly happy to confirm that. Yes, absolutely, we will set that record straight.

I am also sure that organizations like the steelworkers and the CLC will be delighted to know about the member's support for this free trade agreement.

There are a couple of other things. With respect to the letters he claims to have gotten from the Democrats and Republicans in support of this free trade agreement, I know there were also letters in opposition to the free trade agreement. While it may be right that the ILO is investigating the situation in Colombia right now, I am not sure that that investigation has come to a close.

I hope that clarifies things.