Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say hello to the people I represent in Terrebonne—Blainville and Ste-Anne-des-Plaines as Parliament resumes.
We are here today to discuss Bill C-23 at second reading. This bill concerns the implementation of the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
I would like to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this bill for various extremely important reasons.
When two countries sign a free trade agreement, it is because they are preferred trading partners and the volume of trade makes it worthwhile to reduce trade barriers. But the Colombian market is a small and not particularly lucrative market for Canada. Canada has limited trade with Colombia. Of course, we export western grain there, but when the whole world needs grain, we are not going to export the most grain to Colombia.
Colombian investment in Canada amounts to $1 million, while Canadian investment in Colombia totals roughly $1.058 billion, which can essentially be attributed to the extractive industry.
The Colombian subsoil is extremely rich. Ore and energy resources such as coal account for 31% of Canadian imports. Colombia is therefore extremely attractive to Canadian extractive companies. It is also rich in natural resources.
In concluding this free trade agreement, the government is motivated not by trade, but by investments and the mining sector. This agreement will make it easier to protect Canadian investments in Colombia.
The Bloc Québécois is not against protecting Canadian investments in another country, but we want the agreements protecting those investments to be fair and equitable and take into account the common good. This is not true of this Canada-Colombia agreement.
The current agreement contains many clauses based on chapter 11 of NAFTA. This chapter had favourable results at least a decade ago, but for some time now, it has been misused, because it allows foreign investors to turn to international courts when a country wants to amend and improve its laws.
It is also possible under chapter 11 to use the threat of court action to prevent a government from improving people's living conditions. Lawsuits can be for an unlimited amount.
First, Colombia is not on an equal footing with Canada in terms of living conditions. Second, the proposed agreement uses chapter 11 of NAFTA, a chapter that has been roundly criticized everywhere and poses problems everywhere.
As I was saying earlier, free trade agreements are generally signed by states with similar economies. The economies of Canada and Colombia are completely different. Colombia is an extremely poor country. It is estimated that 47% of the population was living below the poverty line in 2006.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, poverty is most prevalent in rural areas and affects 68% of the population. In addition, the current unemployment rate is one of the highest in Latin America. In view of this fact, what is the value of a free trade agreement that benefits mining companies and that will not necessarily improve the standard of living for the country's population given that they must work for the mining companies? We know what these companies do. I will come back to that later on.
Colombia has one of the worst human rights records in Latin America. In June 2009, witnesses appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade and told us that the worst humanitarian crisis was unfolding in Colombia.
The impunity prevailing in Colombia has led human rights groups to believe that there is collusion between the Colombian political class and paramilitary groups.
Colombia is one of the worst places in the world when it comes to workers' rights. We know that union activists are assassinated and that thousands of people have disappeared. People are displaced because small farmers and miners sometimes own land that is coveted by big mining companies. In most cases, these people receive no compensation.
There is a great deal of opposition to this free trade agreement. Canadian civil society is opposed to this agreement, Colombian civil society is opposed to this agreement and many organizations in Quebec are also opposed to this agreement. A committee called the National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive industry in Developing Countries was created in 2007. This committee made recommendations to the government. What did the government do? It rejected them outright. It did nothing and did not implement any of the roundtables' recommendations.
Recently, members of this House who sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade also wrote a report based on their deliberations, their trip to Colombia and their meetings with witnesses. This report reproduced some of the conclusions of the famous round tables.
What did the government do? It rejected the report out of hand and gave us a slap in the face, saying that it had signed this agreement and asked only that we vote for it. That is irresponsible, and it shows disrespect for the members who sit in this House and the companies that sounded the alarm and warned the government that the situation in Colombia was not exactly what the government thought.
But we know that this government protects major investors, and this agreement protects Canadian investors abroad who will not be punished for the crimes they commit against the Colombian people and Colombian companies.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this agreement and speak out publicly against it.
