Bill C-23 (Historical)

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Colombia

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements on the environment and labour cooperation entered into between Canada and the Republic of Colombia and signed at Lima, Peru on November 21, 2008.
The general provisions of the enactment specify that no recourse may be taken on the basis of the provisions of Part 1 of the enactment or any order made under that Part, or the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement or the related agreements themselves, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 of the enactment approves the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreements and provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional aspects of the Free Trade Agreement and the power of the Governor in Council to make orders for carrying out the provisions of the enactment.
Part 2 of the enactment amends existing laws in order to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Free Trade Agreement and the related agreement on labour cooperation.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I do not believe his mike is on.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I did want to ask the member a question, Madam Speaker, in reference to his critique of the New Democratic Party's very real concern when we enter into negotiations and possible trade agreements with countries where there is obviously a high level of violence, particularly violence targeted at those who simply want to exert their right to democracy and participation in their own local economies.

I want to know if it does not concern him at all, as some of the facts and figures that are documented, recorded, and coming out of Colombia where, as I have said earlier, this year alone 27 trade unionists have been killed. There were 67 extrajudicial murders, people in the justice system of Colombia losing their lives, and 600 people massacred. My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster mentioned that a little earlier. Do those numbers not in any way cause the member some concern with regard to this free trade agreement?

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Of course, Madam Speaker, it causes great concern to all of us when we see all these murders and deaths taking place, including the trade unionists. We are all aware that all these things are happening. We are engaging ourselves with the government of Colombia to work with the government, as the elected authority there, and to bring those who have committed all these crimes to justice. That should be the key element of the whole thing.

However, to put the free trade agreement in that context is not the right thing to do because we would then be penalizing all the people of Colombia, the poor and everyone else, who would have an open market to us.

Would the hon. member not want all the people of Colombia to have free access to Canadian markets so they can sell and have a better living standard there?

I want to repeat, in reference to all those killings, I agree that this is a matter of serious concern, and those who are committing those crimes should be brought to justice. The responsibility lies with the government of Colombia to do that, and we will bring that to the attention of the government of Colombia. However, we should not, at the same time, penalize the people of Colombia who would like to do business with Canada and have a better standard of living.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23, which is the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

I want to set the frame for my own involvement in this debate by saying that this was a difficult bill for me at first. I have met with delegations from Colombia and union organizers here who have expressed concerns about the human rights in that country. I take that seriously.

Colombia is a violent country. There are many instances of corruption and human rights violations, which is consistent with a narco-economy. It is indisputable that there is instability in Colombia and there have been human rights violations. It is also indisputable that there have been improvements economically, socially, and in terms of safety, so we balance off those two different issues.

The question for the people of that country is: How will things get better? Is the move more negative or positive for countries like Canada to engage Colombia? Of course, we have heard Canada is not alone. Many other countries are doing the same thing, looking at trade agreements with this country.

As members of Parliament, balance is something we deal with all the time on issues. We balance local concerns with national concerns. We are always looking at what our constituents want with what we consider to be the national interest. Also, the party under whose banner we were elected plays a role as well.

We balance the time that we spend on constituency work with the time we spend on national issues or perhaps party responsibilities, being a minister, a critic or work on committees. One of the difficult things about politics is finding the right balance.

On issues, quite often, it is a matter of finding a balance as well. We deal with issues that challenge us. There are pros and cons on both sides of an issue. How do we work within Parliament and even within our own parties to move the ball on things and to advance not only Canadian interests but the interests of people with whom we deal?

I want to pay tribute and offer my thanks to the Liberal critic for international trade. On a number of issues, he and I have had very serious discussions about concerns I have had and maybe issues on which we differed in the beginning. It is through working with him and the leadership that he has provided the Liberal caucus that we have been able to come up with solutions that make sense.

There have been a number of contentious issues on the trade front. The EFTA deal was one. It was difficult for me, my colleague from Halifax West, and those of us who have been actively supporting the shipbuilding industry with the negligence that has been shown by the government. A potential negative impact in the EFTA deal was its impact on Canadian shipbuilding. This Colombian deal is difficult because of the human rights violations, the allegations but certainly the violations of human rights that have happened in Colombia.

On EFTA, the Liberal critic, the member for Kings—Hants, the member for Outremont, the critic for industry, the member for Halifax West and I worked on this issue. How do we know what the right thing is? We are concerned about the impact on shipbuilding with EFTA.

Our critic sat down with us and we asked what the real problem was? The real problem for shipbuilding is that there is no national strategy for shipbuilding and that is what Canada needs. That, above all else, is what we need. That is why a country like Norway, which was the concern in the EFTA deal, has supported, advanced and consistently invested in the shipbuilding industry. It has gotten to a point now where it presents a bit of an issue for us.

My colleague from Halifax West, our industry critic, our free trade critic and I went to see our leader. He said, absolutely, he would commit the Liberal Party to having a national strategy on shipbuilding, that we would look at things like tariffs, the structured financing facility, those things that will make a difference to shipbuilding.

In the summer, just after the House adjourned in June, the four of us met with representatives of the shipbuilding industry, with companies, shipbuilding associations and workers. We came to an agreement that there were certain things we could do to advance shipbuilding, to make sure that everything is taken care of, that workers, management and shipbuilding associations can come together on a shipbuilding strategy that a Liberal government would facilitate, would lead, and that would make sure that shipbuilding retains its rightful place in the industrial structure of Canada.

On this deal, our critic and I had some discussions. Our critic for international trade and our critic for foreign affairs worked diligently on this file. They met with many Colombian stakeholders. They went down to Colombia, not with blinkers on but to study what is happening in that country. They met with trade representatives, think-tanks, unions, with President Uribe himself and with the UN High Commission and human rights representative in that country, to find out whether this deal would help or hurt.

Through all that work and the leadership that was shown by our critics on this file, I believe this free trade agreement can improve conditions in Colombia, conditions that have to some extent improved already, as the members for Niagara West—Glanbrook, Toronto Centre and others have pointed out.

We know we need to be vigilant. We know there is much work that has to be done. We know there are people who have been killed, people from labour unions, labour organizers and many others. The question is, how do we have a positive impact on that? How do we make sure that what we are doing is right, not only for ourselves but for other people with whom we share this world?

Many of the progressive forces in Colombia in fact look to Canada to assist and they believe this deal can actually enable them to make things better for the citizens of that country, to improve the lives of people who struggle in that country. They consulted extensively and with an open mind.

As we have heard as well, we are not the only progressive country in the world. Many of the countries with whom we do business, to whom we compare ourselves on human rights, labour conditions, fair wages and international development, are also negotiating with Colombia. Of course, in the United States, the Obama administration has signalled that it is perhaps readier to move now on this than it had been before, that this is important to the people of that country as well as the people of Colombia. So we have similar goals.

Generally, as a Liberal, I support freer trade. Among the organizations that are supporting this deal, I see Canada Pork International and the Cattlemen's Association. There are organizations in this country that, as my colleague from Malpeque has pointed out, need help. He called for an emergency debate earlier today on agriculture. These are organizations that can benefit as well.

We should be supporting freer trade. That is what we do as Liberals, but we always want to make sure that we see the whole picture and that we are not ignoring things that are going on in a country with which we choose to do business. We think, though, this deal can have a positive impact in reducing human rights abuses and helping to build and strengthen the social infrastructure in that country, strengthen the social foundations and actually make things better for the people who are suffering now.

At the end of the day, when we look at any kind of free trade bills, there are some in this House who will always oppose them. Perhaps there are some who always support them. I think it is important that we look at every bill, at the global picture as well as the national picture. We have to look at the people we are dealing with as well as the people in this country. We have to make sure that we are doing things for the right reasons, that we are protecting citizens wherever they live in this world, not just to the benefit of ourselves.

To support Canadian industry is not a bad thing. To support industry in other nations is not a bad thing. On balance and from the discussions we had, I have come to the very firm conclusion that this bill needs to go forward and it needs to go forward quickly.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the Liberal member actually remembers that the steelworkers were here talking to them last spring, and they made a commitment then that they would support an independent, impartial and comprehensive human rights impact assessment before Canada considered an agreement with Colombia. That is not happening today, so perhaps he could answer the question with regard to whether he remembers that.

The other thing I want to know is whether he thinks these trade deals will change the culture in Colombia, because that is kind of what I got from his speech.

Perhaps we are thinking they might not kill as many trade unionists now, but that does not make it any better. It is like saying that someone who hits his wife is not hitting his wife as much now, but it is not better for her either.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

The home of Sidney Crosby, Madam Speaker.

The member forgets one simple fact, that all these abuses have happened without a free trade agreement with Canada. It is almost as if she is suggesting that all these abuses happened because Canada is considering a free trade agreement. In fact, there are conditions built into this bill that have the serious and significant potential to improve the situation in terms of human rights abuses in Colombia.

I have been in this House since 2004. I am not surprised that the NDP is opposed to this and I am not condemning members of that party for being opposed to it. I just do not think they have taken an open-minded approach to looking at this bill on balance and asking whether it can be good or bad for that country. That is what the NDP should do.

I think, on balance, the social infrastructure of the country that we are going to deal with can be made better by a deal with Canada. Average people in that country may be better off if Canada does not ignore them, does not shut them out, but in fact engages them in a free trade agreement.

That is my hope. That is my expectation. That is why I support the bill.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Sidney Crosby's riding.

On a more serious note, I want to ask the member if he really believes that a country, a government, and dare I say, a regime that has significant numbers of documented deaths of trade unionists and other social activists should now try to sort out who should benefit from the domestic economy of that jurisdiction.

My colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, mentioned earlier that while his colleagues were in Colombia, 600 people were slaughtered, connected to the government of that country.

Given the leadership of that country, given its track record so far in distributing the already limited wealth that the country generates, if we enter into a trade agreement that would actually give it even more money, do we think somehow it would distribute that more equitably?

Just last spring we had Yessika Hoyos Morales, the daughter of one of the trade unionists who was killed in Colombia, speak to us. Perhaps the member met with her as well. She asked us not to do this until we did the assessment, the analysis, until we are guaranteed and are sure that people will not continue to be killed, and perhaps in larger numbers as the pot becomes bigger, as the gold becomes more shiny for those who are in charge in that country, if that in fact will not be the record that we will be looking at as we reassess this in, say, five or ten years if we go ahead with this today.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I did meet with the woman he spoke of. As I mentioned, I had concerns about this bill. I think it is incumbent upon members of Parliament to meet with as many people as they can. I do not dispute anything she said. However, we also have to take a look at these things from a balanced perspective and we have to make a decision.

According to Human Rights Watch:

[U]nder U.S. pressure related to the FTA, Colombia has started to take some positive steps on impugnity for anti-union violence.

So I do not dispute anything that people have told me and I will meet with anybody who has a concern about any piece of legislation. However, it is our job as parliamentarians to make a decision on balance. On balance, it is my view that a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia will not only assist Canadian industry but will assist the people of Colombia to live more peaceful and prosperous lives.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am glad to be able to join in this debate. It is a debate that says a lot about where we are going as a country, and frankly, this is not the direction that I believe most our constituents would want to be going in or supporting.

I know my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster has been quite active in his criticism of the many free trade agreements that the government has been pursuing, and rightly so. He has engaged a great many Canadians on this front. He can tell members that the response he has received from everyday Canadians is nothing like proponents of this deal would hope to see. It is a tidal wave of disapproval.

Although most Canadians are not concerned with the ins and outs of trade policy right now, due to being preoccupied with the economic crisis, when they are it is usually because of problems such as we have seen with our dysfunctional softwood lumber agreement and not trade with deals flying under the radar.

The problem with these kinds of agreements is that most people only become involved in the debate when it comes time to pick up the pieces, not when the nuts and bolts are being hammered out. They notice when a workplace closes because of our pursuit of a level playing field. They notice when they see the real incomes of the average family in decline as we compete with labour forces that are in disarray and at the mercy of corporate elite.

Trade unionists are watching this debate. They are aware that Colombia has one of the most dismal records for human rights in the western hemisphere. They know Colombia is one of the most dangerous countries in the world for trade unionists. They are asking us to step back from this agreement, yet we are not seeing that from the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Just last spring the United Steelworkers came to this place to try to get the members of the Liberal Party to recognize that the bad in this agreement far outweighs any good, to try to get them to recognize that President Uribe and paramilitary groups are trampling on the human rights of workers in Colombia.

They pointed out a side agreement that has a mechanism to invoke fines for the murder of trade unionists in Colombia. It is an occurrence that is that common.

They are asking the Liberal members to live up to the commitment they made in June 2008, which is what I mentioned a few minutes ago, that there be an independent, impartial and comprehensive human rights impact assessment before Canada considers an agreement with Colombia. Still the government, with the support of the Liberals, wants to fast-track this agreement.

In the United States, a change of leadership has led to a change in thinking about this type of agreement. It is seen as a George Bush style of approach to trade. We saw Congress put a hold on the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement last year, and President Barack Obama has said he will not pursue the agreement because of the human rights abuses.

That is a rare and candid admission from a country that is arguably the biggest proponent of free trade agreements. There, the thinking is changing, finally. They would like to see their trade partners make the necessary changes to protect human rights and the rights of trade unionists before they sign preferred trade partner agreements. That is exactly what the Bloc and the NDP are asking for.

They seem to be moving away from the belief that trade agreements are a panacea for the socio-economic woes of a country that will somehow cure all human rights abuses, end poverty, and protect the environment with the stroke of a pen. They are starting to reject the trickle-down model of economic and social development of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, and seem to be viewing trade deals as a reward for good behaviour.

The truth is that the United States is also becoming more protectionist about trade in general. We saw how the procurement policies for state government stimulus spending flew through loopholes in the North American Free Trade Agreement. That deal took much longer to hammer out than the one we are debating today and still has loopholes enough to leave Canada high and dry, time and time again.

Just ask our steel producers. They will tell you. Or better yet, come to my constituency and discuss Canada's miserable softwood lumber agreement with the United States. One would get a sobering picture of the real effect of bad trade agreements. One would see the real effect on communities, the uncertainty of mill closures and the migration of workers away from their roots and families.

If we go to towns like White River, Smooth Rock Falls, Opasatika, Hearst, Nairn Centre or Dubreuilville, we see how the people fear for the future of their community. It is the same all across northern Ontario. People feel betrayed by successive Liberal and Conservative governments that talk about the benefits of unbridled free trade, but only ever deliver the worst effects of the agreements on their communities.

We see loopholes that devastate our communities. The black liquor subsidy in the pulp and paper industry is a good example of this. Many companies in the United States have always used this byproduct of the pulp and paper making process as a fuel source. Now they are taking advantage of an American incentive to promote the use of alternative energy and are adding some gasoline to this mix. The end result is that by burning more gasoline than they were previously, they are now eligible for massive subsidies that certainly put a tilt in the playing field.

By the time the government recognized the severity of the subsidy and responded to this crisis, it was too late for some. The truth is it should not have been necessary if only our trade agreements had worked as we had been told they would, but they did not and they do not. How will this bill be any different? It has more to do with investment opportunities for the privileged than it does with anything remotely approaching fair trade. It will legitimize a brutal regime and death squads in a country were 27 trade unionists have been murdered this year alone. It will exacerbate Colombia's poverty, which is directly linked to agricultural development.

In Colombia 22% of employment is agricultural. An end to tariffs on Canadian cereals, pork and beef will flood the market with cheap products and lead to thousands of lost jobs among the poorest Colombians. It will be the exact opposite of the fair trade deals in which we would like to see Canada enter.

What do we mean when we speak about fair trade? We mean new trade rules and agreements that promote the sustainable practices, domestic job creation and healthy working conditions, while allowing us to manage the supply of goods, promote democratic rights abroad and maintain democratic sovereignty at home. It all sounds very civilized. I think this is a model of trade that most Canadians can stand behind.

Fair trade is more environmentally sustainable. We know that given the choice, people will choose that every time. Fair trade policies protect the environment by encouraging the use of domestically and locally produced goods, less freight, less fuel, less carbon and promote environmentally conscious methods for producers who ship to Canada.

Free trade policies are just the opposite. Even those created with the environment in mind do little to stop multinational corporations from polluting. The environmental side agreement of NAFTA, for example, has proven largely unenforceable, particularly when compared with other protections for industry and investors.

Fair trade would encourage the growth of Canadian jobs. We would see more jobs and better jobs. Fair competition rules and tougher labour standards would put Canadian industries on a truly level playing field with our trading partners and slow the international race to the bottom that has resulted in the loss of Canadian manufacturing jobs. We are not adverse to competition. We are confident we can compete under fair trade regulations.

Free trade rules, on the other hand, have hurt Canadian job quality. Since 1989, most Canadian families have seen a decline in real incomes. That is 20 years of hurt. We warned about it then and we are telling everyone about it now. We are trying to avoid the mistakes of the past.

Fair trade would protect labour rights by fostering the growth of workers' co-operatives and labour unions. Fair trade policies, which favour co-ops, unions and equitable pricing, will protect workers in the developing world who might otherwise be exploited. As we see in Colombia, workers are being exploited, or worse.

Fair trade would take away reasons for Canadian producers to export jobs. They would have to operate under the same rules as they do in Canada. There would be no significant difference for those who choose to produce offshore.

This is why we cannot support this free trade agreement—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order please. The hon. member may have time to complete her comments in questions and comments.

The hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I invite the member to finish what she was going to say as part of her answer.

The member mentioned the effect of the softwood lumber agreement on communities in her constituency. Could she elaborate on exactly what the effect of that agreement is on some of her communities and give us more specifics?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think this will be new news to anyone, but many of my communities have been quite devastated.

Opasatika, Smooth Rock Falls and White River were one industry towns. Most of those communities are one industry towns. As soon as that closed down, the wood allocation still was allowed to go elsewhere, which has really put these communities in a bind.

We have seen houses for sale for $10,000. People have lost their jobs. Aside from losing their jobs, they have lost their houses as well. It is a shame.

With the tax base these communities get, they do not even know whether they will continue to survive.

On that note, fair trade rules would not only protect human rights across the globe but would protect jobs in Canada as well.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite gave an eloquent speech. I spent three days in her riding over the summer, visiting Sudbury, Hearst and Timmins. The member commented that there was not much support there for some of the measures we had undertaken as a government to help that community, and I disagree entirely. A number of people were very thankful for many of the measures we put in place during this economic recession.

Could the member opposite perhaps touch on the fact that I met with a number of people who thanked us for the $4 million that was provided to a cultural theatre in Hearst? I have received a number of “thank yous” for a number of other measures that have come to those areas. They are suffering and we acknowledge that.

I would like the member to take this opportunity to also acknowledge the heartfelt thanks coming from those community members to the Government of Canada for the job we are doing to try to protect their interests during this global recession.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member was able to see the devastation across my riding with regard to some of these small communities.

I am sure the community members and leaders are very thankful for the tax dollars the government has put back into their community, because, all in all, it is their tax dollars. I do not consider them as gifts from the government. We need to give them back their dollars.

The issue at hand is with regard to the softwood lumber industry and the free trade agreement that was put in place, which was not a good thing for my communities for the most part.

As the member will note, one of the biggest demand is the access to reasonable credit. This is what many of my communities still need in order to move forward.

The aspect of the free trade agreement certainly has had a negative impact on my communities. I hope we are going to see more dollars filtering in and the FedNor dollars that these communities have asked for will stop being held up in the minister's office and be put back into the agency itself in order to move those dollars more quickly into the communities.

An aboriginal community has advised me that it is still waiting to hear about the $20,000 FedNor request, which is still sitting on the minister's desk. The members of that community have already had their conference and they still do not know if they are going to get their dollars. Shame on the minister on that part.