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

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as many of my hon. colleagues have reiterated over the course of this debate, trade and investment can help a nation like Colombia move through troubled times and create new opportunities for people, opportunities for them to thrive and prosper.

Colombia has made remarkable strides and showed great resilience toward bringing about an end to this conflict. Colombia has an established democracy, a growing economy, a responsible government, an active civil society and stable institutions.

Over the last six years, the personal security situation of the vast majority of Colombians has improved. Illegal armed groups have been weakened. This progress is acknowledged by the global community and international organizations that are present in Colombia.

The government of Colombia has also taken positive steps that demonstrate its continued effort to curb violence against trade unionists, fight impunity for the perpetrators of such crimes and promote security and peace within a framework of human rights protection and the rule of law.

Nevertheless the Government of Canada recognizes that challenges remain in Colombia and is supporting efforts in Colombia to strengthen peace, security and full respect for human rights.

Colombia continues to experience the effects of over 40 years of conflict and violence and it is all too often Colombian civilians suffer the most. Clearly, for all of Colombia's progress and ongoing effort, it is vital for Canada and other countries to pursue policies of engagement and support for peace in Colombia.

Canada has taken this call for international responsibility seriously. Our Americas strategy recognizes the need to pursue three priorities, which are prosperity, security, democracy and human rights, all vital issues that intersect in a very compelling way in Colombia.

Prosperity is of course an important aspect of this engagement. As many hon. members have rightly stated, trade creates opportunity and opportunity generates prosperity. Prosperity, when pursued with full respect for the rights of all members in society, offers incentives for individuals to move out of the networks of conflict and criminality and into the legitimate formal economy.

Prosperity, in short, can make its own contribution to the improvement of stability.

However, while a commitment to expanding economic opportunities is an essential ingredient on long term stability, prosperity alone will not bring an end to complex and long standing conflicts, such as Colombia's. For this reason, Canada aims not only to promote prosperity, but also to strengthen peace building efforts and respect for human rights. Canadians can be very proud of our steadfast role in assisting our Colombian partners along with path.

My esteemed colleague spoke yesterday about the important work being done by CIDA in this complex environment. The member from St. Boniface did that again this afternoon.

I would like today to make special mention of the contribution Canada is making through the Department of Foreign Affairs Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force, which can be referred to as START, and the Global Peace and Security Fund, GPSF.

Since 2006, START has developed $14.5 million in conflict prevention and the pursuit of justice for conflict victims in Colombia. With a program of $5 million from the GPSF, this fiscal year alone START provides vital support for increased stability through conflict resolution activities, often in partnership with key democracy, rule of law and human rights related institutions.

Canadians can be rightfully proud of the range of work that has been carried out by START through the Global Peace and Security Fund.

For example, Canada is one of the largest donors for mine action in Colombia. From 2003 to 2008, working primarily through the Organization of American States and UNICEF, START has contributed more that $3.7 million for humanitarian demining, stockpile destruction, victim assistance, mine risk education and mine action coordination.

We are also one of the largest supporters of the Organization of American States' mission to support the peace process in Colombia. The OAS' mission is doing critical work on behalf of the international community to support peace and to monitor the demobilization process of over 30,000 former illegal paramilitary combatants in that country.

Canada's contribution goes far beyond disarming combatants and removing the destructive ordinance of war. We are also placing the rights of victims at the forefront of our peace-building efforts.

Canada was one of the first countries to step forward in support of Colombia's truth, justice and reconciliation process. We have developed new partnerships with Colombian, Canadian and other international civil society organizations to protect the rights of vulnerable groups, including women, indigenous peoples and Afro-Colombians.

This year, for example, START is supporting Lawyers Without Borders Canada to provide international accompaniment and legal assistance to threatened Colombian human rights defenders. Lawyers Without Borders' work will help Colombian indigenous communities in conflict-affected areas to receive legal representation and pursue justice for past crimes through the Colombian legal system.

START is also providing over $1 million this fiscal year to provide legal representation for women victims of sexual violence as a result of the conflict. Canada's assistance is ensuring that hundreds of women are provided psychosocial support in dealing with crimes against them. Our work has enabled some of the first trials under Colombia's justice and peace law to seek justice for these sexual crimes.

Another new project, coordinated by the United Nations Development Program, is bringing together, for the first time, the Colombian government and the Colombian labour unions. Together, they will conduct a joint evaluation of violence against union leaders and organized union members and develop new ideas to improve the legislation for their protection.

Canada also continues to be an active member of the Group of 24, a group of countries which encourages and facilitates dialogue between the government of Colombia and international and national civil society organizations working in the country.

This year we are proud to take up the role of supporting the G24 secretariat to ensure this forum of frank discussion around conflict and human rights issues continues.

Clearly, protection and promotion of human rights and seeking a durable resolution to Colombia's conflict are at the very core of Canada's engagement in Colombia. Canada's pioneering support to the OAS' mission to support the peace process and to the justice and peace law has positioned us as a leader and trusted partner in Colombia, with government and civil society alike.

Canada can be rightly proud of the partnership we have developed with Colombia. It is a relationship that can be strengthened further for the benefit of both countries through this agreement under debate today.

For a country like Colombia, free trade can open up new avenues for success. By promoting economic development and opening up new doors to prosperity, free trade agreements like this can strengthen the social foundations of countries. This growth can help solidify efforts by the government of Colombia to create a more prosperous, equitable and secure democracy.

In other words, we believe that economic opportunity goes hand in hand with democracy, peace and security. We believe firmly that economic opportunities can reinforce these objectives. That is why we are committed to being a helpful and open partner for nations throughout the hemisphere, nations like Colombia.

Often over the years we have known that there has been a human trafficking issue in Colombia. With the free trade, where jobs are opened up and opportunities are produced, this helps all aspects of this kind of society.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo comments I heard earlier. I believe every member in the House is a proponent for human rights and that no right-thinking person advocates violence against any person because of one's political beliefs. I would like to make that point clear.

The question really is one of philosophy. The question is whether we as a country should be making trade deals with countries that have murderous records. The question should be this. Should we make countries demonstrate an improvement first before we sign economic trade pacts with them or should we sign trade pacts with them first when their murder rates of trade unionists has gone up 18% in the last year?

I want to talk a bit about philosophy because I have heard my colleagues in the Liberal Party talk about supporting free trade. I guess it depends what year that party is in. In 1988 the Liberal Party did not support free trade. In 1993 it promised to abrogate the NAFTA. Little did we know then but it did not keep its promise. It was opposed to free trade at that time but today we hear that it supports free trade.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have to cut off the hon. member and ask him to wrap up his question.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since we are ahead of trade agreements at this point, should we make Colombia demonstrate improvement before we sign a free trade agreement with it?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, some of his comments I have to disagree with and perhaps ask my hon. colleague to double check some facts.

When we talk about murder rates, the homicide rates have dropped by 44% in Colombia and moderate poverty has fallen from 55% to 45%. Many very positive things are happening in Colombia now.

When we talk about this business with unions and free trade, a very poignant point is the new project coordinated by the United Nations development program. By bringing together, for the first time, the Colombian government and Colombian labour unions, a lot of good things will result from that.

When they conduct a joint evaluation of violence against union leaders and organized union members together and develop new ideas to provide legislation for their protection, we take a step in the right direction. This trade agreement is a step in the right direction for both countries.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the NDP ideological disdain for free trade, would the member for Kildonan—St. Paul agree that free trade creates economic opportunity for people right across the socio-economic spectrum and does that not improve chances for freedom, democracy and human dignity?

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, clearly this is one of the major aspects about the free trade agreement. Building prosperity in a country does much to enhance the justice and the focus on the vision that individual Colombians can have for their lives.

We know right now there are issues in Colombia around ex-combatant children. It is estimated that 11,000 or more Colombian boys and girls have been participants in the army. We know people have been displaced. We know the exploitation forms of child work and HIV is a growing threat and human trafficking has been a threat. A free trade agreement is one more tool, or one more piece of the puzzle, that builds the prosperity in a country that will enable people to have a new vision for their lives.

A few minutes ago I talked about the homicide rates dropping by 44%. That is worth noting. As well, kidnappings have decreased by 87% between 2002 and 2008. These are some very good reasons why the free trade agreement is a real positive thing for Colombia.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with interest but also with great concern that I am rising today for the third time to address Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I want to mention again that the Bloc Québécois will vote against this agreement, because a free trade agreement with Colombia raises very serious issues, particularly since that country has the worst performance in its hemisphere when it comes to human rights.

As with the agreement signed with Peru, the Conservative government presented Parliament with an agreement that had already been negotiated and reached with Colombia, before Parliament even had the opportunity to review it in depth. At the time, I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. We visited Colombia and we met with a number of stakeholders from that country, including unions, social groups, businesspeople and government members. The committee was to submit a report to the government, along with recommendations on the situation in Colombia. However, the Conservative government signed an agreement before the report was even tabled. That is really a waste of public money. A delegation of committee members is sent to Colombia to review the situation and then the government signs an agreement without even taking into consideration the committee's recommendations. Once again, the Conservatives, who claim to know how to run this country's affairs, squandered the taxpayers' money.

It is important to remind hon. members that the free trade agreement with Colombia was announced on June 7, 2008, when the committee was carrying out its study, prior to submitting its report to the House.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade and I did make that trip to Colombia. We travelled through that country and we met with socio-economic stakeholders, union leaders, social groups and members of the government. We were shocked and appalled by the scope of the tragedy created by population displacements. Mining companies and agribusinesses have displaced some 250,000 persons and these people are currently parked on an area of about 50 square kilometres. The government does not care. These people are given bread and a bit of water, and some measures are quietly being taken to support them, so that they do not die.

I did not hear anything on that from government members. What is going to happen to the 250,000 people who were displaced? That issue is not raised in the House. We know that there is a trade agreement, supposedly to promote free trade with Colombia. It is not a trade agreement that we are talking about in this House, but an agreement that helps protect the investments of some Canadian businesses in that country. Indeed, the agreement as such talks a bit about the trading of grain from western Canada, but in the end it has a lot more to do with Canadian mining companies in Colombia.

We know very well that these companies have supported the displacement of communities and have no respect for environmental standards. In the previous session, I was distressed as well to see a Liberal member moving a motion to encourage companies to be socially responsible in the course of their activities.

I note in this House that while we are voting and the Liberals are moving this sort of motion on social responsibility for companies, they are voting in favour of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. It is shameful to see that over 300,000 persons were relocated in 2007-08 and that over 380,000 persons have had to flee their homes or workplaces because of violence.

To close this debate, we reported today the number of assassinations of trade unionists in the past two years. We have here a long list, which includes the assassination of Rafael Antonio Sepúlveda Lara on August 20—just recently.

Since the agreement was signed, union members in Colombia, people who want to protect their rights and interests, continue to be assassinated. The human rights of these people are not respected. I am convinced that the signing of a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia will in no way reduce the number of union members assassinated. This is not what is needed. An agreement in this House will not ensure a better fate for the 300,000 people who have been displaced by mining companies and agrifood businesses. It will not.

It will simply benefit certain mining companies by offering better protection of their investments. Some people in this country may become rich as a result. Thirty members of the current government in the Congress are facing court proceedings for associating with Colombian paramilitaries. Increased revenues for the state does not mean the government will help the most disadvantaged or ensure better conditions and quality of life for the victims of violence in the society.

This government will not see to it that the 250,000 or 300,000 persons who have been displaced and are dying of hunger in shantytowns will have a better life. It will not. I am convinced this agreement will not resolve this situation.

How will we help Colombians? The government talks of humanitarian aid here, of support for this country to help it build a fairer democracy and a fairer and more just society.

It talks too about fairer trade. It is intervening to bring this debate to a close. It is intervening in various countries. It talks about Afghanistan. It says it is intervening in these countries in order to support and defend women's rights. We know that this hides other things, but the peacekeepers intervene. I wonder if this is not what is needed in Colombia given all the assassinations and the number of people displaced.

I reiterate that, for all these reasons and many others, this is not a trade agreement but an agreement to protect the investments of businesses. We in the Bloc will oppose this agreement, which in no way meets the needs of the people of Colombia and even less the needs of the people of Quebec and Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from September 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-23, 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 be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The member for Berthier—Maskinongé has five minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to my colleague's speech more than 10 days ago. He reminded us how bad the Canada-Columbia free trade agreement was for Canada and for Quebec.

This was 10 days ago, and not all of our honourable colleagues heard the speech. I would like the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to tell us again why he opposes this bill.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for her question.

Of course we are opposed to this agreement for many reasons. First, we know very well that it is not a free trade agreement that targets trade. It focuses more on protecting investments. Therefore it is an investment-protection agreement.

Furthermore, I am a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, which travelled to Colombia to meet with unions, management and all kinds of social groups. They all told us outright that Colombia is a corrupt country. Last week Ingrid Betancourt was in Quebec and she told us that there are major problems in Colombia at present.

A free trade agreement that protects investments—especially one that protects mining companies—will not solve the problems and improve the lot of thousands of Colombians who have been displaced by these large companies.

Supporting a free trade agreement will not improve protection for union workers who are the targets of paramilitary assassins. For these reasons, my colleague and I, as well as the entire Bloc Québécois, are opposed to the signing of this agreement with Colombia.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague because he hit the nail right on the head with this issue. On this bill, the Liberals and the Conservatives are only interested in protecting the ability of capital to move wherever it wants.

However, when we raise the numerous human rights violations, the 28 or 29 workers who have been killed this year alone, not by drug cartels or violence and street gangs, but people who are organizing in their workplace, the response we have received from the Liberals and the Conservatives is that every country has problems, even Canada, but that the best way to help the country is to ignore the problems. Their response seems to be to ignore people who are being killed working in the very plants in which we are looking to invest. They tell us that as long as we allow capital to do whatever it wants without any obligations, somehow conditions will improve in Colombia.

Given the member's experience with the people he has spoken with, why does he think the Liberals and the Conservatives are showing no interest whatsoever in the killings that have taken place this year while this thing was being debated under their watch?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

Why is that the case? When it comes to free trade agreements—and we know that the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement does not address any real issues—both the Liberals and the Conservatives have basically said that if we do more business with a particular country and that country generates more income, there will automatically be better redistribution of the collective wealth to support society's poor.

But it is not automatic at all. Quite the contrary. For example, the Americans have a lot of money in circulation, but they are still fighting for a public health system.

So it is not true that, if a country amasses more dividends and income, things will be better for people with problems and high crime rates like Colombia's will come down. That is what we keep hearing in the House, but I disagree completely.