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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The people I hang with are for fair trade, Madam Speaker.

My colleague may remember the points that we made when the FTA was signed, when NAFTA was signed and when SPP was being promoted. We have always argued that trade agreements should contain clauses that stipulate both parties to standards of human rights, labour rights and environmental standards, otherwise we engage in this race to the bottom, as it were, and it is not a fair trade agreement at all. Free trade does not necessarily raise all boats, as the zealots would have us believe. In fact, the opposite is often true.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the member's input into this matter. He always does it with passion.

In the briefing notes I was looking at, there is presumption that a rules based trade system will somehow address the problems of the drug trade in Colombia. I can only assume that the drug business out of Colombia is probably one of the most profitable ventures with certainly lots of support and interest of various nefarious types of people.

I am wondering if the member has any response to those who suggest that a trade deal with Colombia at this time would have any meaningful impact on the drug trade in Colombia.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague is sincere and genuinely interested in how we might help that country with the social problems it has and the criminal economy that seems to override any domestic economy from legitimate means.

Trade with other countries has often changed, I suppose, the patterns of both of the trading partners. In this case, however, we have no reason to believe that improved economic opportunities through trade with Canada will do anything to replace the illegal drug based economy that exists.

What we do know is that the current regime is linked to and connected to some very unsavoury activities. I wanted to use my time to pay tribute to some of my brothers and sisters in the labour movement who are being whacked in the streets for having the temerity to stand up for fair wages and working conditions in that country.

On April 18 of this year, the leader of a prison officers' union was assassinated as were nine members of his union. He was the ninth member of this particular union to be killed.

The teachers union seems to be targeted quite often. Dorado Cardona, a member of the Association of Teachers, received death threats saying that he has been considered a military target and will be killed. He has not yet been killed but he has received these threats.

Because people speak out for workers' rights, it makes them a target of the paramilitary. Do we really want to enter into any kind of free trade agreement with a country with that kind of record? I certainly do not.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi has only one minute for a very brief question.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief.

I would first like to congratulate my colleague. I do not often agree with him, but his position on unions is excellent. Very briefly, in 30 seconds, could he tell us why there will be no progress in Colombia as far as unions are concerned, once this agreement has been signed?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, first, the elimination of trade union activists and leadership is paving the way. It is laying the foundation for the implementation of this new liberalized trade regime. It was a necessary prerequisite to whack 2,700 trade union leaders. Can members imagine what would happen if the leaders of the teachers union, the carpenters union and the steelworkers union were all assassinated in their home communities? There goes the leadership and the backbone of the trade union movement in that country, leaving the workers vulnerable to whatever trade regime is imposed on them by this new international agreement. It is an atrocity. It is a travesty--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-23, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Colombia .

First of all, I must say that our party, the Bloc Québécois, is not in favour of this bill. The main reason that the Canadian government wants to sign this free trade agreement has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with investments. This agreement contains a chapter on investment protection, making it easier for Canadians to invest in Colombia, particularly in mining. This is important to note, because we are in the middle of an economic crisis brought on by the investments made by our bankers. That is the reality.

The Conservative government let the major Canadian banks invest in certain areas, and Quebeckers and Canadians lost huge amounts of money as a result. In fact, every three months, dividends were being paid to shareholders without regard for the quality of the investments made.

It is the same thing with this Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. In order to ensure a return on the investments of Canadian mining companies, who want to pay dividends to their shareholders every three months at all costs, these companies are being given free reign to invest in Colombia with no regard for such things as human rights and environmental protection legislation.

This is why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the bill. I must say that the Bloc Québécois, and our sister party, the Parti Québécois, have always been big proponents of both economic and commercial free trade. We were in favour of free trade, but agreements had to respect the laws and the quality of life of the people of all communities that are a party to the free trade agreement.

That was the case with the United States, and that was the case with Mexico and the United States under NAFTA. However, in this free trade agreement, the Conservative Party listened to the mining lobby without ever listening to Quebeckers. When it comes to doing business with foreign countries, Quebeckers want above all for human rights and quality of life to be respected and protected under international environmental laws. This free trade agreement does not guarantee in any way the respect of human rights and rights related to respecting the environment.

Judging by all the investment protection agreements Canada has signed over the years, the one that would bind Canada and Colombia would be ill conceived. All these agreements contain clauses that enable foreign investors to sue the local government if it takes measures that reduce the return on their investment. Such clauses are especially dangerous in a country where labour and environmental protection laws are uncertain at best.

By protecting a Canadian investor against any improvement in living conditions in Colombia, such an agreement could delay social and environmental progress in this country, where the need for progress is great. If these Canadian companies push the limit because they want to make profits above all else, and if they do not respect human rights and international environmental laws, they could commit irreparable acts causing international relations problems with respect to offences under international law, in turn resulting in bad publicity. The reputation of all Quebeckers and Canadians would be tarnished.

We have to prevent that from happening. That is our purpose in this House. That is why we were elected: to protect our laws, our territories, our quality of life and the quality of life of those we do business with. If we want to leave our children and our grandchildren with a good quality of life, we have to start by setting an example in our business relations with those with whom we sign free trade agreements.

This agreement is all about investments. It is designed to enable companies to make money at the expense of environmental laws and laws that protect human rights and the quality of human life.

Colombia's human rights record is one of the worst in the world and certainly in Latin America. In order to promote human rights in the world, governments generally use the carrot and the stick. They support efforts to improve respect for human rights and reserve the right to withdraw benefits should the situation worsen. With this free trade agreement, Canada would forego any ability to bring pressure to bear. In fact, not only would it give up the possibility of using the carrot and stick approach, but it would be surrendering all power to the Colombian government.

The government keeps saying that this agreement would come with a side agreement on labour and another one on the environment. The fact of the matter is that such agreements are notoriously ineffective. They are not part of the free trade agreement, which means that investors could destroy with impunity Colombia's rich natural environment, displace populations to facilitate mine development or continue murdering unionists.

That goes against Quebeckers' values. We not only defend the interests of Quebeckers in this House, but we represent their values, one of which is respect for human rights. That applies to everyone we do business with.

The Conservative government, supported by the Liberals—because we can see they want to give their support—wants to give companies the capacity to invest. I will come back to my initial analogy. The government did the same thing with the banks, giving them the flexibility to make huge profits and pay quarterly dividends. But none of the big banks predicted the latest crisis. These people were being paid big bucks to speak to chambers of commerce and travel all over the place. They were invited everywhere. They told us that everything was just fine, but like sheep, they were caught making bad investments, and most Quebeckers and Canadians lost pension money as a result. That is what happens when the government gives companies leeway, as it is doing in this case with the mining sector or as it did with the banks, without restricting what they can do.

The Conservatives are hesitating yet again. There is an international movement to prevent bankers from collecting astronomical bonuses, but Canada is not following suit. Once again the government is prepared to trust the very people who are laughing at us behind our backs. That is what happened. They had a good laugh at our expense. That is the truth. I do not want us to sign a free trade agreement that will give mining company presidents an opportunity to line their pockets at our expense or at the planet's just because they can unapologetically take advantage of the Government of Canada's support. They can invest in Colombia without complying with international environmental laws and human rights.

That is the truth. We must be their conscience because making money at any price is the order of the day for big-time investors, just like it is for top banking executives. Their only goal is to ensure a payout for their shareholders every three months. That is how banking executives get their year-end bonuses, regardless of what might happen to people or, in the case of this free trade agreement, to Colombians.

It should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois will not support an agreement that strips the government of its ability to pressure the Colombian government, which is not exactly an exemplary government. I will not repeat the examples given by other members of the House, examples to do with the assassination of union organizers and anyone else who might oppose the regime. We know that the Colombian government is corrupt to the core. Is there any reason to sign an agreement with these people other than to enable Canadian investors to collect a profit every three months?

We have to act as their conscience. We have to act as the conscience for mining company presidents. We have to tell them that this time, they will not be allowed to go too far. That is what we plan to do.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am not at all surprised that the Bloc members support the NDP on this issue, and we support them.

What surprises me is the position of the Liberals, particularly the member for Mississauga South who the other day sounded like he was on our side on the issue. Today, we heard the speech of the member for Kings—Hants in which he said that Colombia's human rights record was improving. Another Liberal member said this afternoon that she was unaware of any trade unionists being killed. She said that she would not support the bill if she had this information.

The information is out there. In fact, 2,690 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia since 1986. In 2008 the number of murders was up by 18% over the previous year. This year alone there have been 29 murders, with six or seven of them in the last thirty days.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have been talking about the banks and this is an opportunity to give an illustration. When I was first elected to this House in 2000, the first lobbyists I had to deal with were bank lobbyists, for the banks wanted to merge. That was their M.O. The Liberals were in power at the time.

I met with them and asked them why. I told them they were already making profits that were growing tremendously every quarter, and I asked them why they wanted to merge. They said it was because they wanted to buy other banks, for example, American banks. We voted against the whole bank merger idea. We saved those banks. They would be bankrupt today.

We must do the same thing with mining companies. We must act as the conscience of these business owners, who want nothing more than to pay dividends every quarter, regardless of whether or not they are respecting international environmental standards and human rights. That is not important to them. What they want is to earn profits every quarter. So we must be their conscience, and together, we must say no. We must vote against this bill. By doing so, we will send them the simple message that they cannot go to Colombia just to make a profit, without obeying the law.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel on his very sensible, rational speech concerning our position.

However, I wonder if he might clarify something, because I heard the Conservative government say to the NDP earlier that that party is always against these agreements. We in the Bloc Québécois—I think this is the case, and I would like my colleague to confirm—are not systematically against free trade. We are against free trade when there is an imbalance, and when we cannot imagine that this kind of free trade will improve the situation, especially for workers, in a country like Colombia.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is a hard worker. He is a passionate young man who likes to take part in every debate. I would be pleased to answer his question.

We belong to the sovereignist family. The Parti Québécois was in power in Quebec when the Conservatives signed the free trade agreement with the United States. The Parti Québécois supported that agreement. We are in favour of free trade agreements with countries that respect human rights, such as the U.S. This also applies to NAFTA. We were in favour of the NAFTA agreement with Mexico although we worked hard to strike a balance with respect to human rights in that country.

Yes, we are open to the world. The image that Quebec has always wanted to project is one of being open to the world in terms of respect for human rights, the rights of individuals and for the environment. This will always be a guiding principle for us.

In this case, we are about to give rights to private corporations and mining companies that, in the past, showed themselves to be incapable of respecting these rights because all they were interested in was turning a profit at the end of each quarter. We cannot accept this. We must be their conscience. I am pleased to be part of a political party that serves as their conscience in this House.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform that House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, Arts and Culture; the hon. member for Windsor West, Foreign Investment.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to bring forward my contributions to the debate on the Colombia free trade proposal in Bill C-23.

I want to take us to a point where we can talk about Canada's place in the world. As the foreign affairs critic and looking at where our country is in this multipolar world, I would like to take some time to situate Canada's role as not only a major economic player, but one that should take its role responsibly and view the effects on other jurisdictions when we enter into agreements such as the proposal in front of us.

I point to recent news from other places in Latin America. People living in some of the areas with extractive industries have paid a very heavy price because of Canadian companies operating without proper rules of engagement or proper oversight. Canadians want us to be a little more responsible as legislators in our oversight of the economic activities of our businesses abroad.

I also point to the most recent news out of Honduras. Sadly, we have seen the coup d'état there. The military is reasserting itself, replacing what many would see as a democracy that had been tenuous for sure, but had existed, with an elected office of the president. Right now Canadian companies are operating and making money there. At the same time, a horrific political situation is suppressing human rights. People are being abused and are disappearing.

I had some experience in Latin America and Central America in 1986. It was a time when death squads were running rampant. On one hand, companies were engaged in operations that were turning their backs on what was happening with the political situation. A convenient contract was going on between those who were responsible for political repression and those who were responsible for profit-taking.

I do not think Canadians want to see us go into these kinds of arrangements without doing due diligence. We see what is happening in Honduras today. Canadian companies are active there. We see the effects on the population of some of the economic activity. In a sense that gives what now is a coup d'état by the military a legitimacy. Canadians want to ensure that Canada's name is not being lent to that kind of anti-democratic action.

When we look at Colombia, the same applies. We do not want to see our Parliament give its approval to a trade agreement with a government that has if not directly implicated, been complicit with some very egregious human rights abuses.

Before I was elected to the House, I was a teacher. I read of the horrific situation and the human rights abuses of teachers in Colombia. I could not believe the testimonies when I first read about this issue. It was surreal. There were stories of teachers who were taken out by death squads, much like what happened in Central America in the eighties, which I witnessed when I was there. They would disappear, sometimes found miles down the road, sometimes not at all. It was not until I met a delegation of teachers from Colombia in Ottawa that it really came to light that this was happening to real people, real teachers.

It was chilling. These teachers were not always targeted because they were members of the teachers union. Sometimes it was simply because they had spoken out against the government. At other times, it was simply their association with the teachers union. We have a responsibility as a country to ensure that, when we sign on to deals, we are not just somewhat certain but absolutely certain that the government we trade with is not complicit or ignoring human rights. That has to be a guarantee.

This has been mentioned many times, but I have to repeat it for people who are in the business of teaching children and education. To think that people are a target just because they speak out or are affiliated with a trade union or a teachers union does not rest well or easy with anyone. In this agreement, there are “side agreements”. When we have side agreements, that means they are not embedded. That means they are afterthoughts. We will have our truck and trade of goods and we will take a look at human, labour and environmental rights on the side.

If we look at other trade arrangements and co-operative economies like those in Europe, they are embedded in the trade agreement. They are embedded in the economic agreements that countries have between them. It is chilling in the sense that, for those of us who believe there has to be absolute certainty that human rights abuses will not be permitted and that there will not be a culture of impunity with the government with which we trade, we need to have these things embedded.

We do not have voluntary human rights in this country. It is not called the “voluntary charter of rights”. It is in our Constitution. It is something that is a guarantee. It is inconsistent and inconceivable that we would enter into a trade agreement with a country like Colombia with side agreements. That is really important.

For my friends in the Liberal Party, when we repatriated the Constitution, could anyone imagine that we would have said that we would have a side agreement on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? People would have been out on the streets. In fact, people were out on the streets because aboriginal peoples and women were not originally included in our Constitution. People fought hard and it was repatriated with them in it. The same standard has to apply when we are trading with other countries and that includes Colombia.

I could give a very long list of the people who have lost their lives, not because they are part of a militia or a part of the insurgency, but because they were people who stood up to the government. They were human rights advocates, members of unions and people who said that they believed the government was not doing the right thing in environmental and labour standards. These are people who lost their lives.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I say to the government, my colleagues in the opposition parties and specifically the Liberal Party, we cannot have substandard agreements. We cannot have a good conscience and say that we have done our best. In fact, it means that we are taking second best. When it comes to this place and our responsibility, second best does not rank. We must do better. That is why we oppose this agreement.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague and I think it affects all of us. One of the problems with Colombia driving the FARC, the ELN and the paramilitaries is the fact that they get a lot of their moneys from drugs, primarily from cocaine and, to a lesser extent, heroin.

Would part of the solution be countries like ours getting their own house in order in terms of reducing the demand for these drugs? If there was not any demand, there would not be any supply. One of the great failures we have from the federal government's perspective is this. It is not willing to deal with the facts and adopt programs like NAOMI, which is the North American opiate medication initiative, and enable communities across our country to adopt those initiatives that would allow people to get away from consuming these drugs. This would reduce demand, enable people to get back to their lives, reduce harm, reduce incarceration and reduce costs. Is that not part of the solution in dealing with the problems in Colombia?