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

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can tell my Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Manicouagan, that we are aware. It is appalling, because a few years ago, the OECD called on all countries to abide by world standards and regulations that would require all countries to have strict environmental standards.

Obviously, Canada has not gone along with this. It said that it would abide by this through agents that have a name I cannot remember right now. That said, it is not true that we warn all companies that they must be careful of the environment. The things my colleague mentioned, what is happening on the North Shore, as in Colombia, can be seen by people who take VIA Rail here. If you go to British Columbia or travel across Canada on VIA Rail, in some areas, you can still see those infamous creosote railway ties, treated with oil to preserve the wood. They are there, rotting on the side of the railway tracks. You can see piles of white barrels that contain harmful products right beside the tracks.

Unfortunately, here in Canada, we have no regulations to force or require companies to make a habit of protecting the environment. That is unfortunate. Perhaps the environment is not important to this government.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Chambly—Borduas has time for a very brief question.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I grew up in a mining region in northwestern Quebec. I can therefore speak to the mining companies' thoughtlessness and lack of concern for the environment over the past years and decades. One need only go to the far north, including the areas around James Bay, Ungava Bay and Hudson Bay, to witness the aftermath of their activities, much like in Abitibi.

My question for my colleague is this: measures like the ones being taken here, which will give the go-ahead to Canadian companies to act—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member has just 30 seconds to respond to her colleague's question.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say that it would tarnish Canada's image. That is a shame because we must not forget that Quebec has done more than its part to improve Canada's image and that, if not for Quebec, Canada's reputation would be even worse.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canada is a country that has standards, both for human rights and for labour law. That is why I cannot support the proposed free trade agreement with Colombia. If Canada is to stand up for human rights and the protection of workers, we cannot sign a free trade agreement with a country where workers do not have basic freedoms.

The government believes that a free trade deal with Colombia is a good idea because of “modern economics”. Free trade, however, does not benefit everyone equally. Nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz said last year, “Standard economic theory does not say that everyone will be better off as a result of trade liberalization, only that the winners could compensate the losers”. Free trade will not benefit the common people of Colombia.

The Canadian Council for International Co-operation reports that this trade agreement would have a significant impact on Colombia's agriculture which represents a significant portion of the country's GDP. The proposed free trade agreement is slanted and Colombia stands to lose the most. Clearly, those who will hurt the most are those who are workers at the bottom of the ladder.

In Colombia, labour laws do not give workers basic protection. Its labour code does not meet the International Labour Organization's minimum standards. I would expect that Canadians would be outraged if this were the case here in Canada. Why should Canada encourage trade with a country where workers' rights are not valued?

Violence against labour organizers in Colombia is rampant. There have been 2,685 union workers killed in the last 25 years. Due to impunity, 97% of these murder cases remain unsolved. It is not only that Colombians do not have basic workers' rights, they are incapable of asking for them because their very lives are threatened.

Someone who recently came to Canada from Colombia and is living in Ottawa said:

Free trade means big countries like Canada versus [a] small country like Colombia. Colombia has no final products...industry is not well developed. Colombia has a lot of basic natural resources, so big developed countries like Canada can take advantage... [getting] cheap natural resources, tax free. Then the natural resources are processed abroad. For Colombia, it means that jobs are created outside. There is no benefit for common people. Free trade with Colombia is a sophisticated way to take advantage of the common people...It's not a secret, in Colombia the guerillas, paramilitary, the police and drug dealers work together. You never know who is who; you never know who is honest.

This statement from that Colombian woman clearly demonstrates that violence affects day-to-day life. Here in Canada we take human rights for granted. We cannot forget that our actions affect what happens elsewhere, and that we have a responsibility to help our own economy without hurting the lives of others in a faraway country.

As a member of the United Nations, we have international obligations, and this legislation demonstrates that the Conservative government is not respecting those commitments.

Even the United States Congress rejected a free trade agreement with Colombia. American President Barack Obama has said, “We have to stand for human rights and we have to make sure that violence isn't being perpetrated against workers who are just trying to organize for their rights”.

The Conservative government is only concerned about Canada's economic interests, without regard to possible effects on the Colombian people. Colombia is not such a significant trading partner for Canada, but the benefits for Canada will not be significant enough to justify this trade agreement.

The Prime Minister has stated that it is a “ridiculous” idea to expect other countries to deal with their social, political and human rights problems, but I know many Canadians who feel that it is a more ridiculous position to encourage a trade system that does not uphold the rights of its own people.

In the past, Canada has sanctioned irresponsible governments. We cannot turn back and imply that leaders can do whatever they want without consequences. Canada cannot set a precedent that suggests that economic interests outweigh basic human rights.

International pressure should be put on the Government of Colombia to allow for the development of democracy there. We should not be encouraging trade in a place where labour organizers are routinely targeted. We need to work toward a better strategy for international investments that would benefit Canadians as well as the hard-working people of Colombia.

This free trade agreement does not achieve the goal of supporting the hard-working people of Colombia. International investment must be done in a way that respects human rights and is sustainable in every sense of the word. The free trade agreement inhibits the rights of Colombians. We must not support this agreement. We must show all Canadians and our trading partners that human rights remain a fundamental value and priority of the Canadian people and their government.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. There have been 2,690 trade unionists murdered in Colombia since 1986. Twenty-seven trade unionists have been murdered there just this year alone. Colombia is not a significant trading partner of ours. In fact, in that region, it is only the fifth largest trading partner in Latin America.

Why is the government so directed to get this agreement signed when we see this total lack of human rights? Why does the government keep pursuing the same sorts of agreements, such as this one and the Canada-Peru agreement, which are all patterned on the FTA? Why does the government not look to the European Union for better examples of trade agreements that bring all the countries up and provide fair trade provisions, as opposed to this model, which results in a race to the bottom for the lowest common denominator?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised that the Conservative Party supports free trade with Colombia that violates human rights and democracy, but I am surprised that the Liberal Party is now in favour of it in the name of free trade.

I do not understand why the Mr. Michael Ignatieff (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.) rejected a letter sent to him last spring during the leadership convention in Vancouver by over 50 prominent Canadians, calling on him to oppose the deal. When the Liberal trade critic and foreign affairs critic travelled to Colombia in August, they were briefed by a majority of supporters of the Colombian regime and they failed to see the kinds of human rights violations and the negative impact this trade deal would inflict on the hard-working people of Colombia. I do not understand that either. They have closed their eyes to the Colombian people. It is very surprising.

I certainly hope that the Liberals will change their minds. I hope that they will not support this trade deal nor jump in bed with the Conservatives.

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

Madam Speaker, the United Kingdom ended military aid to Colombia because of the human rights record. Forty-three foreign companies in Colombia have been accused of having ties with paramilitary groups.

In 2008, the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade recommended that no agreement be signed with Colombia until the human rights situation there improved. It also recommended that a human rights impact assessment study be undertaken to determine the real impact of the trade deal. The government has ignored that report.

In John Turner's day, the Liberals were opposed to a free trade agreement. Not only have they resolved to sign on to that agreement, but they are actively supporting this particular agreement. Why will the government and the Liberals not look back to 2008 and that House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade recommendation to have an impact study done? Why not have that study done first before we proceed?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know we are in a minority government, and we know the Conservatives cannot pass this trade deal without the support of the Liberals.

I want to quote Colombian senator Jorge Robledo who said:

You can be sure of the fact that should this free trade agreement be ratified, Canada will become extremely unpopular and disliked by the people of Colombia.

Maybe I could rephrase that, that for the people of Canada the message to the Conservatives and the Liberals should be that “You can be sure of the fact that should this free trade agreement be ratified, Liberals and Conservatives will become extremely unpopular and disliked by the people of Canada and Colombia”.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak on Bill C-23, Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I want to say at the outset that the Bloc Québécois will not support this bill. Why? Because the Canadian government's main motivation for entering into this free trade deal is not trade, but rather investments. Indeed, this agreement contains a chapter on investment protection. It will make life easier for Canadians investing in Colombia, especially in mining. It is important for those watching us today to understand that usually bilateral agreements are signed to promote free trade, not investments.

This reminds me that, when I first came to the House of Commons, in 2000, the first to contact me were representatives from major Canadian banks. They were lobbying for legislation to allow them to merge their institutions. The Bloc Québécois doggedly opposed bank mergers in Canada, because we figured that dividends that grew every three months were enough for the shareholders, but also in terms of services provided to the public. As I put it to the lobbyists, why merge banks if there is no problem? They said it was to increase their investment power. They wanted to buy big banks, and the example I was given was that of the United States.

History will judge the Bloc Québécois, but one thing is sure: had the major Canadian banks been allowed to merge, as the Liberals and Conservatives wanted them to be at the time, there would have been a high price to pay now for having done so, and Canada would not be among the first countries expected to emerge from this economic recession, quite the contrary. Our ability to come out of the recession is predicated on how major the Canadian banking system is. Moreover, if we, Quebeckers, are so fond of the concept of a banking system focused on serving the public, it is because we have developed the largest banking service cooperative in Canada and North America: the Desjardins Movement. We are proud of that for one simple reason and that is—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. chief government whip on a point of order.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Madam Speaker, I thought we were talking about Canada and Colombia, and we seem to be talking about banks and merging banks. I do not think the speaker is on topic.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I was talking with one of the clerks and I did not hear the last part of what the hon. member said, but I would just ask that we get back on track.

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

Madam Speaker, I was using bank mergers as an example. If my colleague had followed my speech from the start, he would have learned something, because it is a good example of what can result from investing at all costs. If the Canadian banks had merged, which is what the Conservatives and the Liberal Party wanted, we would have witnessed a debacle just as catastrophic as what happened in the United States.

Bill C-23 is supposedly a free trade agreement. In fact, it is quite simply an investment agreement. That is what is dangerous. The government wants to enable private companies that specialize in mining development to invest more in Colombia without having to respect human rights or protect the environment. This is terrible, because it shows that this Conservative government is willing to do anything, as it proves daily. It gives tax credits for oil sands development, the dirtiest industry on the planet. It is not the Bloc Québécois that says that. The Economist and other newspapers around the world judge these things and find that the oil sands are the worst polluter in the world. Once again, the Conservative government has subsidized the oil companies to the tune of millions, hundreds of millions and billions of dollars since it came to power.

This is a concern because with Bill C-23, this free trade agreement, which is an investment agreement, will allow private Canadian companies to invest in the mining sector without having to respect human rights, working conditions or environmental standards. This will be a disaster.

Earlier my colleague from the north shore gave examples of what mining companies have done in the past in his region. He might get a chance to ask me the same questions. If we do not restrict private companies, whether they are in mining development or banking, all they will want to do is make money at all costs. That is why I maintain that banking and mining companies are all the same. Oil companies respect absolutely nothing. They want to make profits at all costs and pay dividends every three months to their shareholders and bonuses to company CEOs. That is what happened in the banking system. They wanted so badly for things to go well in the banking system that they even paid CEOs to give speeches in chambers of commerce. Every banker in the world was fleeced. Fortunately at the time there were parliamentarians like those from the Bloc Québécois who prevented Canadian banks from merging. We saved their life.

Today, once again, I am pleased that the members of the Bloc Québécois are here to prevent such bills from being adopted. My Conservative colleagues can laugh but they know the power that the opposition can command when it decides that a bill will not pass. They know it.

Today, they tried to prevent us from speaking about Bill C-23. However this Parliament has rules to prevent Conservative governments from using every means to stifle public debate and democracy. Conservatives stand in the way of democracy. They prove it every day.

Quebeckers decided, in their wisdom, to send worthy representatives to defend their values and their interests. Quebeckers do not see their interests and values reflected in a free trade agreement that is nothing but an investment agreement. It is not a true free trade agreement. It is an agreement that allows companies to make investments, and I will say it once more—it cannot be said enough times—without respecting human rights and the rights of individuals. I will not go over all the examples of what has happened in Colombia to unionists who have been assassinated and so forth. My colleagues have already talked about this.

Allowing our corporations to do business with a country that does not respect human rights, the rights of individuals and the rights of workers may serve the private interests of certain Canadian corporations but is not of benefit to Quebeckers.

Once again, we will act as the conscience of Canadian companies. We cannot leave it up to capitalists to respect human and environmental rights. We can forget that. The oil sands are an excellent example, in terms of pollution and from an environmental standpoint. We cannot leave it up to those companies to respect the environment. All they care about is their profit margin. When one is also supported by a Conservative government that is willing to use public money to pollute, this adds up to the oil sands. This always makes me chuckle, because oil is a non-renewable energy source.

We are happy to have hydroelectricity in Quebec, which we paid for ourselves, without a penny from the federal government. Not one cent of the federal government's money went towards creating Quebec's hydroelectric system. Quebeckers paid for it. We will be able to meet the Kyoto targets, which the federal government will never be able to do. It continues to be the laughing stock of the planet, which it will prove once again in Copenhagen in a few months' time.

Fortunately, Quebeckers have the members of the Bloc Québécois to defend their values and interests.