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.

The House resumed from September 29 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, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak in the House today to Bill C-23.

I want to congratulate the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, our trade critic, who has the solidarity of 100% of our caucus in trying to defeat this legislation.

It strikes me that we are often accused in the House by the government of trying to delay legislation but 99 times out of 100 we are not. We just want to debate legislation because it needs to be debated. However, if we do it for more than a day we are accused of holding it up and trying to delay something, particularly if it is a crime bill.

However, I must say that on Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, we are trying to hold it up. I am proud of the job that all members of the NDP have done. There is a huge movement of people, not just in the labour movement but in civil society who see this as a terrible bill.

I attended a press conference in May 2008 with our trade critic and Hassan Yussuff, who is the secretary-treasurer of the CLC, when we were first contemplating this agreement. At that time, the NDP and the CLC announced their intention to launch a public campaign about how bad this agreement was. It is to the credit of that campaign and all of the work that has been done across the country that this agreement still has not gone through the House.

Yes, we are being diligent in trying to ensure there is full public exposure about the negatives of the bill and the damage it would cause not only to Canadian workers but also to Colombian workers.

As New Democrats, we do not see these huge trade agreements with hundreds if not thousands of pages of technical issues as technical documents that pass between bureaucrats at the highest level of politics. We see them as agreements that impact the daily lives of workers around the world. That is why we have invested so much time and energy with civil society and with our partners in the labour movement in trying to understand the impact of these so-called free trade agreements.

Given all of the research that we have done and given the record of abuses in Colombia, we are absolutely and thoroughly convinced that the Canada-Colombia agreement we are debating here today should not go through.

We know that about 2,600 trade unionists have been murdered in Colombia since 1986, 27 murdered in 2009 alone. We know that the Colombian government has been accused by international human rights organizations of corruption, electoral fraud, complicity in extrajudicial killings by the army, links to the paramilitary and to right-wing death squads, just to name a few. Why on earth would we have an agreement with a country that puts the lives of regular working people or people belonging to a trade union at risk?

We have heard many times from government members and Liberal members that this trade agreement would cover all of these risks and that somehow things have changed. However, all of the research done on this agreement shows that there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the incredibly violent and dangerous situations that exist in that country will change as a result of this agreement or that the lives and safety of workers in Colombia will improve as a result of this agreement.

As New Democrats, I feel proud that we stand very strongly on the principle that when these agreements come forward they should be based on fair trade, on sustainability, on principles of social justice and on principles and practices of supporting and upholding the rights of labour. None of the agreements we have seen to date have done that, including this one.

One of the things we find most offensive about this particular agreement is the idea that there will be a fine if a trade unionist is killed. The so-called kill a trade unionist pay a fine provision that is contained in the agreement is unconscionable. We cannot allow that to go through.

I would point out that it is not just New Democrats in Canada, the labour movement and civil society trying to stop this agreement. This has become a global expression. We know that the U.K. recently ended military aid to Colombia because of the systematic crimes committed against the Colombian people. We know the U.S. Congress put a hold on the U.S.-Colombia FTA last year and that President Obama has said that he will not pursue the agreement because of human rights abuses.

A leader in the trade union movement in the United States, James Hoffa, who is the president of the International Teamsters Union, wrote articles and said things like, “The state-sponsored violence against union members in Colombia is part of a broader assault on workers”. Then he used the example of women who pick the flowers being given out at Union Station and how their rights are being abused. That is just one example.

As New Democrats, we are firmly opposed to this agreement and, thus, to this bill. We fought it in committee. We did our best to ensure that there were hearings to be held around this agreement.

We believe a broad section of Canadian society understands that the kind of agreement the Conservative government is entering into, as did the previous Liberal governments, will not serve the interests of workers in Colombia but will, in fact, if anything, entrench and systemize the system of violation and give legitimacy to the abuses and violations that have taken place.

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

Exactly. Let us take the example of an environmental protection law. This is important to me because I have really spent my whole life arguing that the environment is something precious and important. So, for example, if a foreign investor feels it is being harmed by some Colombian environmental protection legislation—perhaps regarding water runoff from extractive material that could pollute the well water of farmers, or could contaminate the groundwater—because the legislation will decrease the investor's profits, the Colombian government is open to major lawsuits, because there are no limits.

It is not true that this agreement with Colombia, Bill C-23, would protect the environment. On the contrary, it would give investors the opportunity to sue the Colombian government if it ever decided to pass environmental protection legislation.

The Bloc Québécois is opposed to the bill to implement this free trade agreement with Colombia because it contains clauses modelled on chapter 11 of NAFTA, as I explained earlier. We want the government to return to the old format for these agreements, which did not give the multinationals a free hand at the expense of the public interest. Canada has already signed worthwhile bilateral agreements with other countries, but not this one. Members must understand that this one is dangerous because it is based on chapter 11 of NAFTA.

We are not anti-investment. We are open to the idea, but it should have been—should be—put forward under chapter 16. Chapter 16 is about being open to investment while leaving room for governments to adopt environmental regulations or laws to protect workers and the health of people who live in areas to be mined. None of that is in the Bill C-23 agreement.

It would be good for Canadian business to be able to invest with no constraints, no obligation to take care of workers and the environment, and that is what this bill proposes. However, the Bloc Québécois believes that Colombians are really against this agreement. Representatives went to Colombia, met with workers and unions there and found out that they are afraid of it. I can understand why. I did not go to Colombia, but I have been living in Quebec for a long time. If a law like this had been passed in Quebec 50 years ago when there was a lot of mining activity and the only ones benefiting were investors, I would have been against it. I would have been afraid of it because it would have been impossible to pass laws to protect workers.

We are being told that there is trade with countries like Brazil, but we cannot compare Brazil to Colombia. Both countries are in South America, but poverty in Brazil—which I have been to—cannot be compared to poverty in Colombia—which I have also visited. They are two completely different countries. We are being told that exports will go up, but I am very skeptical. Over the past few years, imports from Colombia have gone up by 36% per year, while our exports to Colombia have barely risen by a few percentage points.

So we are against a bill that will not protect the environment, workers or the health of Colombians.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that we in Quebec have experienced a situation with foreign investment mining similar to but less dramatic than the one in Colombia.

Some 50 or 60 years ago, such investment yielded 1¢ a tonne. It was almost a free market. Those investments gave the government 1¢ for every tonne of iron ore. One cent! What is more, the miners' salaries were rock bottom.

Did the investments made at the time to extract our ore really contribute anything positive and allow Quebec to leave behind a bleak situation? Not at all. Those investments did not help. Well, that is what will happen in Colombia if investors are allowed to give minimal royalties to the government, which is not very strong, and pay minimum salaries because there are no laws to protect workers, or there are very few.

Unions are not strong enough to organize in Colombia and push for favourable conditions for the workers. They will end up in the same situation. It will amount to nothing more than exploitation.

This agreement with Colombia will protect investments such that they cannot be nationalized or taken over. Furthermore, if the investor feels wronged at any time, it can sue the Colombian government.

This agreement is being described as a balanced free trade agreement and there is talk of a common market. That is absolutely not the case. They are not interested in selling more automobiles. People in Colombia do not have money to spend on buying more automobiles. If our wheat is not sold in Colombia, it could be sold anywhere else in the world, what with the rising cost of food and the shortage of food around. It is not in the interest of Canada to conduct trade under this free trade agreement. The interest of Canada is to protect major Canadian investors wanting to extract raw materials in Colombia.

This is truly the height of the neo-liberalism of the past 30-odd years. It is not an agreement on trading goods, where producing goods will make money for a country. It has more to do with investment, making money on investments and exploiting a country to bring mined ore back to the fold.

So do not tell us that the agreement will be a balanced one in the interests of both parties. That is not the case. It will be of greater interest to Canadians and Canadian investors. I would not say that it is meant to protect only that kind of economy, since the economy is based on the production and the exchange of goods. At present, this agreement is not based on the exchange of goods, but rather on opportunities to go to Colombia to extract valuable raw materials.

That is why, as some of my colleagues have said, we oppose Bill C-23, which, we hope, will change drastically in committee, but we doubt it. In our opinion, trade is the foundation. We are also in favour of investment, but on the condition that investments are made with proper protections in place.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA does not protect people's interests. It was the beginning of a negative trend. The following has been said about chapter 11:

...foreign investors can apply directly to international courts, bypassing the filter of the public good that governments use;

That is one aspect of chapter 11. Here is another:

The concept of expropriation is so broad that any law that would reduce an investor's profits could represent an expropriation and lead to a lawsuit.

There is a third point that is also important and must be borne in mind:

...the amount of the lawsuit is not limited to the value of the investment but includes all potential future profits.

That is completely ridiculous.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Konrad Adenauer, Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman—visionary figures all—took it upon themselves, with their nation states, to build something beautiful in postwar Europe on the ruins of a continent that had been through the worst war in human history.

First they created a common market for coal and steel, which subsequently became a general common market covering more and more countries. They demonstrated, by this very fact, that there is nothing wrong with the concept of a free trade agreement, provided—and this is the key condition that is missing here—that there is prior agreement on a common vision of the rights that must be respected. This is what makes the Liberals’ discourse so hollow, so empty, so void of any moral sense. There is nothing very surprising about that though. All we need to do is go on-line on the Internet to hear their leader say, in his best professorial tones, that perhaps we shall need “targeted assassinations”. That is the leader of the Liberal Party saying things like that. The leader of the Liberal Party not only supported the war in Iraq but supplied George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with the terminology they used to justify the use of torture. They were not to say “torture” any more but “enhanced interrogation techniques”.

He provided the 1984 terminology, the Liberal Newspeak that could justify almost anything. That is what we are dealing with here. What a disgrace that a party which used to support a just vision with a charter of rights has been reduced to making bogus arguments in favour of a free trade agreement with a country that has the worst human rights record in the western world: Colombia.

Canada should again reject the proposed agreement with Colombia because the prior requirement for any agreement is that all the problems have been ironed out. The Liberal attitude, though, is if you build it, it will get better. But that is Field of Dreams, not the real world.

I have a list here of 28 union members who were killed simply because they were part of a union trying to exercise social rights in Colombia. A 29th person has just been added. It is a tragedy. We saw the Liberal member who just spoke. It was as if she had not lived the last 30 years. That was the argument the Progressive Conservatives used at the time when the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed. We will increase trade among our countries. We will create wealth. So what has been created?

Now, ever since the signing of NAFTA, the Canadian middle class has watched its income drop continuously. That is the sad truth. When I was Quebec's environment minister, I banned the pesticide 2,4-D, which is manufactured by Dow Chemical, an American company, and based my decision on the work of one of my predecessors, Mr. Boisclair. We are going through it again, the same as the first attempt to undermine Canada's sovereignty before the courts.

Does anyone remember what happened with Ethyl Corporation? Does that ring a bell? That company produced a fuel additive that Canada found harmful to human health.

Using NAFTA, they sued the Canadian government and were awarded tens of millions of dollars in compensation for having dared say that we did not want their products added to our gas only to be spewed into the atmosphere. That is the reality of a free trade agreement that was not thought through.

Would anyone in this House agree to sign a free trade agreement with a country that allows slavery? The answer is obvious: of course not.

Would anyone rise in this House and have the audacity to say, “Let's sign the agreement. It will make us rich. Perhaps they will no longer need slavery in that country”? Of course not.

Would we sign a free trade agreement with a country that forces children to work in factories? Would we advocate that? Of course not. We would say that those problems need to be solved first.

How is it that the Conservative government, supported by the Liberals on this, is trying to fool us by convincing us that we have good reason to sign this agreement, that like magic, contrary to what everyone else around the world has experienced, signing this agreement with Colombia will miraculously change things for the better in Colombia, and no more union activists will be murdered, as is the case now.

That is nonsense and is not supported by any real-world experience. The only ones who will benefit from this agreement are the multinational corporations that are trampling the rights of workers, social organizations and trade unions in Colombia.

When I was president of the law students’ association at McGill University in 1976—I was finishing my law school studies—I was assigned to represent one side in a debate against Ralph Nader, the famous American lawyer who was fighting for social rights at that time. His position, and I did not agree with it at the time, was that the multinationals had become too powerful and were superseding nation-states. Given what I have seen as Minister of the Environment, seeing how the North American Free Trade Agreement has been applied and has given corporations the right to impose the use of a substance that is considered and believed to be toxic to the environment and human health, there are grounds for concern.

People who call themselves Liberals joining with the Conservatives and trying to impose this agreement in Colombia, in spite of the evidence of what is going on there, in the country with the worst track record for social rights and human rights—it is beyond comprehension.

I congratulate the Bloc Québécois on its principled position in joining with the NDP against Bill C-23, to implement the agreement they want to sign with Colombia.

The way to go about this, if we want to follow the potential model and produce good results, is to demand change first. We do not need to look back as far as post-war Europe, we need only look at the model we have in the North American Free Trade Agreement. It will undoubtedly be recalled that the Americans, fearing that their factories would relocate to what were called the maquiladoras, along the Mexican border, demanded a parallel agreement on the environment. It should be pointed out that this agreement on the environment ultimately has to be incorporated into the main chapter and have greater capacity for enforcement. However, for the first time in the history of these agreements, a social and environmental aspect that affected people’s health was considered, and we said we would not sign until that was resolved.

How is it that the Americans can demand this, when it comes to the environment, when it suits them, and we in Canada are not even capable of standing up and telling the government of Colombia that we do want more and better trade with them, provided they resolve these problems first?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join this debate on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, Bill C-23.

I spent three months on the international trade committee on first becoming a member of Parliament and so I have a great interest in this particular agreement. I have also had the opportunity to travel to Colombia and meet with a number of representatives and individuals during the course of that trip.

I would like to first make the point that this has been a very complex decision because Colombia has such tremendous challenges that have been so capably outlined by a number of the members. However, I believe we really need to think about the question that we are trying to answer in this debate. Therefore, that is what I will be aiming my remarks at and what I believe is the key question here.

Before going to Colombia, the trade committee spent two months in hearings in Canada and heard from a great number of witnesses both for and against the idea of a free trade agreement with Colombia. Of course, we had very serious concerns among the committee members after hearing from the witnesses: the human rights issues, the lawlessness in regions, displaced persons, the drug trade, vigilante groups, unexplained deaths, a very troubled country.

We had concerns about environmental issues and that was one of the key things that I addressed as a member of the committee. It was the weak compliance mechanisms of the Colombian government, the absence of a strong enforcement mechanism for investigating complaints in the environmental side agreement.

Given those concerns, when I went to Colombia to hear firsthand from the Colombian people, I certainly was not clear that this was the right step for Canada to take.

I understand that the Liberal Party has rightfully always been for free trade agreements in principle and so am I, but this was a challenging situation. Colombia was not a huge trade partner for Canada and there were certainly serious concerns.

Having heard a number of the members talk about the very difficult situation there, I do want to point out that independent voices are verifying the great progress that has been made in Colombia. Here is a statement from the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights.

It states:

I first want to commend the Government for the significant improvement in the overall security situation in the country since 2002. Respect for the right to life and the exercise of fundamental freedoms for Colombian citizens have improved. I further want to commend the Government for designing policies and strategies for the protection of human rights defenders...I find it remarkable that the Government and the civil society, given the current polarization, have reached a number of agreements through the roundtables for guarantees of protection of human rights defenders.

I personally ran into a young person in Vancouver recently who had returned from a vacation travelling in Colombia, knew nothing about my involvement with the free trade agreement, and made the comment that it was a great trip and it felt so much safer both for people in the country and for visitors to be in Colombia. Therefore, the situation is improving.

However, that is not the key question. It is not whether the situation is improving. The key question is not whether this agreement will solve all of Colombia's problems. The question is not whether it is a perfect free trade agreement, whether Colombia is a problem-free country, and the question is not whether President Uribe is a paragon politician.

The question really should be: On balance, is this a benefit to Canadians and to the people of Colombia? Overwhelmingly, when I ask that question, is this a benefit to the people of Colombia, the answer was yes.

In Colombia, we had three full days as a committee meeting with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the ILO, international labour representatives, Canadian companies of course and environmental groups. I met with displaced families in one of the neighbourhoods in Colombia. I met with the women who had their farms and homes taken from them and asked them the same question I asked every group I met with. We met with indigenous people, with the president of the country, members and ministers of the Colombian government, human rights groups and labour groups, a great variety, and the question that I asked each of the people I spoke with during my trip to Colombia was, “Will you be better off or worse off with increased trade with Canada through this free trade agreement?” Overwhelmingly, the response was that they believed they would be better off.

That is not to imply that conditions there are perfect. It is not to imply that there were not many pieces of advice as to how the situation could be improved and what the Canadian government and Canadian people could do to help with that. There were many requests for how a free trade agreement might be structured or may be worded, but at the end of each conversation when I would ask, “If you had the choice to have a free trade agreement with Canada or not have a free trade agreement, which is preferable?”. The answer was very consistent, with the exception of the public sector unions.

Everyone I spoke to agreed that a free trade agreement with Canada would be beneficial to their situation. It would help the enforcement by the government of human rights and environmental issues by providing more dollars to the economy. It would help put jobs in the legal economy and help to displace that vacuum that was drawing young people into the drug trade. The free trade agreement would help reduce displacement by having the presence of Canadian companies in remote areas that were currently lawless and were perhaps without police forces and without judiciary to even follow up on crime.

The free trade agreement would help fund prevention measures, training for the army, help for the displaced, the things that government was improving and spending money on, but needed a budget to do.

I was told that the free trade agreement would help with the standard of corporate social responsibility because that is a strong focus of Canadian firms in Colombia and they are providing leadership on that level. It would help build infrastructure, afford the roads and the access into the remote areas. It would help to reduce control by the narco-economy. A free trade agreement would actually help with environmental compliance by having this rules-based trade and the scrutiny that would follow.

One main argument that has been made is that even the United States will not go into Colombia. I have a quote from President Obama very recently in which he acknowledged that he has instructed his ambassador, the United States trade representative, “to begin working closely with President Uribe's team on how we can proceed on a free trade agreement”. I am quoting President Obama. He continues:

There are obvious difficulties involved in the process and there remains work to do, but I'm confident that ultimately we can strike a deal that is good for the people of Colombia and good for the people of the United States. I commended President Uribe on the progress that has been made in human rights in Colombia--

The point there is that for the president of the United States the key thing is not, as I have mentioned previously, is Colombia perfect? Of course, it is not. And it is not, are there problems? Are there deep concerns? Are there tragedies happening in Colombia? That is not the question. The question is: Would free trade be good for the people of Colombia and good for the people of the United States? My question was similar: Would it be good for Colombia and good for the people of Canada? And overwhelmingly, the answer I got, right across the spectrum of witnesses, was yes, it will be good for us here in Colombia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert on her excellent speech. I have a question for her.

We have just about reached the end of debate on Bill C-23. We have submitted a number of arguments to the effect that in Colombia human rights are not respected, companies do not meet environmental standards in mining and many people are displaced when the mining companies move in. While we have submitted a number of arguments, we have the feeling that the Conservatives and Liberals are insensitive to the points we have made.

How can we explain their feeling that signing a free trade agreement will result in economic development and the resolution of Colombia's social problems, crime and so on?

As my colleague put it so well in her remarks, the opposite is true.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for nearly two weeks to speak on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. You will therefore understand how pleased I am to rise in this House to express my thoughts, which have benefited in the last two weeks from all the debates in this House.

We see that opinion is quite divided. The Conservatives are determined to encourage investment in Colombia and protect their investor friends. On this side of the House, and especially in the Bloc Québécois, we would like to see protection for human rights and the men and women of Colombia, and also for sustainable development and the environment. I stress that human rights must be protected, because there is really very little respect for human rights in Colombia.

I do not need to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois does not support Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. It is clear that the main motivation for the Canadian government to enter into this free trade agreement is not about trade at all, it is about investments, essentially investments and only investments: it wants to protect the investments of Canadian corporations and to protect investors. This agreement contains a chapter about protection of investments. It will make life easier for Canadian investors, particularly in the mining industry, who invest in Colombia and who will be able to do so without regard for human rights, the quality of the environment and sustainable development.

Colombia has one of the worst track records in the world, and certainly in Latin America, when it comes to human rights. Thousands of trade unionists have been killed in recent years: 2,690 trade unionists have been killed since 1986, and 46 in 2008. Unions are targeted by violence, to say the least. And they want to do business with a country like that!

Ordinarily, when a responsible industrialized state wants to do business and engage in trade, when it wants to sign a free trade agreement with a country like Colombia, it first asks it to solve its human rights problems, protect its trade unionists and protect its environment, and then it actually signs the agreement that will benefit Colombia.

With a free trade agreement like this, Colombia will benefit from all the financial investments made by Canadian mining companies. We are not opposed to it benefiting, but let us first protect the people of Colombia and this country in every way possible. Let us not send investors there who are going to excavate or operate strip mines, or who might be employing children. Let us not stand by while trade unionists who might, for example, want to do something to resolve labour rights problems are attacked by Colombia’s terrorist groups. In Colombia, trade unionists have been killed. It is one of the places in the world with the worst track record when it comes to human rights.

There have also been numerous population displacements. That shows that Colombia is a state that has little regard for fundamental rights. There are human rights abuses. In fact, it is small subsistence farmers and small miners who are sometimes forced to leave their land, for the benefit of giant agrifood or mining companies. In the vast majority of cases, the people who are displaced receive no compensation. Various methods are used to displace populations: threats, murder, flooding their land, and so on.

As if that were not enough, the Canadian and Colombian economies are not very similar, even though it is usually desirable in a free trade agreement for them to be so in order for both countries to benefit more or less equally. Lowering trade barriers between similar countries is attractive because of the volume of trade between them. Colombia, though, is a very poor country: 47% of its people still live under the poverty line and 12% live in extreme poverty.

In 2005, 42% of Colombians lived under the national poverty line. That is nearly half. More than 24% lived on less than $2 a day, and nearly one-fifth lived on less than $1. These are UN figures. They hardly compare to the average incomes in Canada and Quebec. We are very far here from similar economies.

The crime statistics also point to a very sinister side of Colombia. In 2008, the crimes committed by paramilitary groups increased by 41%, in comparison with 14% the previous year. It is the reign of the guerrillas. Colombia suffers from an armed struggle among the government, guerrillas and paramilitary groups. There is no doubt, under the circumstances, that the Government of Colombia is unable to effectively control the country, let alone foreign corporations that come to exploit its resources.

Before going to Colombia, I went to Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada to see what its recommendations were and whether these were similar economies. If we are going to conclude a free trade agreement with a country, we have to be able to go there and feel safe.

Here are the warnings and recommendations issued by Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada and therefore by this Conservative government about Colombia, under the heading “Exercise high degree of caution”:

There is no specific information about future terrorist activities or threats against Canadians citizens in Colombia. However, the security situation remains unpredictable. Possible terrorist targets include military and police vehicles and installations, restaurants, underground garages, nightclubs, hotels, banks, shopping centres, public transportation vehicles, government buildings, and airports located in major cities. Canadians should be vigilant...

That is a warning from Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada on the website of the Conservative Government of Canada.

And that is not all. That is the mildest of the warnings, and it applies to the whole country. There are also regional warnings.

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada advises against non-essential travel to the city of Cali and most rural areas of Colombia, because of the constantly changing security situation and the difficulty for the Colombian authorities to secure all of its territory.

How can we sign a free trade agreement with a country we cannot even travel to, a country where there is a risk of terrorist attacks at airports and government buildings? We should ask Colombia to make the country safer first. Then, maybe we can start negotiating, but not before.

The exception to this would be some parts of the coffee growing area southwest of Bogotá (Risaralda, Quindio and Caldas) [I am being honest], and resort areas with established tourist industries, such as the Rosario Islands off the Atlantic coast and the Amazon resorts near Leticia. In all cases, travel to rural areas should only be undertaken following the overland travel advice in the Safety and Security section of this report.

I will read another, slightly better warning from Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada about Colombia and regions of the country, under the heading “Avoid all travel”.

The presence of armed drug traffickers, guerrilla and paramilitary organizations, including the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) [who kidnapped Ms. Betancourt] and the ELN (National Liberation Army), poses a major risk to travellers. These groups continue to perpetrate attacks, extortion, kidnappings, car bombings, and damages to infrastructure in these areas. Landmines are used by guerrilla groups, especially in rural areas.

I have nothing to add.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have this opportunity to take part in this important debate on Bill C-23, the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement.

I am going to begin my remarks with a quote from Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States. I would ask that members of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois pay close attention. President Wilson said:

You are not here merely to make a living. You are here in order to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world, and you impoverish yourself if you forget the errand.

We are here to discuss a free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia, and during the course of this discussion some pretty extreme statements have been made. There have also been some misleading statements made by those who oppose this agreement. To those who have issued these statements, may I say that they are forgetting the errand. We are on an errand through this free trade agreement to enhance not only Canada's prosperity but that of the Colombian people. There is no better weapon in the war on crime than prosperity. When people prosper, they do not jeopardize that prosperity by committing crime.

I may be new to this chamber but I am not new to the world of crime and justice. Before coming to this place I practised law in Kitchener for over 30 years, both in defence and prosecution criminal work. During my legal career I represented people who committed crimes. What I learned is that crime is often fed by fear and by desperation.

Empowering people, enriching people gives them more choices, not fewer choices, and that is sometimes the best answer to crime. It is the best answer for Colombians.

In the year that I have been a member of Parliament, sadly I have been approached by many Canadians whose loved ones face death and imprisonment from oppressive regimes all around the world. My heart has gone out to them. I have advocated trade sanctions against some of those regimes.

But trade sanctions take a toll on ordinary people, not just the oppressive regime. For that reason, economic sanctions should be a last resort. There is no reason to restrict trade when a regime is actually trying to improve the rule of law. That would simply cut off those efforts at the knees and punish ordinary Colombians.

Colombians have been through some pretty tumultuous times in the past, but let us look at what has happened since President Uribe came to power.

Between 2002 and 2008, kidnappings decreased by 87%. Homicide rates have dropped 44%. Moderate poverty has fallen from 55% to 45%. Currently, some form of the health system covers 90.4% of the population. Universal health coverage is expected by 2010. These are all signs of a regime which is really making an effort.

According to other reports, Colombia experienced accelerating economic growth between 2002 and 2007. Expansion was above 7% in 2007, chiefly due to advancements in domestic security, rising commodity prices and President Uribe's pro-market economic policies.

Colombia's sustained growth has helped reduce overall poverty by 20%. It has cut unemployment by 25% since 2002.

Now, we may observe that Colombia's economic growth slipped in 2008 as a result of the global financial crisis and weakening demand for its exports. In response, President Uribe's administration has cut capital controls. It has arranged for emergency credit lines for multilateral institutions. It has promoted investment incentives, such as Colombia's modernized free trade zone. The Colombian government has also encouraged exporters to diversify their customer base from limited markets in the United States and Venezuela, Colombia's largest trading partners.

Colombians are making progress. The Colombian government is making progress. The Colombian people are making progress. Our free trade agreement will certainly promote their prosperity. The agreement contains some very strict guidelines on how that prosperity will be attained. These include the right to freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of discrimination, providing protections for occupational safety and health, and basic employment standards such as minimum wages and overtime pay.

I must also point out that Colombia is not the only free trade partner that our government has pursued. We are fortunate to have a Prime Minister who believes that the route to our prosperity is through good relations with our trading partners and agreements that have our exports in high demand all around. We are pursuing an aggressive trade agenda in the Americas, Europe, India and the Middle East, just to name a few.

We will no doubt have a similar debate when some of those agreements are signed. My response will again be: Do not forget the errand. One cannot influence without dialogue, and without influence, one cannot advocate for change.

Since taking office four years ago, our government has opened many doors for Canadian businesses by signing new agreements with eight countries. We have also initiated discussions with the European Union and India, two of the world's largest economic groups.

During challenging economic times, we cannot close the doors and bar the windows. Protectionism does not work. To weather the challenges, we must throw open the doors and welcome new trading partners. We must keep the manufacturing sector, like mine in Kitchener, producing and in turn, our economy flowing. These agreements help expand trade, open doors for Canadian exporters, encourage economic growth and create jobs around the world. They build a better, friendlier world.

I am particularly proud of our government's efforts at trade diversification because I have long observed the mischief created by our heavy reliance on exports to our great friend and neighbour to the south. I began my remarks with a quotation and I will end them with another quotation, which I am sure my NDP colleagues at least will recognize:

Courage, my friends, 'tis not too late to build a better world.

Even today, Tommy Douglas is right. It is never too late to build a better world. I encourage--no, I implore--everyone in the House to vote in favour of this bill. Give the people of Colombia this chance. Build a better relationship between the people of Canada and the people of Colombia.

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

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

At the outset I want to indicate that we have had many comments from members across the way saying that the NDP is against free trade. We have repeated many times that we are for fair trade agreements but we have given a lot of ideas and a lot of conditions that would constitute a fair trade arrangement. Truly, that is the only way that we should be dealing in trade with a lot of countries in the world that essentially end up mistreating their people.

When we signed the NAFTA agreement 20 years ago, I was a member of the provincial legislature at the time. There were huge arguments back and forth but that agreement was signed by two very developed countries, not exactly equal but certainly two developed countries. Even then we did not agree with the concept of the race for the bottom, which is what we see developing with Conservative and Liberal free trade agreements where they are put together with the idea of what benefits corporations the most, how will international corporations benefit by signing this particular agreement. When we approach it on that basis from the beginning, we get an agreement that eventually works against the development of local industry in our communities. It should be a goal of all governments to try to make their people as self-sufficient as possible.

Trade is good and it has been going on since the beginning of time but trade has developed along the lines of people wanting to trade surplus production to people who need that particular product. They in turn would take some of the surplus production from the other people. For example, we need bananas in the winter time but we do not grow that product here in Canada so we need to get that from another source. We produce products here that the world needs but we should be trading on a fair basis. We should not be importing those bananas on the basis that the people producing them are getting 2¢ or 3¢ an hour for their labour. They should be getting a fair price for their product. I applaud different private companies like Starbucks, which have developed a fair trade policy as it relates to purchasing coffee.

There are certain actions people and organizations can take to promote different countries and different practices that will ensure better working standards for people in the country. For example, with regard to the Colombia free trade agreement, one of the things we are trying to achieve from a Canadian perspective is to be able to trade our agricultural products in Colombia. That is how we are looking at it. However, we need to recognize that by doing so we will end up displacing a certain amount of production that is already occurring in Colombia and those people will then be put out of jobs.

When we are trading, we should be looking more on the basis of a sustainable development position as opposed to ramping up our production as high as we can get it and basically trying to flood the world markets, making people dependant on our products and then losing their own capacity to produce their own goods.

We support a fair trade concept. We would like new trade rules and agreements that promote sustainable practices. We want to promote domestic job creation, healthy working conditions while allowing us to manage the supply of goods, and promote democratic rights abroad, which is certainly a crucial issue in this particular free trade agreement with Colombia.

Members opposite have talked about how we should just sign the agreement and the human rights abuses will correct themselves. I keep asking them where there has ever been a situation where a free trade agreement was signed and somehow, after that agreement was signed, the other country's government all of a sudden turned around and improved its human rights abuses. None at all. These agreements are being signed for economic purposes and once they are signed that is it. There is no incentive for that country to change those abuses.

I have lots of good examples for those members who quote the United Nations. In Colombia this year, 29 trade unionists have been murdered and there seems to be no abatement whatsoever. Half a dozen have been killed in the last 30 to 35 days. I am not sure that the information members have is viable, up to date or reliable given the information that we have indicating how many people have been killed in recent times.

How can we promote fair trade? I would like to see a government somewhere come up with a model agreement, a government that operates not necessarily always in its own best interests, because that is what this all boils down to, I guess. It boils down to a country trying to squeeze every ounce of advantage for its side, and that is the kind of environment we are in.

It would be good if we could develop a model that would be fair, a model where we could sign a trade agreement with a particular country on the basis that it properly recognizes labour rights and promises to adhere to certain environmental rights. That would go for us too. If the country agrees to human rights, then what is the problem with signing the agreement?

We in the NDP have suggested over the years that the government should look at getting our trading balance moved a little bit away from the United States. We rely too much on our trading relationship with the United States and we should be looking to other countries and to other markets to develop trading relationships.

We have to applaud the government for doing that, for starting to look at getting more trading opportunities. However, to simply take the George Bush template for free trade agreements and scurry around the world and sign as many of these things as we can is not the right way to proceed.

I would like the government to keep trying to increase trade but to change the model. I would like the government to start making the argument to the countries with which it is negotiating that we will not sign an agreement unless that country follows basic human rights, basic labour rights and basic environmental rights in an effort to sort of bring us all up as opposed to the race to the bottom.

What we are seeing right now is a template that tends to lead to the lowest common denominator, which is the race to the bottom over time. What I and my party would like to see and, if we talked to a lot of members privately, would probably like to see, is a trade agreement that would bring everybody up as opposed to developing winners and losers and having a race to the bottom.

We have indicated that we would like to have federal and provincial procurement policies which would stimulate Canadian industries by allowing governments to favour suppliers here at home.

Even on a provincial level, we have, over the years, fought with the argument about whether or not we should open up our markets. We do not even trade openly right across the country. We have a free trade agreement with the United States and yet we do not freely trade with our neighbouring provinces.

However, at the end of the day we must try to foster local business. We cannot just for a few cents buy a product from some far away place and then have no maintenance contract in place to deal with the problems.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise with regard to Bill C-23. First, this side of the House has been and continues to be supportive of positive free trade initiatives. However, looking at the Colombian situation, a number of questions have arisen.

I had the opportunity to meet with President Uribe and his trade minister last June. We had a very thorough and frank discussion on a number of issues, particularly dealing with human rights. It is absolutely critical that those issues be addressed to the satisfaction not only of parliamentarians but of Canadians and certainly of Colombians.

In those discussions we looked at those issues such as what was happening with the drug lords. They are unfortunately taking advantage of innocent civilians and we have seen murders take place. We have seen the government try to deal with the paramilitary, but at the same time these abuses still go on and there is much more work to do.

I met earlier this year with a number of civil society organizations from Colombia when they were in Canada, for example Omar Fernández Obregón, leader of the Movement of Christians for Peace with Justice and Dignity and with Yolanda Becerra Vega, a well known human rights defender and leader of the women's movement in Colombia. Their message was very clear. They are concerned about the impact of the free trade agreement with Columbia. If we have a free trade agreement, what will change in terms of the human rights situations, which happens to be a central tenet of Canadian foreign policy, the protection of the individual, and at the same time ensure that the quality of life and the betterment of people that they represent, and Colombians in general, will improve. What can Canada do if a free trade agreement is enacted?

They had concerns about what was happening with the current government, and there continues to be a high level of violence in Colombia. They wanted to make me, and I am sure other parliamentarians, aware of that. They were certainly concerned about the effect it was having on indigenous people and on farmers. They wanted to know how a free trade agreement could help deal with that kind of situation.

There is a fear of loss of cultural identity. I commend the Standing Committee on International Trade on its evaluation. Our party very strongly believes the bill needs to go to committee for a very thorough airing of all of the issues, particularly on human rights and the benefits that will accrue to Colombians and to Canadians and how that will be measured.

Measuring it is extremely important. Therefore, the kind of hearings we need to have here, across the country and back in Colombia will be important. We do not want just any deal. We want a deal that will be beneficial to both sides and to enhance human rights.

When we were the government, we made a free trade agreement with Chile. The central element of that happened to be on the issue of human rights. We wanted to ensure that human rights were protected but also on human rights that people walked the talk. Therefore, engaging is important. That is why the members of this caucus, in support of our trade critic, felt it was very important to meet with Mr. Uribe and to ask the tough questions of him.

On this side, we are concerned about any change in the constitution in which he would want to run again on the pretext that this would, in his view, help Colombians. We are concerned about labour issues. We are concerned about the state of unions and the fact that union growth in Colombia is less than 5%. If we could engage constructively and help both civil society and the government of Colombia, that would be very helpful.

Therefore, the parliamentary Standing Committee on International Trade has recommended that a human rights impact assessment be carried out. I would advocate that the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights be invited to the standing committee. We need to get all possible avenues evaluated on the situation.

The mechanism is important in terms of what we do to assess progress in any free trade agreement, particularly in the area of human rights. Whether that was in Chile, whether that is even an evaluation on an EU agreement, we have to look at what we said we would do and have we lived up to that. That is why transparency and clarity is extremely important in any bilateral discussions, and that needs to be looked at. We need to have a periodic review.

However, the opportunity for parliamentarians, who speak for Canadians, to invite trade unionists, business and all sorts of organizations to evaluate this will be important. This will have an impact when we deal with other regimes. Other states have looked at Colombia very carefully and have gone through a very important evaluation process to ensure that this is in fact carried out.

When I met with Maria Burges, who is organizing unions in Colombia, she said that they were very challenging and threatening times. Our society has unions which represent our workers. We want to ensure the ability to organize is part of that. In fact, one of the things we said, and this was outlined very clearly in side agreements dealing with labour, co-operation and environment, was the right of freedom of association, the right for collective bargaining, the abolition of child labour, the elimination of forced and compulsory labour and the elimination of discrimination were important. We welcome the ability for the standing committee to have those thorough discussions.

An agreement that is not based on strong human rights evaluation and on certain human rights guarantees is no agreement. We want to ensure we have that in place and ensure we address the issues that have been raised, not only by human rights organizations but by union leaders and by others in Colombia as well. We want to ensure that is done, and the way to do it is to have an evaluation that this committee can do.

Also, some of my colleagues have gone to Colombia. I do not think we have left any stone unturned to ensure we get answers. In some cases, as we know, we get an answer that leads to another question. When the president of Colombia was here, it raised a lot of questions. I will not say that we were satisfied. If we were satisfied, there would be no need to have detailed hearings. However, we need to ensure we get an agreement that is in the best interest of workers both in this country and in Colombia. It has to be a win-win situation both for the Colombians and for Canadians alike. We have to ensure they are walking the talk, in terms of what they say, in terms of their domestic laws and to what they agree.

I could go on and deal with issues on the environment. Again, it is important we ensure that we have the highest standards in environmental protection, in what Canadian companies do. We have and continue to support those. The side agreements are important, but again we need to evaluate a year from now, three years from now, what has happened with any agreement. We need to ensure it is being adhered to and being adhered to effectively. If the agreements are not adhered to, what are the repercussions? What are we prepared to do if they are getting a failing grade or they are not living up to what we had agree to at the time?

In speaking to those human rights advocates who came here, they are simply telling us not to rush. They want us to ensure it is done correctly. I did not hear too many say they did not want an agreement. What they said was that unless we get an agreement which is in the best interests of all, it is not an agreement at all. As parliamentarians, we have to be very careful when we call our witnesses and that these witnesses come forward and give us their frank and honest assessments. However, often it is useful for parliamentarians to go unfettered to Colombia and talk to those parliamentarians, to talk to those members of civil society and get the kind of answers they have looked for, then come back and put forth a comprehensive report.

I welcome the fact that we are going to, hopefully, move on that front. I hope not only parliamentarians but people in general will send in their views and we will be able to get an agreement that we can be proud of and that will benefit Colombian society as a whole.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that my colleague has tried to go off on a fairly substantial tangent by speaking about just about every country except Colombia. I believe Bill C-23 concerns Colombia. So why did he talk about China, India, Brazil and other countries? Was he trying to give us examples? That really does not work very well, because Colombia is a very special case.

I would like my Conservative colleague to explain to us how our exports could increase, when imports from Colombia in fact increased by 36% in a single year, from 2007 to 2008, and are increasing again in 2009. So, we are importing a lot more.

How can he tell us that exports will increase?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to resume the debate on this important issue. As we start to wind down towards the end of this debate, I can say that it is a privilege to stand here, along with many who have spoken on this particular subject, discussing 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.

This is an important agreement for Canadian businesses. Clearly it will have broad-reaching benefits not only for those in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex but for those in ridings across this country, particularly ridings that are involved in manufacturing, industry, primary production in mining and oil, and other areas.

This is only a small part of the Conservative government's broader trade agenda. As countries cope with the global economic downturn, protectionist elements like the United States' buy American policies that are emerging are unfortunate. These are the same kinds of policies that plunged the world into the Great Depression in the 1930s.

Canada is setting an example. We are not only opposing protectionism, we are leading the way to recovery. In fact we heard that earlier today in question period. We are also doing that by pursuing an aggressive trade agenda, a trade agenda in the Americas, Europe, India, the Middle East and China.

In fact, over the last four years our Conservative government has opened doors to Canadian businesses by signing new free trade agreements with Colombia, Peru, Jordan, Panama and the European Free Trade Association states of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein.

We are not just focusing on smaller bilateral agreements, we have been busy launching discussions on comprehensive economic partnerships with two of the world's largest economic powerhouses, the European Union and India. Once negotiated, these agreements will mean billions of dollars of new business for the Canadian economy. These agreements will help expand trade, open doors for Canadian exporters, encourage economic growth and create jobs.

When we look at the past, prior to our Conservative government, there were only three agreements in 13 years. As part of a trading nation, Canadian businesses understand the significance and quite honestly the importance of trade and trade agreements. If we compare our record to that of the past Liberal government, the contrast could not be starker.

Let us take a look at some of that record. For the Americas, as part of this government's strategy, we have signed new free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia and Panama. We have also initiated trade agreements and talks with the CARICOM group of countries, about 17 of the Caribbean countries, and a round of negotiations will start in the coming months.

We are also focused on expanding our relationship with South America's largest economy, Brazil. That is why the Minister of International Trade has opened new trade offices, to open doors for trading companies in that market. In 2008, our exports to Brazil totalled $2.6 billion, an increase of an incredible 70% over the year before. Our commercial relationship continues to grow.

Let us take a look at another one, Europe. In Europe Canada has concluded a free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association states of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. The agreement came into effect on July 1 of this year and it is already benefiting Canadian exporters.

I am also happy to note that we have initiated free trade agreements with the European Union. This is an historic initiative that has the potential to boost the Canadian economy by about $12 billion. That, in one initiative, is an incredible boost to our economy.

Let us take a look at India, and maybe a little later at China.

We have heard some of the grandiose speeches, quite honestly, by the Liberal opposition about expanding trade with India and China. Actually, those are just speeches. What we have done is take action. This is ironic, given the record of the Liberal Party.

In the 1990s, the Liberals pursued a policy of isolation toward India because they did not agree with India's decisions regarding its national security. The effect of this Liberal policy was to marginalize Canada's influence for nearly a decade.

Our government has taken steps to re-engage with India, as we have had to do with many countries around the world, for many agreements and with many trade markets to get them back.

We have already lost negotiations on a comprehensive economic partnership agreement that has a huge potential to increase bilateral trade.

Discussions are also under way for a nuclear cooperation agreement between Canada and India.

Furthermore, the Minister of International Trade just last week opened new trade offices in Gujarat, in addition to the offices we opened in Hyderabad and Kolkata. This fulfills another campaign commitment and expands Canada's network to eight trade offices in India. We have created one of Canada's most extensive trade networks anywhere in the world.

Now I would move, just for a minute before I wrap up, to China, because we have also been making impressive gains in our commercial relationship over the last little while, particularly, in the past few years. Consider that China is now Canada's second-largest merchandise trading partner. We have opened six new trade offices in China, under the global commerce strategy. Never before has there been a serious initiative to expand Canadian benefits through trade with China. We are putting a lot of work into building relationships with the decision makers.

In addition to the regular meetings between the Prime Minister and President Hu at international fora, there has also been a steady flow of visits by Canadian ministers. In fact, if we go back, we will find that since 2006 there have been over 14 ministerial delegations that have gone on trade missions and ministerial visits to China.

Finally, let us move now, just for a minute, to the Middle East. We cannot forget the significance of the Middle East as a trading partner. We recently signed a free trade agreement, a foreign investment protection agreement and a nuclear cooperation agreement with Jordan. Further discussions have been launched and aim at a free trade agreement with Morocco.

In conclusion, at this time of an economic downturn, Canadians can count on our government, but we also ask to have the cooperation of all the parties as we try to oppose the protectionism that has been put about by some of our trading partners and our neighbours and as we defend free and open trade on a world stage.

The House resumed 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, and of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23, the Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.

I must point out right away that the Bloc will oppose this bill, and not because it opposes free trade or the opening of borders. Everyone knows that, in the past, Quebeckers supported the philosophy that resulted in the establishment of the North American Free Trade Agreement, despite its imperfections. It was interesting to see that, for the first time, a free trade agreement included not only our neighbour the United States, but a developing country, as well, namely Mexico.

At the time, I was the general secretary of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux. We had changed the name of the Coalition Québécoise d'opposition au libre-échange—the Quebec coalition to oppose free trade—at the time the free trade agreement with the United States was being negotiated. With NAFTA, it became the Réseau québécois sur l'intégration continentale—the Quebec continental integration network.

So there is a very broad consensus in Quebec on the importance of opening up borders and doing so under a set of rules benefiting both parties. In our opinion, the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia in no way serves the interests of Colombia or of Canada or of Quebec.

I point out first that the Bloc, like most stakeholders in international trade, advocates multilateral agreements within the context of the World Trade Organization or as part of an eventual free trade area of the Americas. As there is currently a blockage at the WTO, the former Bush administration in the U.S. had adopted the strategy of trying to sign bilateral agreements with countries unable to properly defend their interests. Free trade agreements have been attempted or have been signed between the United States and Chile, Peru and Colombia.

We note that the Conservative government has adopted this strategy with less success than the previous American administration. It simply blindly followed the Republican strategy, the prerogative of President Bush, negotiating bilateral agreements with powerless countries, through which the Americans imposed their vision of free trade. The Conservative government of Canada has adopted the same strategy.

This strategy, I note, is being questioned by the new American administration, and President Obama has called for a review of the strategy for expanding international trade.

It must be said that negotiations to expand free trade at the WTO and in the context of a free trade area of the Americas are currently blocked, not because people are opposed to opening up borders, but because they realized that opening up borders without another agreement on labour, the environment or culture and language leads to troubled waters, as we have seen with chapter 11 of NAFTA on the protection of investments, which has been reproduced in the free trade agreement with Colombia.

We should be very clear. This agreement is certainly not based on the amount of trade between Canada and Colombia. In 2008, Canadian imports from Colombia amounted to $644 million. We are not even talking a billion dollars here. At the same time, Canadian exports to Colombia amounted to about $700 million. These negotiations certainly do not involve a major trading partner. What is quite significant, though, is the amount of Canadian investment in Colombia, especially the mining sector, which is over a billion dollars.

If we take a look at the chapter on investor protection, we see that it is very prejudicial to governments, especially the Government of Colombia. The amount of Colombian investment in Canada is only a million dollars.

It is obvious that the purpose of the chapter on the protection of foreign investment is not so much to protect Colombian investors in Canada as to protect Canadian investors in Colombia.

Once again, we are not against protecting foreign investment if it is done well. The problem with the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement, as with the free trade agreement with Peru, is that the chapter on protecting foreign investment confers inordinate rights on foreign corporations. These are mostly Canadian corporations operating in Colombia. It is certainly not the Colombian companies operating in Canada that will pose a problem. Canadian companies operating in Colombia are given the ability to sue the Government of Colombia directly in some situations.

We saw this under chapter 11 of NAFTA, which was carefully negotiated although the people involved did not realize what all the ramifications were. We are more aware now of all the abuses that can arise as a result of NAFTA chapter 11, which has been copied in the treaty between Canada and Colombia.

These abuses have to be stopped. We will not support free trade agreements that include chapters to protect foreign investment similar to chapter 11 of NAFTA. That is why we voted against the Canada-Peru free trade agreement and it is one of the reasons why we will vote against this act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Colombia.

On the other hand, we recently voted in favour of the free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association because it did not have any provisions allowing either Scandinavian companies—because the countries in this association are mostly Scandinavian—or Canadian companies to sue the other government.

It is rather strange that the kind of protection provided in these treaties is different as soon as we are dealing with a developing country that cannot bargain from a position of strength. When it comes to a developed country on our own level, the protective agreements are government to government, that is to say, it is Canada that goes before a tribunal like the London tribunal. Unfortunately, a decision was recently handed down that was unfavourable to Canada and its softwood lumber. American companies did not sue Canadian companies or the Government of Canada directly. Instead, it was the American government that filed a complaint with the tribunal and the interests of the Canadian companies were represented by the Government of Canada.

We think that is how it should be done. It is known as the OECD formula for investment protection, but that is not what we see in the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. We can add to that Colombia's terrible human rights record, and I think we have very good reason to oppose such a bill to implement the agreement.

I would remind the House that my hon. Conservative colleague was talking about improvements earlier. I do not know where he sees any improvements, considering, for example, that in 2008 crimes committed by paramilitary groups increased by 41% and 14% the year before, and considering that, in 2001, there was a slight decrease in the number of murders of trade unionists, but in 2008, there were 46 such murders. So, clearly, human rights and union rights are being systematically violated.

By signing a free trade agreement with Colombia, Canada is condoning the state of human rights and union rights in that country. The Bloc Québécois refuses to be complicit in this, and Quebeckers will not be complicit in a situation that will benefit Canadian mining companies alone, at the expense of human rights and union rights. I am also convinced that environmental rights are not being respected, because, if we were to take a closer look, I think we would find that these mining companies do not respect the environment in Colombia.

I think I have been quite clear. No one will be surprised to learn that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C-23 and will be very proud to do so.